ArticleClinical cardiology2024
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Conduct and Results of CLEAR Outcomes Trial.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex Differences in Statin Intolerance: Insights From the CLEAR Outcomes Trial.Clinical cardiology · 2026Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Bempedoic Acid in High Cardiovascular Risk Patients with Statin Intolerance: An Analysis of the CLEAR Outcomes Trial.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026Trial
- Bempedoic Acid: A Review in Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Statin-Intolerant Patients.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted clinical research. CLEAR Outcomes investigated the effect of bempedoic acid (BA) versus placebo in 13 970 patients with statin intolerance and high cardiovascular (CV) risk. BA reduced the risk of the primary endpoint (composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization) by 13%. CLEAR Outcomes began before and continued for 2.7 years after the start of the pandemic.
methodsThe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient disposition, adverse events, and major adverse CV events (MACE) in CLEAR Outcomes was assessed.
resultsRates of severe infection, hospitalization, or first MACE associated with a positive COVID-19 test were low and balanced between treatment groups. Rates of all-cause death, non-CV death, and undetermined death increased in the pandemic period compared with the pre-pandemic period, while rates of CV death with a known etiology remained stable. A sensitivity analysis excluding undetermined deaths occurring after the onset of the pandemic from the CV death designation yielded hazard ratios of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.93) for the primary endpoint and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.76-1.16) for the secondary endpoint of CV death, compared with 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79-0.96) and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.88-1.24), respectively, in the original analysis.
conclusionThe CLEAR Outcomes trial continued uninterrupted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Certain trial endpoints may have been impacted by the pandemic. Specifically, the classification of undetermined deaths as CV deaths may have attenuated the effect of BA on key efficacy endpoints.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.