Key result
Obicetrapib reduces LDL by ~30% in ASCVD or HeFH patients on maximum lipid-lowering therapy.
Why the study?
Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia at high cardiovascular risk require additional lipid-lowering therapies beyond maximum tolerated doses.
Does obicetrapib 10 mg once daily reduce LDL cholesterol levels in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on maximum tolerated lipid-lowering therapy?
RCT (n=2,530)
Placebo-controlled
2:1
Yes
Does obicetrapib 10 mg once daily reduce LDL cholesterol levels in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on maximum tolerated lipid-lowering therapy?
Obicetrapib significantly reduced LDL cholesterol levels compared to placebo in high-risk patients on maximum tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“We still have too many high-risk patients who do not get their LDL to goal. Obicetrapib has the potential additional tool for those patients.”
May offer an adjunct for LDL reduction in high-risk patients on maximal therapy; extends pharmacologic options but awaits cardiovascular outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Obicetrapib is a highly selective cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor that reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The efficacy and safety of obicetrapib have not been fully characterized among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who were receiving maximum tolerated doses of lipid-lowering therapy. Patients with an LDL cholesterol level of 100 mg per deciliter or higher or a non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level of 130 mg per deciliter or higher, as well as those with an LDL cholesterol level of 55 to 100 mg per deciliter or a non-HDL cholesterol level of 85 to 130 mg per deciliter and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, were eligible for inclusion. The patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 10 mg of obicetrapib once daily or matching placebo for 365 days. The primary end point was the percent change in the LDL cholesterol level from baseline to day 84. RESULTS: A total of 2530 patients underwent randomization; 1686 patients were assigned to receive obicetrapib and 844 to receive placebo. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, 34% were women, and the mean baseline LDL cholesterol level was 98 mg per deciliter. The least-squares mean percent change from baseline to day 84 in the LDL cholesterol level was -29.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], -32.1 to -27.8) in the obicetrapib group, as compared with 2.7% (95% CI, -0.4 to 5.8) in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -32.6 percentage points (95% CI, -35.8 to -29.5; P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia who were receiving maximum tolerated doses of lipid-lowering therapy and were at high risk for cardiovascular events, obicetrapib reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 29.9%. (Funded by NewAmsterdam Pharma; BROADWAY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05142722.).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nicholls et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (n=2,530). Obicetrapib vs. Placebo was evaluated on percent change in the LDL cholesterol level from baseline to day 84 (MD -32.6 percentage points, 95% CI -35.8 to -29.5, p=<0.001). Obicetrapib reduced LDL cholesterol levels by a between-group difference of -32.6 percentage points compared to placebo at day 84 (95% CI, -35.8 to -29.5; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: