CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthCholesterol and Lipid MetabolismLipid metabolism and disorders

Small Interfering RNA for LDL-Cholesterol Reduction

Open access
Batista, Fellipe, Mamede, Isadora, Dacoregio, Maria·2026·JACC: Advances
DOI 10.1016/j.jacadv.2026.102932PMC PMC13400103
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a major modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Although statins remain first-line therapy, many patients fail to achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C targets. Inclisiran, a small interfering RNA that inhibits hepatic proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 synthesis, has emerged as a long-acting lipid-lowering strategy. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of inclisiran vs placebo in reducing LDL-C levels. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of inclisiran compared with placebo in reducing LDL-C levels across diverse patient populations by synthesizing data from randomized controlled trials and to assess the consistency of LDL-C reduction and safety outcomes in the context of background lipid-lowering therapies. METHODS: statistic. RESULTS: = 95%), largely attributable to differences in background lipid-lowering therapy and treatment intensification. CONCLUSIONS: Inclisiran achieves substantial reductions in LDL-C across diverse patient populations. Its twice-yearly dosing schedule and small interfering RNA mechanism of action position inclisiran as a promising long-term lipid-lowering therapy, with potential for broader implementation as clinical experience and outcomes data continue to evolve. (Small Interfering RNA Therapy for LDL-Cholesterol Reduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials; CRD420251178991.).

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials in 6,355 participants found that inclisiran significantly reduces LDL-C compared with placebo across diverse patient populations. The pooled mean LDL-C reduction was −48.77%, with no statistically significant differences in treatment-emergent or treatment-related adverse effects.

Key findings

  • Inclisiran reduced LDL-C by a pooled mean difference of −48.77% (95% CI: −54.26% to −43.27%; I² = 95.2%; P < 0.001) versus placebo.
  • Absolute LDL-C reduction was −58.24 mg/dL (95% CI: −65.45 to −51.03; PI: −77.31 to −39.17; I² = 85.7%).
  • Safety analyses showed no statistically significant differences between inclisiran and placebo for treatment-emergent adverse effects or treatment-related adverse effects.
  • Meta-regression found higher baseline statin use was associated with a smaller incremental LDL-C reduction (slope = 0.14; 95% CI: 0.04–0.24; P = 0.043), and baseline LDL-C was associated with absolute reduction (slope = −0.40; 95% CI: −0.49 to −0.30; P = 0.001) but not percentage change.

Methods

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis conducted per Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA, prospectively registered as CRD420251178991; searches covered PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through November 24, 2025.
  • Included parallel-group randomized controlled trials of adults with hypercholesterolemia, ASCVD, or ASCVD risk equivalents comparing inclisiran with placebo and reporting quantitative LDL-C outcomes; excluded pediatric, nonrandomized, non-placebo, or FH-primary/exclusive populations.
  • Pooled continuous outcomes using a random-effects model with generic inverse variance, restricted maximum likelihood for τ², Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction, I² and prediction intervals; also performed meta-regression, leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, RoB 2.0 quality assessment, and GRADE assessment.

Limitations

  • Stated by the paper: lack of individual patient-level data restricts detailed subgroup analyses; variability in background statin therapy may introduce heterogeneity; scarcity of long-term cardiovascular outcome data limits conclusions about sustained clinical benefit.
  • Evident from the text: heterogeneity was high (I² = 95.2% for the primary outcome), and one included trial was available only as an abstract publication.
  • Evident from the text: one trial (V Initiate) raised risk-of-bias concerns due to lack of patient blinding, though the paper reports overall risk of bias as acceptable.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacadv.2026.102932

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

23 of 31 cited sources checked · 12 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Statins remain first-line therapy for lowering LDL-C.

    “While statins remain first-line therapy”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Türkmen, 2025, Understanding the causes and consequences of low statin adherence: evidence from UK biobank primary care data, BMC Med source

      The Background (page unavailable) says statins lower LDL-C and discusses guideline targets and follow-up after statin initiation. It does not establish that statins are first-line therapy rather than another treatment option. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Inclisiran has a twice-yearly dosing schedule.

    “Its twice-yearly dosing offers a unique therapeutic approach”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Albosta, 2023, A new strategy for LDL-C lowering and prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Vasc Health Risk Manag source
  • Premisecitation

    Randomized controlled trials including VICTORION-Mono, VICTORION-Difference, ORION-10, ORION-11, and other Phase III trials have consistently demonstrated that inclisiran reduces LDL-C compared with placebo in primary and secondary prevention settings.

