Evinacumab, an ANGPTL3 Inhibitor, in the Treatment of Dyslipidemia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presented is well written and the topic is very interesting.

Here few minor comments:

- Table 1 summarizing all the studies published needs to be improved. 

- Line 43-44: "Low LDL-C levels and the risk of myocardial infarction in whites and blacks and stroke in blacks are associated with loss-of-function mutations in PCSK9." Can you reframe this sentence to make it more understandable?

- Line 295 "The most common side effects reported by the participants during the trials were non- specific" what the authors mean with side effects were non-specific? can you reframe the sentence?

 

 

Author Response

I am very grateful to the Reviewers for their thorough reading of my paper and received remarks and suggestions. We made a meticulous revision of the manuscript, following all the comments made by the Reviewers. Please find below our responses and details of the changes we made in the text.

Reviewer #1:

The paper presented is well written and the topic is very interesting.

Here few minor comments:

- Table 1 summarizing all the studies published needs to be improved. 

Response:

The table was improved to be clearer for the reader. Abbreviations below the table have been arranged in alphabetical order.

 

- Line 43-44: "Low LDL-C levels and the risk of myocardial infarction in whites and blacks and stroke in blacks are associated with loss-of-function mutations in PCSK9." Can you reframe this sentence to make it more understandable?

Response:

Sentence was reframed:

Loss-of-function mutations of the PCSK9 gene decrease the level of LDL-C and low the risk of myocardial infarction in whites and blacks and reduce the risk of stroke in blacks.

 

- Line 295 "The most common side effects reported by the participants during the trials were non- specific" what the authors mean with side effects were non-specific? can you reframe the sentence?

Response:

The sentence was reframed:

    The most common side effects reported by the participants during the trial in the group treated with SC evinacumab were: urinary tract infection (11% vs 8%), injection-site erythema (6% vs 3%), myalgia (5% vs. 0%), and arthralgia (5% vs 3%), whereas in the group receiving IV evinacumab were: nasopharyngitis (12% vs 6%), dizziness (7% vs 0%), nausea (7% vs. 0%), abdominal pain (6% vs. 0%), back pain (7% vs 6%), fatigue (7% vs 6%), and pain in an arm or leg (7% vs 6%).

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the authors for this work.

Remarks:

- in the present paper, it is not mentioned whether the study is registered in the Clinical Studies Database and the endorsement of the ethics committee is not mentioned.

- the lack of a statistical interpretation of the obtained data is felt, so I would suggest the authors to add a statistical interpretation to the results and discussions.

Author Response

      I am very grateful to the Reviewers for their thorough reading of my paper and received remarks and suggestions. We made a meticulous revision of the manuscript, following all the comments made by the Reviewers. Please find below our responses and details of the changes we made in the text.

Reviewer #2:

Congratulations to the authors for this work.

Remarks:

- in the present paper, it is not mentioned whether the study is registered in the Clinical Studies Database and the endorsement of the ethics committee is not mentioned.

Response:

It is a review study, therefore no registration or ethics committee information/approval is required.

- the lack of a statistical interpretation of the obtained data is felt, so I would suggest the authors to add a statistical interpretation to the results and discussions.

Response:

Data of the available statistical analysis was added to the results of the studies. Studies with a small sample sizes have no performed formal statistical testing and the results were summarized as mean±SD.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, Sosnowska et.al., reviewed evinacumab,(Evkeeza) in Familial Hypercholestrelemia. Manuscript was well-written.  I do not have a recommendation for the article at the moment.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for such a positive opinion about our work.

Best wishes,

Authors