Comparative efficacy of non-statin lipid-lowering therapies in patients with hypercholesterolemia at increased cardiovascular risk: a network meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Forest plot of NMA results for percent change from baseline in LDL-C for base case population. Abbreviations. CrI, credible interval; NMA, network meta-analysis.

Table 1. League table NMA results for percent change in LDL-C for base case population.

Placebo
−24.97 [−31.17, −18.6] 100%	Ezetimibe
−15.89 [−22.55, −9.29] 100%	9.08 [0.66, 17.36] 0%	Bempedoic Acid
−39.51 [−52.17, −26.71] 100%	−14.52 [−27.54, −1.49] 98.5%	−23.57 [−36.6, −10.51] 99.9%	Bempedoic Acid + Ezetimibe
−58.25 [−62.71, −53.58] 100%	−33.29 [−39.5, −26.97] 100%	−42.34 [−50.06, −34.48] 100%	−18.75 [−31.88, −5.59] 99.6%	Alirocumab
−65.65 [−72.08, −59.37] 100%	−40.66 [−48.93, −32.68] 100%	−49.74 [−58.79, −40.76] 100%	−26.18 [−40.28, −12.31] 100%	−7.38 [−15.12, 0] 97.5%	Evolocumab
−57.49 [−65.34, −49.48] 100%	−32.48 [−42.62, −22.39] 100%	−41.59 [−51.78, −31.18] 100%	−17.98 [−32.92, −2.99] 98.9%	0.78 [−8.35, 9.88] 42.4%	8.16 [−1.82, 18.49] 4.9%	Inclisiran

The estimates and the probabilities % are for the interventions in rows vs comparators in columns.

Probability % for the comparison of two specific treatments (not to be confused with the rank probability when comparing all treatments in a network) indicates the chance that an intervention is better than the comparator treatment.

Bold values represent statistically significant results.

Table 2. Results of sensitivity analyses based on varied data inputs for inclisiran for percent change in LDL-C for base case population.

Comparator	Differences in Percent CFB (95% CrI) Inclisiran vs. Placebo
Base Case	−57.49 (−65.34, −49.48)
Include 90-day ORION-10 and ORION-11 data	−52.27 (−60.09, −44.13)
Include Time-adjusted ORION-10 and ORION-11 data	−51.42 (−58.96, −43.90)
Include washout imputed ORION-10 and ORION-11 data*	−51.02 (−58.41, −43.52)
Include ORION-1 data	−55.69 (−62.44, −48.15)
Exclude ORION-10 and ORION-11 statin intolerant patients	−57.57 (−65.23, −49.89)

Abbreviations. CFB, change from baseline; CrI, credible interval.

*Primary analyses of ORION-10 and ORION-11 used a ‘washout-imputed’ approach, while the base case analysis was performed using mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) methods (to better align with the comparator trial methods).

Table 3. League table of NMA results for percent change in LDL-C for “all-comers” population.

Placebo
−23.83 [−29.98, −17.5] 100%	Ezetimibe
−15.7 [−22.44, −8.93] 100%	8.14 [−0.4, 16.47] 3%	Bempedoic Acid
−39.02 [−51.92, −26.02] 100%	−15.18 [−28.37, −2] 98.7%	−23.3 [−36.58, −10.08] 99.9%	Bempedoic Acid + Ezetimibe
−56.42 [−60.18, −52.38] 100%	−32.59 [−38.74, −26.34] 100%	−40.74 [−48.22, −32.95] 100%	−17.4 [−30.63, −4.08] 99.4%	Alirocumab
−64.22 [−70, −58.43] 100%	−40.39 [−48.31, −32.62] 100%	−48.5 [−57.31, −39.74] 100%	−25.22 [−39.25, −11.27] 99.9%	−7.79 [−14.8, −1.12] 98.8%	Evolocumab
−55.22 [−61.76, −48.51] 100%	−31.36 [−40.48, −22.31] 100%	−39.51 [−49, −30] 100%	−16.19 [−30.78, −1.68] 98.4%	1.21 [−6.54, 8.86] 37%	9 [0.31, 17.89] 2.2%	Inclisiran

The estimates and the probabilities % are for the interventions in rows vs comparators in columns.

Probability % for the comparison of two specific treatments (not to be confused with the rank probability when comparing all treatments in a network) indicates the chance that an intervention is better than the comparator treatment.