MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109777100 · doi:10.3310/eme07090

Ursodeoxycholic acid to reduce adverse perinatal outcomes for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: the PITCHES RCT

2020· article· en· W3109777100 on OpenAlexaff
Lucy C. Chappell, Jennifer Bell, Anne Smith, Catherine Rounding, Ursula Bowler, Louise Linsell, Edmund Juszczak, Sue Tohill, Amanda Redford, Peter Dixon, Jenny Chambers, Rachael Hunter, Jon Dorling, Catherine Williamson, Jim G. Thornton

Bibliographic record

VenueEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
FundersSt. George's, University of LondonNational Institutes of HealthJames Cook UniversityUniversity of NottinghamUniversity of SouthamptonMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Social Care and Health ResearchPublic Health AgencyEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation ProgrammeNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsUrsodeoxycholic acidMedicineCholestasis of pregnancyPregnancyPlaceboRandomized controlled trialGestationObstetricsCholestasisAdverse effectInternal medicineFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, characterised by maternal pruritus and raised serum bile acid concentrations, is associated with increased rates of stillbirth, preterm birth and neonatal unit admission. Ursodeoxycholic acid is widely used as a treatment, but without an adequate evidence base. Objective We aimed to evaluate whether or not ursodeoxycholic acid reduces adverse perinatal outcomes in affected women. Design Multicentre, masked, randomised, placebo-controlled, two-arm, parallel-group trial. Setting Thirty-three UK maternity units. Participants Women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy aged ≥ 18 years, between 20+0 and 40+6 weeks’ gestation with a singleton or twin pregnancy and no known lethal fetal anomaly. Interventions Women were randomly assigned (1 : 1 allocation ratio) to take ursodeoxycholic acid tablets or matched placebo tablets, at an equivalent dose of 1000 mg daily, titrated as needed. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a composite of perinatal death (in utero fetal death after randomisation or known neonatal death up to 7 days) or preterm delivery (< 37 weeks’ gestation) or neonatal unit admission for at least 4 hours (from birth until hospital discharge). Each infant was counted once within this composite. Analyses were by intention to treat. Results Between 23 December 2015 and 7 August 2018, 605 women were randomised, with 305 women allocated to the ursodeoxycholic acid arm and 300 women to the placebo arm. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the incidence of the primary outcome between the groups: 23.0% (74 out of 322 infants) in the ursodeoxycholic acid group compared with 26.7% (85 out of 318 infants) in the placebo group; adjusted risk ratio 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). There was no evidence of a significant difference in total costs (maternal, infant and the cost of ursodeoxycholic acid) between the two trial groups. There were two serious adverse events in the ursodeoxycholic acid group and six in the placebo group. Limitations Limitations include a primary outcome event rate in the control group that was lower than that estimated for the sample size calculation, but the lack of evidence of effect in all analyses suggests that it is unlikely that the trial had insufficient power. Conclusions In this clinical trial of ursodeoxycholic acid in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, there is no evidence that it is effective in reducing a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes. Future work Future research should aim to elucidate the aetiology and pathophysiology of adverse perinatal outcomes, particularly stillbirth, in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy to assist the development of an effective preventative treatment. Further exploratory analyses may identify groups of women who might respond to ursodeoxycholic acid treatment. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91918806. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 7, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEfficacy and Mechanism EvaluationSame topicDrug Transport and Resistance MechanismsFrench-language works237,207