Complementary low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol lowering and pharmacokinetics of adding bempedoic acid (ETC-1002) to high-dose atorvastatin background therapy in hypercholesterolemic patients: A randomized placebo-controlled trial
Abstract
Background Bempedoic acid is an oral, once-daily, first-in-class medication being developed to treat hypercholesterolemia. Objective The aim of the study was to assess the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering efficacy of bempedoic acid added to stable high-intensity atorvastatin background therapy and multiple-dose plasma pharmacokinetics of atorvastatin alone and combined with steady-state bempedoic acid. Methods This was a phase 2 study in patients with hypercholesterolemia (NCT02659397). Patients received once-daily open-label atorvastatin 80 mg for 4 weeks then were randomized 2:1 at baseline to receive double-blind bempedoic acid 180 mg (n = 45) or placebo (n = 23) plus open-label atorvastatin 80 mg for 4 weeks. Efficacy was assessed 4 weeks after randomization. Atorvastatin and metabolites' steady-state levels were analyzed before first dosing with bempedoic acid and after 2 weeks of treatment. Results The 4-week stabilization phase with 80 mg atorvastatin resulted in approximately 40% lowering of LDL-C values from screening. The placebo-adjusted least squares mean lowering of LDL-C from baseline to Day 29 with bempedoic acid was 22% (P = .003). Placebo-adjusted reductions from baseline with bempedoic acid also were significant for total cholesterol (-10%; P = .014), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-13%; P = .015), apolipoprotein B (-15%; P = .004), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (-44%; P = .002). Point estimates of bempedoic acid effe…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Overall risk of bias was low in 7 of 11 included trials and moderate in 4 trials.
“The overall risk of bias was low 7 of 11 trials [7, 9–12, 15, 16], with 4 trials being assessed as having a moderate risk of bias [8, 13, 14, 17].”
From The Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Bempedoic Acid in Patients at Elevated Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials (2024) · cites this paper as [10]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 22 · Cited by 72
- Authors
- Lalwani, N. D., Hanselman, J. C., MacDougall, D. E., Sterling, L. R., & Cramer, C. T.
- Affiliations
- Esperion Therapeutics (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lalwani, Narendra D.
- ORCID
- MacDougall, Diane E.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Lipidology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 568-579
- ISSN
- 1876-4789 (ISSN-L)
- 1933-2874
- OpenAlex
- W2945722781
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 9.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of clinical lipidology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Esperion Therapeutics
- 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
- bempedoic acid, atorvastatin, hypercholesterolemia, LDL cholesterol lowering, combination lipid-lowering therapy, apolipoprotein B, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, statin safety, drug-drug interactions
- MeSH terms
- Atorvastatin, Aged, Anticholesteremic Agents, Apolipoproteins B, C-Reactive Protein, Dicarboxylic Acids, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Fatty Acids, Half-Life, Humans, Hypercholesterolemia, Cholesterol, LDL, Male, Middle Aged, Placebo Effect, Treatment Outcome
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.
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