ConductScience.org, home

Trial · NCT02988115

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Bempedoic Acid (ETC-1002) in Patients With Hyperlipidemia and Statin Intolerant

NCT02988115, Phase 3, Completed, Esperion Therapeutics, Inc.; results first posted 2020-04-03

3 sourcestrials-2026-11-12-0.5.0

Download JSON
Cite this record

ConductScience Library. Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Bempedoic Acid (ETC-1002) in Patients With Hyperlipidemia and Statin Intolerant. Trials, record NCT02988115. Release trials-2026-11-12-0.5.0, 12 Nov 2026. https://conductscience.org/library/trials/NCT02988115

On this page

Trial

As registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, in the graph's capture of the registry.

Title
Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Bempedoic Acid (ETC-1002) in Patients With Hyperlipidemia and Statin Intolerant
NCT number
NCT02988115
Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Enrollment
345 participants, actual
Lead sponsor
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc.
Conditions
Hypercholesterolemia, Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease, Statin Adverse Reaction
Interventions
bempedoic acid, placebo
First posted
2016-12-09
Last updated
2020-04-03
Results first posted
2020-04-03

Source ClinicalTrials.gov

Registered outcomes5

Each outcome the trial registered, primary first, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.

ListOutcomeTime frameDescription
PrimaryPercent Change From Baseline (PCFB) in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) at Week 12Baseline; Week 12
PCFB was calculated as the (\[post-Baseline (BL) value minus the BL value\] divided by the BL value ) x 100. BL was defined as the mean of the last two non-missing values on or prior to Day 1. If only one value was available, that single value was used as BL. PCFB in LDL-C was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment group and stratification factor (primary prevention; secondary prevention) as fixed effects and BL as a covariate. For participants with missing lipid data at Week 12 who were no longer taking study treatment, missing values were imputed using multiple imputation via a regression-based model including stratification and BL data from placebo participants only. In this imputation model, treatment group was not included. For participants with missing lipid data at Week 12 who were still taking study treatment, missing values were imputed using multiple imputation via a regression-based model including treatment, stratification and BL value.
SecondaryPercent Change From Baseline in LDL-C at Week 24Baseline; Week 24
PCFB was calculated as the (\[post-BL value minus the BL value\] divided by the BL value ) x 100. BL was defined as the mean of the last two non-missing values on or prior to Day 1. If only one value was available then that single value was used as BL. PCFB in LDL-C was analyzed using ANCOVA, with treatment group and stratification factor (primary prevention; secondary prevention) as fixed effects and BL as a covariate. For participants with missing lipid data at Week 12 who were no longer taking study treatment, missing values were imputed using multiple imputation via a regression-based model including stratification and BL data from placebo participants only. In this imputation model, treatment group was not included. For participants with missing lipid data at Week 12 who were still taking study treatment, missing values were imputed using multiple imputation via a regression-based model including treatment, stratification and BL value.
SecondaryPercent Change From Baseline in the Lipid Profile at Week 12Baseline; Week 12
PCFB was calculated as: (\[post-BL value minus the BL value\] divided by the BL value) x 100. BL was defined as the mean of the last two non-missing values on or prior to Day 1. If only one value was available, that single value was used as BL. apoB and TC BL were defined as the last non-missing value on/prior to Day 1. PCFB was analyzed using ANCOVA, with treatment and group stratification factor (primary prevention; secondary prevention) as fixed effects and BL as a covariate. For participants with missing data at Week 12 who were no longer taking study treatment (ST), missing values were imputed using multiple imputation via a regression-based model including stratification and BL data from placebo participants only. In this imputation model, treatment group was not included. For participants with missing lipid data at Week 12 who were still taking ST, missing values were imputed using multiple imputation via a regression-based model including treatment, stratification and BL value.
SecondaryPercent Change From Baseline in High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hsCRP) at Week 12Baseline; Week 12
Percent change from Baseline was calculated as the (\[post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value\] divided by the Baseline value) x 100. Baseline for hsCRP is defined as the last non-missing value on or prior to Day 1. Percent change from Baseline in hsCRP, non-parametric (Wilcoxon rank-sum test) analysis with Hodges-Lehmann estimates and confidence interval was performed.
SecondaryAbsolute Change From Baseline in LDL-C at Week 12 and Week 24Baseline; Week 12; Week 24
Change from Baseline is calculated as the (\[post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value\] divided by the Baseline value ) x 100. Baseline is defined as the mean of the last two non-missing values on or prior to Day 1.

Outcomes5

Each outcome the trial posted results for, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.

TypeOutcomeTime framePopulationUnitsMeasured as
PRIMARYPercent Change From Baseline (PCFB) in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) at Week 12Baseline; Week 12
The Full Analysis Set (FAS), also known as the intention-to-treat (ITT) set of participants, is defined as all randomized participants. Participants were included in their randomized treatment group, regardless of the treatment they actually received. Only those participants with available data were analyzed.
percent changeLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYPercent Change From Baseline in LDL-C at Week 24Baseline; Week 24FAS. Only those participants with available data were analyzed.percent changeLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYPercent Change From Baseline in the Lipid Profile at Week 12Baseline; Week 12FAS. Only those participants with available data were analyzed.percent changeLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYPercent Change From Baseline in High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hsCRP) at Week 12Baseline; Week 12FAS. Only those participants with available data were analyzed.percent changeMEDIAN
SECONDARYAbsolute Change From Baseline in LDL-C at Week 12 and Week 24Baseline; Week 12; Week 24FAS. Only those participants with available data were analyzed.mg/dLMEAN

Results by group16

Each measurement the trial posted, group by group, in the words and numbers it posted.

