The Efficacy and Safety of Bile Acid Binding Agents, Opioid Antagonists, or Rifampin in the Treatment of Cholestasis-Associated Pruritus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rifampin, opioid antagonists, or bile acid binding agents in the treatment of cholestasis-related pruritus (CAP) from available randomized controlled trial evidence. METHODS: In addition to a comprehensive gray literature search, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched. Only full-text RCTs in participants (>75% adult) with CAP on at least one of the three medications were included. The primary outcome was change in pruritus score, recorded as a continuous or dichotomous outcome. Two independent reviewers performed trial selection and quality assessment. RESULTS: From 487 citations, 12 RCTs were included. Rifampin (standardized mean difference [SMD]-1.62, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.18) and opioid antagonists (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.17) significantly reduced CAP. The two cholestyramine studies were too heterogeneous to pool. Although cholestyramine (P= 0.35) and rifampin (P= 0.96) were not associated with greater side effects compared with placebo, opioid antagonists were (number needed to harm = 2.6, 95% CI 1.4-25). CONCLUSIONS: The available RCTs are small, few in number, and use varying scales for measuring pruritus. Although both opioid antagonists and rifampin demonstrated a reduction in pruritus, there were insufficient data to judge the efficacy of cholestyramine. Opioid antagonists were associated with transient side effects in a significant proportion of patients. A longer well-designed randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm the efficacy of bile acid binding agents and accurately assess adverse events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".