Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT02666664

Evaluation of Long-Term Safety and Tolerability of ETC-1002 in High-Risk Patients With Hyperlipidemia and High CV Risk (CLEAR Harmony)

The purpose of this study is to see if ETC-1002 (bempedoic acid) is safe and well-tolerated versus placebo in patients with high cardiovascular risk and elevated LDL cholesterol that is not adequately controlled by their current therapy.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Phase 3

Primary location

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Loading trial locations.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Fasting LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL
  • High cardiovascular risk (diagnosis of HeFH or ASCVD)
  • Be on maximally tolerated lipid-modifying therapy

Exclusion criteria

  • Total fasting triglyceride ≥500 mg/dL
  • Renal dysfunction or nephrotic syndrome or history of nephritis
  • Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥50kg/m2
  • Significant cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular event in the past 3 months

Treatment and study plan

ETC-1002

Drug

ETC-1002 180 mg tablets taken orally, once per day. Patients remain on ongoing statin therapy (not study provided)

Other names: bempedoic acid

Placebo

Drug

Matching placebo tablets taken orally, once per day. Patients remain on ongoing statin therapy (not study provided)

Primary outcomes

  1. Percentage of Participants With Treatment-emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs)

    Time frame: Up to approximately 52 weeks

    TEAEs, defined as adverse events (AEs) that began or worsened in severity after the first dose of double-blind study drug and up to 30 days after receiving the last dose of double-blind study drug, were collected and reported.

  2. Percentage of Participants With Adjudicated Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event

    Time frame: Up to approximately 52 weeks

    TEAEs, defined as AEs that began or worsened in severity after the first dose of double-blind study drug and up to 30 days after receiving the last dose of double-blind study drug, were collected and reported. Cardiovascular events were considered as adverse events of special interest. Treatment-emergent = TE.

  3. Percentage of Participants With the Indicated Event of Special Interest: Creatine Kinase Elevations

    Time frame: Up to approximately 52 weeks

    TEAEs of special interest (AESIs) were predefined and monitored throughout the study. Creatine kinase elevations were assessed using the following preferred term: Blood creatine phosphokinase increased (system organ class: investigations).

  4. Percentage of Participants With the Indicated Event of Special Interest: Hepatic Disorders

    Time frame: Up to approximately 52 weeks

    Treatment-emergent AESIs were predefined and monitored throughout the study. TEAEs potentially related to hepatic events were assessed using the following preferred terms and laboratory abnormalities: aspartate aminotransferase (AST) increased, Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased, Hepatic enzyme increased, Blood bilirubin increased, liver function test (LFT) abnormal, LFT increased, hepatic enzyme abnormal, transaminases increased, potential Hy's Law cases (PHLC) [AST and (&)/or ALT >3 x upper limit of normal (ULN) with concurrent total bilirubin >2 x ULN], AST and/or ALT >3 x ULN, and total bilirubin >2 x ULN (system organ class: investigations). AST and ALT values were repeated and confirmed. "Repeated and confirmed" was defined as a participant having the last on-study LFT > x ULN, the last on-treatment LFT > x ULN, or LFT > x ULN followed by another LFT > x ULN.

  5. Percentage of Participants With the Indicated Event of Special Interest: Hypoglycemia

    Time frame: Up to approximately 52 weeks

    Treatment-emergent AESIs were predefined and monitored throughout the study. Hypoglycemia was assessed using the following preferred terms: hypoglycaemia (system organ class: metabolism and nutrition disorders); blood glucose abnormal and blood glucose decreased (system organ class: investigations). The percentage of unique participants is reported in the "Overall hypoglycemia AESIs" category; a participant could have been represented in more than one of the individual hypoglycemia AESIs.

  6. Percentage of Participants With the Indicated Event of Special Interest: Metabolic Acidosis

    Time frame: Up to approximately 52 weeks

    Treatment-emergent AESIs were predefined and monitored throughout the study. Metabolic acidosis was assessed using the preferred term metabolic acidosis (system organ class: metabolism and nutrition disorders).

  7. Percentage of Participants With the Indicated Event of Special Interest: Muscular Disorder

    Time frame: Up to approximately 52 weeks

    Treatment-emergent AESIs were predefined and monitored throughout the study. Muscular safety was assessed using the following preferred terms and laboratory abnormalities: myalgia, muscle spasms, pain in extremity, muscular weakness (system organ class: musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders), and creatine kinase >5 ULN (repeated and confirmed). The percentage of unique participants is reported in the "Overall muscular disorder AESIs" category; a participant could have been represented in more than one of the individual muscular disorder AESIs.

  8. Percentage of Participants With the Indicated Event of Special Interest: Neurocognitive Disorder

    Time frame: Up to approximately 52 weeks

    Treatment-emergent AESIs were predefined and monitored throughout the study. Neurocognitive disorder was assessed using the following preferred terms: memory impairment, amnesia, and cognitive disorder (system organ class: nervous system disorders); confusional state and disorientation (system organ class: psychiatric disorders). The percentage of unique participants is reported in the "Overall neurocognitive disorder AESIs" category; a participant could have been represented in more than one of the individual neurocognitive disorder AESIs.

  9. Percentage of Participants With the Indicated Event of Special Interest: New Onset or Worsening Diabetes Mellitus

    Time frame: Up to approximately 52 weeks

    Treatment-emergent AESIs were predefined and monitored throughout the study. New onset or worsening diabetes was assessed using the following preferred terms: type 2 diabetes mellitus, diabetes mellitus, hyperglycaemia, glucose tolerance impaired, diabetes mellitus inadequate control, and impaired fasting glucose (system organ class: metabolism and nutrition disorders); blood glucose increased, glycosylated haemoglobin increased, blood glucose abnormal, and glucose urine present (system organ class: investigations); and glycosuria (system organ class: renal and urinary disorders). The percentage of unique participants is reported in the "Overall new onset/worsening diabetes mellitus AESIs" category; a participant could have been represented in more than one of the individual new onset/worsening diabetes mellitus AESIs.

  10. Percentage of Participants With the Indicated Event of Special Interest: Renal Disorder

    Time frame: Up to approximately 52 weeks

    Treatment-emergent AESIs were predefined and monitored throughout the study. TEAEs potentially related to renal events were assessed using the following preferred terms: renal failure, renal impairment, acute kidney injury (system organ class: renal and urinary disorders); blood creatinine increased, glomerular filtration rate decreased, blood urea increased, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 milliliter per minute per 1.73 square meter (ml/min/1.73m^2), and change from baseline in creatinine >1 mg/dL (system organ class: investigations); and gout (system organ class: metabolism and nutrition disorders). The percentage of unique participants is reported in the "Overall renal disorder AESIs" category; a participant could have been represented in more than one of the individual renal disorder AESIs.

  11. Change From Baseline to Week 52 in Uric Acid (Urate) Level

    Time frame: Baseline and Week 52

    Blood samples were drawn at defined time points during the course of the study to monitor uric acid (urate) levels.

  12. Change From Baseline to Week 52 in Creatinine Level

    Time frame: Baseline and Week 52

    Blood samples were drawn at defined time points during the course of the study to monitor creatinine levels.

  13. Change From Baseline to Week 52 in Hemoglobin Level

    Time frame: Baseline and Week 52

    Blood samples were drawn at defined time points during the course of the study to monitor hemoglobin levels.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 12 in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C)

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 12

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for LDL-C. Baseline was defined as the mean of the values at screening (Week -2) and predose Day 1/Week 0. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(LDL-C value at Week 12 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Missing data were imputed with the use of a pattern-mixture model to account for adherence to the trial regimen. Least Square mean= LS mean. Percent change was analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method, which included treatment, randomization stratum as factors, and baseline value as covariate.

  2. Absolute Change From Baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 12

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for LDL-C. Baseline was defined as the mean of the values at screening (Week -2) and predose Day 1/Week 0. Absolute change from baseline was calculated as: LDL-C value at Week 12 minus Baseline value. Missing data were imputed with the use of a pattern-mixture model to account for adherence to the trial regimen.

Other outcomes

  1. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in LDL-C

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 24

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for LDL-C. Baseline was defined as the mean of the values at screening (Week -2) and predose Day 1/Week 0. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(LDL-C value at Week 24 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Missing data were imputed with the use of a pattern-mixture model to account for adherence to the trial regimen. Percent change was analyzed using the ANCOVA method, which included treatment, randomization stratum as factors, and baseline value as covariate.

  2. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 12 in Non-high-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (Non-HDL-C)

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 12

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for non-HDL-C. Baseline was defined as the mean of the values at screening (Week -2) and predose Day 1/Week 0. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(non-HDL-C value at Week 12 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Missing data were imputed with the use of a pattern-mixture model to account for adherence to the trial regimen. Percent change was analyzed using the ANCOVA method, which included treatment, randomization stratum as factors, and baseline value as covariate.