    “Randomized controlled trials, including the VICTORION-Mono and VICTORION-Difference trials, as well as ORION -10, -11, and other Phase III trials, have consistently demonstrated that inclisiran reduces LDL-C compared with placebo in primary and secondary prevention settings.5, 6, 7”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [5] Taub, 2025, Safety and lipid-lowering efficacy of inclisiran monotherapy in patients without ASCVD, J Am Coll Cardiol source
    • cites [6] Landmesser, 2025, Inclisiran-based treatment strategy in hypercholesterolaemia: the VICTORION-difference trial, Eur Heart J source

      The Methods (Trial design; page unavailable) identify VICTORION-Difference as a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, and the Results (Efficacy; page unavailable) report a significantly greater LDL-C reduction with inclisiran than with placebo, both added to individually optimized therapy. This paper identifies VICTORION-Difference as phase 4, not phase III, and its own results do not establish the sentence’s broader claim across all the named trials and primary and secondary prevention settings. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [7] Ray, 2020, Two phase 3 trials of inclisiran in patients with elevated LDL cholesterol, N Engl J Med source

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Inclisiran leads to increased LDL receptor expression.

    “leading to increased LDL receptor expression”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Albosta, 2023, A new strategy for LDL-C lowering and prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Vasc Health Risk Manag source
  • Premisecitation

    Many patients do not achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C targets due to inadequate response, intolerance, or high residual risk.

    “many patients do not achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C targets due to inadequate response, intolerance, or high residual risk.2”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Türkmen, 2025, Understanding the causes and consequences of low statin adherence: evidence from UK biobank primary care data, BMC Med source

      The Background (page not provided) says many people with detected hypercholesterolaemia do not achieve guideline LDL-C targets. The Results (page not provided) report that only 31% of the secondary-prevention group reached the stated target. The paper discusses adherence and reduced statin effectiveness, but does not establish inadequate response, intolerance, or high residual risk as the three reasons for missing those targets. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18
  • May combine two claims. 13

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The American College of Cardiology 2022 Consensus recommends inclisiran may be used in place of PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies when the patient has poor adherence to this medication.

    “The American College of Cardiology 2022 Consensus also recommends inclisiran may be used in place of PCSK9 Monoclonal antibodies when the patient has poor adherence to this medication”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] Writing Committee, 2022, 2022 ACC expert consensus decision pathway on the role of nonstatin therapies for LDL-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee, J Am Coll Cardiol source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA guidelines.

    “This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines,8”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, PLoS Med source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The American College of Cardiology 2022 Consensus identifies inclisiran as an important nonstatin option.

    “identifies inclisiran as an important nonstatin option”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] Writing Committee, 2022, 2022 ACC expert consensus decision pathway on the role of nonstatin therapies for LDL-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee, J Am Coll Cardiol source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Risk of bias for each included study was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool.

    “Risk of bias for each included study was assessed independently by 2 reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2.0) tool”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] Sterne, 2019, RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, BMJ source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The certainty of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE framework.

    “we assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] Atkins, 2004, Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches the GRADE working group, BMC Health Serv Res source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    A funnel plot was generated to assess publication bias using Egger's tests.

    “A funnel plot was generated to assess publication bias, using Egger's tests”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] Sterne, 2019, RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, BMJ source

      The Discussion describes RoB 2 as a tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised-trial results, and the Risk of bias legend discusses selective reporting. Searches for Egger’s tests, funnel plots, and publication bias found no passage in our copy describing the claimed analysis. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Inclisiran is cost-effective in patients with FH and has potential for significant cost savings in the post-MI population.

