ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Efficacy and safety of lipoprotein(a)-targeted therapeutics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. 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.
- Lipoprotein(a) as a Predictor of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Moving Toward Universal Risk Stratification: Globally Standardized Lipoprotein(a) in Molar Units.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2026Article
- Lipoprotein(a) in the statin era: from risk marker to therapeutic target.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lipoprotein(a)-targeted therapies are emerging approaches for lowering lipoprotein(a) [lp(a)]. Objective: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lipoprotein(a)-targeted therapies in patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to May 6, 2025, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with intervention duration of at least 12 weeks. The primary outcomes were percentage and absolute changes in Lp(a). Secondary outcomes included changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (apoB), and safety outcomes including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and injection-site reactions. A frequentist framework network meta- analysis was performed. Results: Nine studies involving 1,432 participants were included. All six Lp(a)-targeted therapies significantly reduced Lp(a) levels. Compared with placebo, Olpasiran was the most effective therapy for both percentage [mean difference: -92.06, 95% (-109.80; -74.32), Conclusions: Lp(a)-targeted therapies achieved substantial reductions in Lp(a). Olpasiran was the most effective agent in lowering Lp(a) levels. These therapies also improved LDL-C and apoB. The majority of Lp(a)-targeted therapies demonstrate generally favorable safety profiles; However, injection-site reactions, particularly with Zerlasiran, warrant careful consideration. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251069288, PROSPERO CRD420251069288.
Indexed as
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.