ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2026
Novel cholesterol lowering drugs: Can phase 2/3 clinical trial safety assessments predict cardiovascular event outcome trial efficacy?
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Setting: Prior to a cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT), novel cholesterol-lowering therapies undergo phase 2/3 studies for their lipid and atherosclerotic effects and safety (non-CVOTs). Since the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is part of the safety assessment, nominal reductions or increases may be observed prior to definitive testing of the effect in a CVOT. Study objective: To investigate if the observed MACE treatment effect in non-CVOT lipid-lowering registration studies holds value in predicting the outcome in a CVOT trial, typically reported later than the initial lipid-lowering studies. Design/participants/interventions: We reviewed recent development programs for cholesterol-lowering drugs that had completed non-CVOT and CVOT studies. MACE data were compared for phase 2/3 non-CVOT versus pivotal CVOT results. Main outcome measures: Our primary outcome was a qualitative comparison for directionally concordant consistency in MACE risk ratio treatment effects (harm, neutrality, or benefit). Correlation analysis was also performed. Results: Seven drugs were reviewed in 3 cholesterol-lowering classes: CETP inhibitors, bempedoic acid, and PCSK9 inhibitors. Concordance in non-CVOT vs CVOT results was seen in 6 of 7 drugs. One drug (dalcetrapib) had a trend for benefit observed, albeit with very small numbers, in early development, but showed a neutral CVOT. There was a moderate correlation between the risk reductions or increases from the non-CVOTs and CVOTs: Conclusion: Within the limitations of the drugs studied and the variability in MACE definitions, there is value in the results of non-CVOTs to predict the CVOT outcome.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.