OutcomeGroupCategoryValueSpreadUnits
Percent Change From Baseline (PCFB) in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) at Week 12Bempedoic Acid-22.58Standard Error 1.290percent change
Percent Change From Baseline (PCFB) in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) at Week 12Placebo-1.17Standard Error 1.421percent change
Percent Change From Baseline in LDL-C at Week 24Bempedoic Acid-21.17Standard Error 1.411percent change
Percent Change From Baseline in LDL-C at Week 24Placebo-2.26Standard Error 1.552percent change
Percent Change From Baseline in the Lipid Profile at Week 12Bempedoic Acidnon-HDL-C-18.08Standard Error 1.114percent change
Percent Change From Baseline in the Lipid Profile at Week 12Placebonon-HDL-C-0.14Standard Error 1.169percent change
Percent Change From Baseline in the Lipid Profile at Week 12Bempedoic AcidTC-15.37Standard Error 0.879percent change
Percent Change From Baseline in the Lipid Profile at Week 12PlaceboTC-0.61Standard Error 0.961percent change
Percent Change From Baseline in the Lipid Profile at Week 12Bempedoic AcidapoB-14.65Standard Error 1.080percent change
Percent Change From Baseline in the Lipid Profile at Week 12PlaceboapoB0.32Standard Error 1.177percent change

Participant flow6

How many started, completed or left each group, period by period.

PeriodMilestoneGroupParticipantsUnits counted
Overall StudySTARTEDBempedoic Acid234
Overall StudySTARTEDPlacebo111
Overall StudyCOMPLETEDBempedoic Acid220
Overall StudyCOMPLETEDPlacebo107
Overall StudyNOT COMPLETEDBempedoic Acid14
Overall StudyNOT COMPLETEDPlacebo4

Adverse events82

Each adverse event the trial posted, group by group: the participants affected out of those at risk.

TypeEventOrgan systemGroupAffectedAt riskEvents
otherDyspepsiaGastrointestinal disordersBempedoic Acid5234
otherDyspepsiaGastrointestinal disordersPlacebo0111
otherNauseaGastrointestinal disordersBempedoic Acid4234
otherNauseaGastrointestinal disordersPlacebo3111
otherFatigueGeneral disordersBempedoic Acid8234
otherFatigueGeneral disordersPlacebo7111
otherBronchitisInfections and infestationsBempedoic Acid6234
otherBronchitisInfections and infestationsPlacebo6111
otherNasopharyngitisInfections and infestationsBempedoic Acid3234
otherNasopharyngitisInfections and infestationsPlacebo5111

Adverse event totals6

The totals the trial posted for each group.

TotalGroupAffectedAt risk
Total, all-cause mortalityBempedoic Acid0234
Total, all-cause mortalityPlacebo0111
Total, other adverse eventsBempedoic Acid88234
Total, other adverse eventsPlacebo45111
Total, serious adverse eventsBempedoic Acid14234
Total, serious adverse eventsPlacebo4111

Papers8

The papers the trial lists on ClinicalTrials.gov.

PMIDListed asSource
15635109BACKGROUNDPubMed
20444930BACKGROUNDPubMed
21067804BACKGROUNDPubMed
25994746BACKGROUNDPubMed
27892461BACKGROUNDPubMed
30922146DERIVEDPubMed
32609313DERIVEDPubMed
35916348DERIVEDPubMed

Grants0

The grants NIH RePORTER links to the trial, newest funded first: NIH's, and some of AHRQ's, CDC's, FDA's and VA's. Each shows its title, principal investigators, organization and funder in its newest year.

None in this release.

Trial comparisons2

Comparisons of the trial's two groups, calculated by ConductScience from the counts it posted.

ComparisonSource
Bempedoic Acid vs Placebo: deaths from any causeTrial comparisons
Bempedoic Acid vs Placebo: serious adverse eventsTrial comparisons

Tests0

The ConductCognition tests this trial's registered outcomes name, as ScienceGraph matched them in trial-tests-2026-11-12-0.2.1.

None in this release.

Data dates

The day each source was copied for this release.

ClinicalTrials.gov
2026-11-12
ClinicalTrials.gov
Results, from AACT
2026-03-23
AACT
NIH grant links
2026-11-13
NIH RePORTER

Sources 3

  • ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTFreely available. Acknowledgement requested
  • ClinicalTrials.govNo license stated
  • NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain
Each source's terms
  • ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTClinicalTrials.gov data via Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), CTTI. CTTI makes its materials freely available and requests acknowledgement. https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/documentation/299
  • ClinicalTrials.govnone stated
  • NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain (NIH RePORTER)

ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions.

For software

Read this trial from software.

The record and each of its lists are JSON, twenty rows a page. No key.

GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT02988115

GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT02988115/events?page=2