Profile picture
Sek Kathiresan MD @skathire
, 12 tweets, 4 min read Read on Twitter
REDUCE-IT trial: when added to statins in its w/ CVD (or T2D+1RF), Rx with 4g purified EPA (Vascepa) (compared to mineral oil placebo) lowered risk CVD events 👇🏽

Vascepa worked but full results expose that we don’t know why

A few thoughts…
Difference between 2 groups (Vascepa and mineral oil placebo) in plasma TG was ~40mg/dl and non-HDL-C was ~15.5 mg/dl

But, lipid difference does not explain the 25% RRR

A 15.5 mg/dl delta in non-HDL-C would be expected to alter CVD by only about 10%

Could it be the antithrombotic or the antiarrhythmic effects

lots of in vitro evidence for these effects
but also some human evidence from this trial

higher bleeding rate in those Rx with Vascepa
lower rate of CV death…
But, of ~16 mg/dl difference in non-HDL-C between Rx & mineral oil placebo arm:

*4mg due to lowering in Vascepa arm
*12 due to INCREASE non-HDL-C in mineral oil arm
Could placebo increase have led to harm that accentuated the benefit of Vascepa?

From a quantitative analysis, NO (a 12 mg/dl increase in non-HDL-C would explain about 7% RRR)

IMO, the placebo increase doesn’t compromise the integrity of the trial result
Take home:

Vascepa worked but we don’t know why:

most likely a mix of TG-lowering,
anti arrhythmic
(and cannot rule out trial issue of LDL rise in placebo)
Should secondary prevention patients with optimal LDL on statin but TG>150 be considered Vascepa?

YES, a reasonable option for patients

But, would love to see confirmation in a second trial
Also, Supplementary Table 4 merits a close review for the Y1 effects on biomarkers in Vascepa and in the mineral oil placebo arms…
Audience @American_Heart late breaker quite convinced by REDUCE-IT results.
By the way, chatting with Rory Collins about REDUCE-IT. His thoughts on trial issues:

1. didn’t seem too bothered by the rise lipids in placebo (he attributed to regression to mean +- mineral oil)

2. seemed super impressed by effect size (25% RRR)
What are implications of REDUCE-IT for triglyceride-rich lipoprotein hypothesis?

1. Benefit of Vascepa not proportional to TG change

2. Benefit of Vascepa did not vary by baseline or achieved TG

So, REDUCE-IT data do not clearly speak to TRL hypothesis
By the way, since the benefit of Vascepa did not vary by baseline TG or achieved TG,

should this medicine be tested in all-comers with ASCVD (without a high TG entry criteria)?
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Sek Kathiresan MD
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!