MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761773602 · doi:10.1002/hep.29569

A randomized trial of obeticholic acid monotherapy in patients with primary biliary cholangitis

2017· article· en· W2761773602 on OpenAlexaff
Kris V. Kowdley, Velimir A. Luketic, Roger W. Chapman, Gideon M. Hirschfield, Raoul Poupon, Christoph Schramm, Catherine Vincent, Christian Rust, Albert Parés, Andrew L. Mason, Hanns–Ulrich Marschall, Д. А. Шапиро, Luciano Adorini, Cathi Sciacca, T. Beecher-Jones, O. Böhm, Richard Pencek, David Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaHôpital Saint-Luc
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchIntercept PharmaceuticalsGilead SciencesGlaxoSmithKlineBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsObeticholic acidUrsodeoxycholic acidMedicineClinical endpointInternal medicinePlaceboGastroenterologyTolerabilityCholestasisRandomized controlled trialFarnesoid X receptorBile acidAdverse effectAgonistPathologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obeticholic acid (OCA), a potent farnesoid X receptor agonist, was studied as monotherapy in an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study in patients with primary biliary cholangitis who were then followed for up to 6 years. The goals of the study were to assess the benefit of OCA in the absence of ursodeoxycholic acid, which is relevant for patients who are intolerant of ursodeoxycholic acid and at higher risk of disease progression. Patients were randomized and dosed with placebo (n = 23), OCA 10 mg (n = 20), or OCA 50 mg (n = 16) given as monotherapy once daily for 3 months (1 randomized patient withdrew prior to dosing). The primary endpoint was the percent change in alkaline phosphatase from baseline to the end of the double-blind phase of the study. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included change from baseline to month 3/early termination in markers of cholestasis, hepatocellular injury, and farnesoid X receptor activation. Efficacy and safety continue to be monitored through an ongoing 6-year open-label extension (N = 28). Alkaline phosphatase was reduced in both OCA groups (median% [Q1, Q3], OCA 10 mg -53.9% [-62.5, -29.3], OCA 50 mg -37.2% [-54.8, -24.6]) compared to placebo (-0.8% [-6.4, 8.7]; P < 0.0001) at the end of the study, with similar reductions observed through 6 years of open-label extension treatment. OCA improved many secondary and exploratory endpoints (including γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, alanine aminotransferase, conjugated bilirubin, and immunoglobulin M). Pruritus was the most common adverse event; 15% (OCA 10 mg) and 38% (OCA 50 mg) discontinued due to pruritus. CONCLUSION: OCA monotherapy significantly improved alkaline phosphatase and other biochemical markers predictive of improved long-term clinical outcomes. Pruritus increased dose-dependently with OCA treatment. Biochemical improvements were observed through 6 years of open-label extension treatment. (Hepatology 2018;67:1890-1902).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations277
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHepatologySame topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207