Combination of fibrates with obeticholic acid is able to normalise biochemical liver tests in patients with difficult‐to‐treat primary biliary cholangitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obeticholic acid (OCA) and fibrates are second-line therapies for patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) with an inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). AIM: To know whether OCA and fibrates, administered together in combination with UDCA, have additive beneficial effects in patients with difficult-to-treat PBC. METHODS: PBC patients treated for ≥3 months with UDCA, OCA and fibrates (bezafibrate or fenofibrate) due to failure of either second-line therapy were included in a multicentre, uncontrolled retrospective cohort study. Changes in biochemical liver tests and pruritus were analysed using a generalised linear mixed-effect model. RESULTS: Among 58 patients included, half received OCA as second-line and fibrates as third-line therapy (Group OCA-Fibrate), while the other half had the inverse therapeutic sequence (Group Fibrate-OCA). The mean duration of triple therapy was 11 months (range 3-26). Compared to dual therapy, triple therapy was associated with a significant gain in alkaline phosphatase (ALP) reduction: 22% per first year (95% CI 12%-31%), an effect that was stronger in OCA-Fibrate than in Fibrate-OCA group. Triple therapy was associated with a 3.4 (95% CI 1.4-8.2) odds ratio (OR) of reaching normal ALP and with a significant decrease in gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and total bilirubin. The ORs of achieving the Paris-2 and Toronto criteria of adequate biochemical response were 6.8 (95% CI 2.8-16.7) and 9.2 (95% CI 3.4-25.1) respectively. Finally, triple therapy significantly improved pruritus in OCA-Fibrate but not in Fibrate-OCA group. CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with UDCA, OCA and fibrates is able to normalise biochemical liver tests and improve pruritus in patients with difficult-to-treat 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".