MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200393590 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2021-basl.97

P089 Real-world data for obeticholic acid treatment in Wales utilising a virtual MDT panel

2021· article· en· W3200393590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bradley Arms-Williams, Chin Lye Ch’ng, Thiriloganathan Mathialahan, Ian Rees, David Samuel, Andrew D. Yeoman, Brijesh Srivastava

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObeticholic acidMedicineUrsodeoxycholic acidReferralDosingInternal medicineGastroenterologyPediatricsFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obeticholic acid (OCA) is indicated in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) that have failed or are intolerant to therapeutic dose of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). Optimal dosing of UDCA dependent on weight is essential before considering second-line treatment. We present real-world data of our experience with OCA treatment in Wales between November 2017 – October 2020. A virtual MDT panel was set-up, compared with a spoke-hub model used elsewhere. Local consultants refer electronically to the MDT panel which consists of a hepatologist from each of the six health boards in Wales. Treatment is initiated and monitored by the referring clinician. Modified Toronto criteria (ALP <1.67 x upper limit of normal (ULN)) is used to define biochemical response to OCA. Out of 70 referrals received, 56 were approved for OCA use. Median age at the time of referral was 59 and 89% were females (n = 50). 48 (86%) were on optimal UDCA dose, while 8 (14%) were intolerant to UDCA. Median ALP prior to commencing OCA was 405 (211–817). 19/56 patients had cirrhosis (18 Child-Pugh A and 1 Child-Pugh B). 27 patients referred had documented pruritus, two of whom had severe pruritus. In those with severe pruritus low dose OCA was started in one, and one did not commence OCA. The average time from approval to commencing OCA was 3 months. Patients with pruritus received standard pruritus treatment prior to commencing OCA. Complete follow-up data after 12 months of OCA treatment was available for 33/56 patients. 12/33 (36%) patients achieved biochemical response. At 12 months, median ALP in the OCA responsive group was 165 (104–249), and median ALP in the OCA non-responsive group was 398 (218–887). This compares with the POISE trial where 46% met Toronto response criteria.1 Use of second-line treatment with OCA is consistent and accessible across Wales, facilitated by our virtual MDT set-up, and was not adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients do not need to travel to central hubs, and can remain under the care of their local hepatologist maintaining continuity of care and also promoting their involvement in decision making process. However, monitoring of 6- and 12-month response after starting OCA can be challenging as it is reliant on receiving follow-up data from the referring clinician. OCA dose must be adjusted based on the stage of liver disease and presence of pruritus. Reference Nevens F, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of obeticholic acid in primary biliary cholangitis. The New England Journal of Medicine 2016;375:631–643.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207