MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915023124 · doi:10.1002/hep4.1305

A Randomized, Controlled, Phase 2 Study of Maralixibat in the Treatment of Itching Associated With Primary Biliary Cholangitis

2019· article· en· W2915023124 on OpenAlexafffund
Marlyn J. Mayo, Paul J. Pockros, David Jones, Christopher L. Bowlus, Cynthia Levy, Imran Patanwala, Bruce R. Bacon, Velimir A. Luketic, Raj Vuppalanchi, Sharon V. Medendorp, Alejandro Dorenbaum, Ciara Kennedy, Patricia Novak, Joan Gu, George Apostol, Gideon M. Hirschfield

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCilagNorgineNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchPfizerNGM BiopharmaceuticalsMedical Research CouncilValeant Pharmaceuticals InternationalIntercept PharmaceuticalsGilead SciencesGlaxoSmithKlineEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsUrsodeoxycholic acidItchingPlaceboMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyBiliary colicAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialBile acidConfidence intervalCholestasisSurgeryGallstonesPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations95
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHepatology CommunicationsSame topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207