A Randomized, Controlled, Phase 2 Study of Maralixibat in the Treatment of Itching Associated With Primary Biliary Cholangitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is typically associated with elevated serum bile acid levels and pruritus, but pruritus is often refractory to treatment with existing therapies. This phase 2 study assessed the efficacy and safety of maralixibat, a selective, ileal, apical, sodium‐dependent, bile acid transporter inhibitor, in adults with PBC and pruritus. Adults with PBC and pruritus who had received ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) for ≥6 months or were intolerant to UDCA were randomized 2:1 to maralixibat (10 or 20 mg/day) or placebo for 13 weeks in combination with UDCA (when tolerated). The primary outcome was change in Adult Itch Reported Outcome (ItchRO™) average weekly sum score (0, no itching; 70, maximum itching) from baseline to week 13/early termination (ET). The study enrolled 66 patients (maralixibat [both doses combined], n = 42; placebo, n = 24). Mean ItchRO™ weekly sum scores decreased from baseline to week 13/ET with maralixibat (–26.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], –31.8, –21.2) and placebo (–23.4; 95% CI, –30.3, –16.4). The difference between groups was not significant ( P = 0.48). In the maralixibat and placebo groups, adverse events (AEs) were reported in 97.6% and 70.8% of patients, respectively. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported AEs (maralixibat, 78.6%; placebo, 50.0%). Conclusion: Reductions in pruritus did not differ significantly between maralixibat and placebo. However, a large placebo effect may have confounded assessment of pruritus. Lessons learned from this rigorously designed and executed trial are indispensable for understanding how to approach trials assessing pruritus as the primary endpoint and the therapeutic window of bile acid uptake inhibition as a therapeutic strategy in PBC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".