Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30898163›Full record

SynthesisCardiovascular diabetology2019

Efficacy and safety of pemafibrate administration in patients with dyslipidemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Satoshi Ida, Ryutaro Kaneko, Kazuya Murata

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Fibrates : Do They Still Have a Role in Therapy in 2025?Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Satoshi IdaDepartment of Diabetes and Metabolism, Ise Red Cross Hospital, 1-471-2, Funae, 1-Chome, Ise-shi, Mie, 516-8512, Japan. bboy98762006@yahoo.co.jp.
Ryutaro KanekoDepartment of Diabetes and Metabolism, Ise Red Cross Hospital, 1-471-2, Funae, 1-Chome, Ise-shi, Mie, 516-8512, Japan.
Kazuya MurataDepartment of Diabetes and Metabolism, Ise Red Cross Hospital, 1-471-2, Funae, 1-Chome, Ise-shi, Mie, 516-8512, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), this study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of pemafibrate, a novel selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α modulator, in patients with dyslipidemia.

methodsA search was performed using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. We decided to employ RCTs to evaluate the effects of pemafibrate on lipid and glucose metabolism-related parameters in patients with dyslipidemia. For statistical analysis, standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effect model.

resultsOur search yielded seven RCTs (with a total of 1623 patients) that satisfied the eligibility criteria of this study; hence, those studies were incorporated into this meta-analysis. The triglyceride concentration significantly decreased in the pemafibrate group (SMD, - 1.38; 95% CI, - 1.63 to - 1.12; P < 0.001) than in the placebo group, with a reduction effect similar to that exhibited by fenofibrate. Compared with the placebo group, the pemafibrate group also showed improvements in high-density and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels as well as in homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance. Furthermore, the pemafibrate group showed a significant decrease in hepatobiliary enzyme activity compared with the placebo and fenofibrate groups; and, total adverse events (AEs) were significantly lower in the pemafibrate group than in the fenofibrate group (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.73; P < 0.001). In contrast, the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was significantly higher in the pemafibrate group than in the placebo (P = 0.006) and fenofibrate (P < 0.001) groups.

conclusionsThe lipid profile significantly improved in the pemafibrate group than in the placebo group. In addition to the pemafibrate group having an improved lipid profile, which was comparable with that of the fenofibrate group, the AEs were significantly lower than in the fenofibrate group and an improvement in hepatobiliary enzyme activity was also recognized. However, we believe that actual clinical data as well as long-term efficacy and safety need to be investigated in the future.

Indexed as

BenzoxazolesBiliary TractBiomarkersButyratesDyslipidemiasFemaleHumansHypolipidemic AgentsLipidsLiverMaleMiddle AgedPPAR alphaTreatment OutcomeBenzoxazolesBiomarkersButyratesHypolipidemic AgentsLipidsPPAR alpha(R)-2-(3-((benzoxazol-2-yl-d4 (3-(4-methoxyphenoxy-d7)propyl)amino)methyl)phenoxy) butanoic acidAdverse eventsDyslipidemiaFibrateHepatobiliary enzyme activityLipid profileMeta-analysisPemafibrate

Identifiers

PMID30898163
PMCPMC6429757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.