    “Taken together, these papers suggest that inclisiran is a potent LDL-C lowering therapy that has the potential of significant cost savings in the post-MI population and is cost-effective in the population with FH.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
      “Recent work suggests that inclisiran is potentially a cost-effective agent for the treatment of elevated LDL-C in patients with severe dyslipidemia.22,23”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [22] Escobar-Cervantes, 2022, Achieving lower LDL-C levels after a recent myocardial infarction might be associated with lower healthcare resource use and costs in Spain, Adv Ther source

      The Discussion and Conclusions report that lower achieved LDL-C after MI might be associated with lower healthcare use and costs in Spain. The study examined patients receiving statins and/or ezetimibe, not inclisiran, so it does not establish savings from inclisiran; it also does not assess cost-effectiveness in patients with FH. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [23] Agboola, 2021, JMCP source

      The cost-effectiveness discussion (page unavailable in our copy) says inclisiran had better modeled cost-effectiveness in the HeFH subgroup, but its assessment depends on an assumed price; it does not establish that inclisiran is cost-effective for all patients with FH. The paper evaluates a recent acute-coronary-syndrome subgroup but does not report significant cost savings in a post-MI population. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • Rests on an assumption: LDL-C lowering reduces MACE.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Data from inclisiran work demonstrate excellent likelihood of achieving LDL-C thresholds <70 mg/dL and <55 mg/dL in at least 75% and 66% of patients, respectively.

    “Data from the work with inclisiran have demonstrated an excellent likelihood of achieving LDL-C thresholds of <70 mg/dL and <55 mg/dL in at least 75% and 66% of patients, respectively.24”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] Wright, 2021, Pooled patient-level analysis of inclisiran trials in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia or atherosclerosis, J Am Coll Cardiol source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    VICTORION Difference confirms inclisiran's additive efficacy beyond standard lipid-lowering regimens and highlights its potential as a valuable treatment option for patients who remain above LDL-C targets despite optimized therapy.

    “This confirms inclisiran’s additive efficacy beyond standard lipid-lowering regimens and highlights its potential as a valuable treatment option for patients who remain above LDL-C targets despite optimized therapy.6”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] Landmesser, 2025, Inclisiran-based treatment strategy in hypercholesterolaemia: the VICTORION-difference trial, Eur Heart J source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Head-to-head comparisons show superior LDL-C reduction vs statins.

    “Head-to-head comparisons show superior LDL-C reduction vs statins”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Follow-up ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 years.

    “Follow-up ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Inclisiran significantly reduces LDL-C levels compared with placebo across diverse populations, with a mean reduction of approximately 49%.

    “This meta-analysis confirms that inclisiran significantly reduces LDL-C levels compared with placebo across diverse populations”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
      “Inclisiran, a siRNA targeting hepatic PCSK9 synthesis, achieves a mean LDL-C reduction of approximately 49% compared with placebo across diverse patient populations”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction was applied to all confidence intervals and P values.

    “we applied the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction to all CIs and P values.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Despite concerns in two studies, the overall risk of bias was deemed acceptable, supporting the reliability of both the qualitative and quantitative syntheses.

    “Despite these concerns, the overall risk of bias was deemed acceptable, supporting the reliability of both the qualitative and quantitative syntheses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Baseline LDL-C influenced absolute but not percentage reductions, consistent with expected biological scaling effects.

    “Additionally, baseline LDL-C influenced absolute but not percentage reductions, consistent with expected biological scaling effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The meta-analysis adhered rigorously to PRISMA guidelines.

    “rigorous adherence to PRISMA guidelines”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Variability in background statin therapy across trials may introduce heterogeneity.

    “variability in background statin therapy across trials may introduce heterogeneity”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The absence of significant asymmetry on funnel plot inspection and a nonsignificant Egger's test suggests a low likelihood of publication bias, supporting the robustness of the findings.

    “The absence of significant asymmetry on funnel plot inspection and a nonsignificant Egger’s test suggests a low likelihood of publication bias, supporting the robustness of the findings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    For all included trials, two reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized template.

    “For all included trials, 2 reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized template”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The meta-analysis assessed risk of bias and evidence quality using GRADE methodology.

    “thorough assessments of risk of bias and evidence quality using GRADE methodology”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The consistent LDL-C lowering effect across diverse populations reflects high generalizability, supporting the external validity of the study.

    “It can reflect a high generalizability, supporting the external validity of this study.16”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Dekkers, 2010, How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach, Int J Epidemiol source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception through November 24, 2025.

    “A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to the most recent search date, from database inception through November 24, 2025.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Inclisiran is versatile as a therapeutic agent effective both as monotherapy and adjunctive treatment, expanding its potential use across diverse patient populations with varying background lipid-lowering regimens.

    “This highlights inclisiran’s versatility as a therapeutic agent effective both as monotherapy and adjunctive treatment, expanding its potential use across diverse patient populations with varying background lipid-lowering regimens.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    ORION-18 included patients not statin-naive but showed similar or even greater percentage LDL-C reductions compared to control populations.