  3. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 12 in Total Cholesterol (TC)

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 12

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for TC. Baseline was defined as the mean of the values at screening (Week -2) and predose Day 1/Week 0. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(TC value at Week 12 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Missing data were imputed with the use of a pattern-mixture model to account for adherence to the trial regimen. Percent change was analyzed using the ANCOVA method, which included treatment, randomization stratum as factors, and baseline value as covariate.

  4. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 12 in Apolipoprotein B (apoB)

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 12

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for apoB. Baseline was defined as the last value prior to first dose of study drug. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(apoB value at Week 12 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Missing data were imputed with the use of a pattern-mixture model to account for adherence to the trial regimen. Percent change was analyzed using the ANCOVA method, which included treatment, randomization stratum as factors, and baseline value as covariate.

  5. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 12 in High-sensitivity C-reactive Protein (hsCRP)

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 12

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for hsCRP. Baseline was defined as the last value prior to first dose of study drug. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(hsCRP value at Week 12 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Observed data was used for the analysis, no imputation for the missing data was performed. Percent change was analyzed using the ANCOVA method, which included treatment, randomization stratum as factors, and baseline value as covariate.

  6. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 52 in LDL-C

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 52

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for LDL-C. Baseline was defined as the mean of the values at screening (Week -2) and predose Day 1/Week 0. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(LDL-C value at Week 52 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Observed data was used for the analysis, no imputation for the missing data was performed. Percent change was analyzed using the ANCOVA method, which included treatment, randomization stratum as factors, and baseline value as covariate.

  7. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in Non-HDL-C

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 24

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for non-HDL-C. Baseline was defined as the mean of the values at screening (Week -2) and predose Day 1/Week 0. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(non-HDL-C value at Week 24 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Observed data was used for the analysis, no imputation for the missing data was performed.

  8. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 52 in Non-HDL-C

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 52

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for non-HDL-C. Baseline was defined as the mean of the values at screening (Week -2) and predose Day 1/Week 0. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(non-HDL-C value at Week 52 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Observed data was used for the analysis, no imputation for the missing data was performed.

  9. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in TC

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 24

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for TC. Baseline was defined as the mean of the values at screening (Week -2) and predose Day 1/Week 0. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(TC value at Week 24 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Observed data was used for the analysis, no imputation for the missing data was performed.

  10. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 52 in TC

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 52

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for TC. Baseline was defined as the mean of the values at screening (Week -2) and predose Day 1/Week 0. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(TC value at Week 52 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Observed data was used for the analysis, no imputation for the missing data was performed.

  11. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in apoB

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 24

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for apoB. Baseline was defined as the last value prior to first dose of study drug. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(apoB value at Week 24 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Observed data was used for the analysis, no imputation for the missing data was performed

  12. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 52 in apoB

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 52

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for apoB. Baseline was defined as the last value prior to first dose of study drug. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(apoB value at Week 52 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Observed data was used for the analysis, no imputation for the missing data was performed.

  13. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in hsCRP

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 24

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for hsCRP. Baseline was defined as the last value prior to first dose of study drug. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(hsCRP value at Week 24 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Observed data was used for the analysis, no imputation for the missing data was performed.

  14. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 52 in hsCRP

    Time frame: Baseline; Week 52

    Blood samples were drawn after a minimum 10-hour fast (water was allowed) at pre-specified intervals. Samples were collected and analyzed for hsCRP. Baseline was defined as the last value prior to first dose of study drug. Percent change from baseline was calculated as: [(hsCRP value at Week 52 minus Baseline value) divided by (Baseline Value)] multiplied by 100. Observed data was used for the analysis, no imputation for the missing data was performed.

  15. Percentage of Participants Achieving LDL-C <70 mg/dL at Week 12, 24, and 52

    Time frame: Week 12, Week 24, and Week 52

    The percentage of participants who achieved lowering in lipid values of LDL-C below 70 mg/dL have been reported. Baseline was defined as the mean of the values at screening (Week -2) and predose Day 1/Week 0. Observed data was used for the analysis, no imputation for the missing data was performed.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc.

Industry

Registry information

Official study title

A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Multicenter Long-term Safety and Tolerability Study of ETC-1002 in Patients With Hyperlipidemia at High Cardiovascular Risk Who Are Not Adequately Controlled by Their Lipid-Modifying Therapy

Important dates

Study start
2016
Primary completion
2018
Study completion
2018
First posted
Jan 28, 2016
Registry last updated
May 11, 2020

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.