↓ Skip to main content

Safety and efficacy of anti-PCSK9 antibodies: a meta-analysis of 25 randomized, controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Safety and efficacy of anti-PCSK9 antibodies: a meta-analysis of 25 randomized, controlled trials
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0358-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xin-Lin Zhang, Qing-Qing Zhu, Li Zhu, Jian-Zhou Chen, Qin-Hua Chen, Guan-Nan Li, Jun Xie, Li-Na Kang, Biao Xu

Abstract

Inhibition of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) has been intensively studied to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anti-PCSK9 antibodies in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL databases, and recent conferences were searched. Safety outcomes were rates of common adverse events. Efficacy outcomes included percentages of LDL-C lowering and other lipid changes compared with placebo and ezetimibe, respectively. Twenty-five RCTs encompassing 12,200 patients were included. The rates of common adverse events were firstly reported in our study by pooling together all evidence in RCTs, showing largely no significant difference between anti-PCSK9 antibodies and placebo (or ezetimibe), except that alirocumab was associated with reduced rates of death (relative risk (RR): 0.43, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.19 to 0.96, P = 0.04) and an increased rate of injection-site reactions (RR: 1.48, 95 % CI: 1.05 to 2.09, P = 0.02); evolocumab reduced the rate of abnormal liver function (RR: 0.43, 95 % CI: 0.20 to 0.93, P = 0.03), both compared with placebo. No significant difference in safety outcomes was detected between monthly 420 mg and biweekly 140 mg evolocumab treatments. Monthly 420 mg evolocumab treatment significantly reduced LDL-C by -54.6 % (95 % CI: -58.7 to -50.5 %) and by absolute -78.9 mg/dl (95 % CI: -88.9 to -68.9 mg/dl) versus placebo, and by -36.3 % (95 % CI: -38.8 to -33.9 %) versus ezetimibe, and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) by 7.6 % (95 % CI: 5.7 to 9.5 %) versus placebo and 6.4 % (95 % CI: 4.3 to 8.4 %) versus ezetimibe. An equal or even greater change was observed following biweekly 140 mg administration. Significant and favorable changes were also detected in other lipids following evolocumab treatment. Biweekly 50 to 150 mg alirocumab lowered LDL-C by -52.6 % (95 % CI: -58.2 to -47.0 %) versus placebo, by -29.9 % (95 % CI: -32.9 to -26.9 %) versus ezetimibe, and increased HDL-C by 8.0 % (95 % CI: 4.2 to 11.7 %) versus placebo. Evolocumab and alirocumab were safe and well-tolerated from our most-powered analyses. Both antibodies substantially reduced the LDL-C level by over 50 %, increased the HDL-C level, and resulted in favorable changes in other lipids.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 98 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Postgraduate 13 13%
Student > Master 13 13%
Other 11 11%
Other 25 25%
Unknown 9 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 18 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#616,240
of 12,633,553 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#550
of 2,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,058
of 232,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,633,553 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,298 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them