    “Conversely, ORION-18 included patients not statin-naive but showed similar or even greater percentage LDL-C reductions compared to control populations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Two authors independently screened all titles and abstracts for eligibility.

    “Two authors independently screened all titles and abstracts for eligibility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The lack of individual patient-level data restricts detailed subgroup analyses.

    “the lack of individual patient-level data restricts detailed subgroup analyses”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The comparative advantage of inclisiran over statins, combined with biannual dosing, supports its potential to improve lipid management and treatment adherence in clinical practice.

    “This comparative advantage, combined with inclisiran’s biannual dosing regimen, supports its potential to improve both lipid management and treatment adherence in clinical practice.12”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Koren, 2024, An “Inclisiran First” strategy vs usual care in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, J Am Coll Cardiol source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Two studies raised concerns in at least one risk-of-bias domain: the V Initiate (2025) trial due to lack of patient blinding, and the V China (2025) study because it is available only as an abstract publication.

    “In contrast, 2 studies raised concerns in at least one domain: The V Initiate (2025) trial due to lack of patient blinding, and the V China (2025) study, which is currently available only as an abstract publication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    All 9 included studies showed an overall low risk of bias, demonstrating consistency across all domains.

    “In total, 9 studies were evaluated. Of these, all showed an overall low risk of bias, demonstrating consistency across all domains.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study protocol was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews under registration number CRD420251178991.

    “The study protocol was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database under registration number CRD420251178991.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Inclisiran's twice-yearly subcutaneous regimen may improve adherence compared with daily oral therapies or frequent self-injected treatments.

    “Its twice-yearly subcutaneous regimen may improve adherence compared with daily oral therapies or frequent self-injected treatments”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
31 of 31

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No meta-analysis has synthesized data from both the VICTORION and ORION clinical programs.

    “To date, no meta-analysis has synthesized data from both the VICTORION and ORION clinical programs.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    All included studies received appropriate ethical oversight as per journal publication standards.

    “All included studies were assumed to have received appropriate ethical oversight as per journal publication standards.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Previous pooled analyses focused on subsets of trials and did not include the latest evidence from the VICTORION studies.

    “Previous pooled analyses focused on subsets of trials and did not include the latest evidence from the VICTORION studies, making this meta-analysis uniquely informative.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    LDL-C lowering reduces MACE.

    “potential for reductions in MACE from LDL-C lowering”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Reported follow-up range excludes a 90-day trial

    Minor

    The abstract says follow-up began at 0.5 years, but Table 1 lists ORION 14 with 90 days of follow-up, approximately 0.25 years.

  • LSMD trial count conflicts with the listed trials

    Minor

    The text says seven trials reported LSMDs but names only six. It then identifies two other trials reporting between-group differences and a separate sole trial reporting placebo-adjusted change, accounting for all nine trials with only six LSMD trials.

  • VICTORION-Initiate has conflicting study years

    Minor

    Table 1 dates V Initiate to 2024, while the risk-of-bias discussion calls it a 2025 trial.

  • Placebo-only eligibility conflicts with usual-care comparisons

    Minor

    The eligibility criteria exclude trials without a placebo comparator, whereas the Central Illustration describes the included nine trials as comparing inclisiran with placebo or usual care.

  • V-Mono was not the only trial without background statin use

    Minor

    The discussion calls V-Mono the one exception to background statin use, but Table 1 also reports 0% statin use in both arms of V China.

5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Eleanor J, 2025, Synergistic regulation of LDL receptor expression by PCSK9 inhibitors and statins: a molecular review, Curr Res Med Sci, 4, 23

Authors
Batista, F., Mamede, I., & Dacoregio, M.
Affiliations
  • Federal University of São João del-Rei (BR)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
ORCID
Venue
JACC: Advances
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-07
Volume
5
Issue
7
Pages
102932
ISSN
2772-963X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jacadv.2026.102932
PMC
PMC13400103
OpenAlex
W7170087737
Semantic Scholar
6937674802ed6374e568e735be3111f5ef7cb774
Cited by
0
References
20
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • JACC Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cholesterol and Lipid Metabolism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipid metabolism and disorders
Keywords
inclisiran, siRNA, LDL cholesterol lowering, PCSK9 inhibition, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, lipid-lowering therapy, statin-resistant hypercholesterolemia, treatment intensification, drug safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-19.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-19.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review