O12 Hepatic parameters, growth, and sleep with responders and nonresponders to odevixibat treatment: pooled data from the PEDFIC 1 and PEDFIC 2 studies in children with progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction/Background Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC) is a group of inherited paediatric cholestatic liver diseases. In the phase 3 PEDFIC 1 and PEDFIC 2 studies, odevixibat, an ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor, reduced serum bile acids (sBAs) and improved pruritus in patients with PFIC. Aim Using pooled data from PEDFIC 1 and PEDFIC 2, we analysed hepatic biochemical parameters, growth, and sleep changes in patients who responded to odevixibat (Rs) versus nonresponders (NRs) after up to 72 weeks of treatment. Subjects and Methods PEDFIC 1 was a 24-week, randomised, placebo-controlled study in children with PFIC1 or PFIC2. PEDFIC 2 is an ongoing 72 week, open-label extension study in patients with any type of PFIC. This pooled analysis spans from patients’ first dose of odevixibat to a cut-off date of 4 December 2020. Treatment Rs met either sBA response criteria (defined per the PEDFIC 1 study protocol) or sBA and/or pruritus response criteria (table 1). Assessments included change from baseline in transaminases, total bilirubin, growth, and sleep parameters. Results In total, 84 patients (mean age, 5.0 years) received odevixibat (median [range] exposure, 53 [3−128] weeks). Overall, 30/81 (37%) patients were sBA Rs and 49/84 (58%) were sBA and/or pruritus Rs during weeks 0−72. From baseline to week 72, Rs had mean improvements in transaminases and total bilirubin levels (table 1). Patients who were NRs had more pronounced growth deficits at baseline; however, with treatment, mean height and weight Z scores increased in both Rs and NRs (table 1). Rs and NRs had similar sleep characteristics at baseline. After 72 weeks of treatment, sBA Rs had large decreases in caregiver-reported percentage of days patients had scratching associated with bleeding, needed soothing, and needed help falling asleep (–47%, –76%, –75%, respectively); increases or smaller changes were observed in sBA NRs (3%, –24%, −35%, respectively). Comparable results were observed in sBA and/or pruritus Rs. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 47% and 39% of sBA Rs and NRs, respectively, and in 49% and 31% of sBA and/or pruritus Rs and NRs; no drug-related serious TEAEs were reported. Summary and Conclusion Odevixibat treatment for up to 72 weeks in patients with PFIC was associated with improvement in hepatic health, quality of sleep, and growth, with greater improvement observed in Rs compared with NRs. Odevixibat was generally well tolerated in Rs and NRs. Conflict of Interest Declaration P. McKiernan: Sobi AB, Albireo – Consultant E. Sturm: Albireo, Mirum, and Astellas – Consultant and/or received travel support B.M. Kamath: Albireo, Mirum, and Audentes – Consultant; Albireo and Mirum – Unrestricted educational grant R.J. Thompson: Albireo, Alnylam, Evox Therapeutics, Generation Bio, Mirum Pharma, Rectify Therapeutics, Retrophin, Qing Therapeutics, and Sana Biotechnology – Consultant E. Gonzalès: Laboratoires CTRS, Mirum, and Albireo – Consultant A. Lachaux: GMP-Orphan, CSL Behring – Consultant U. Baumann: Albireo, Mirum, Alnylam, Vivet, and Nestlé – Consultant T. Grammatikopoulos: Albireo – Consultant S.J. Karpen: Albireo, Intercept, LogicBio, and Mirum– Consultant E. Shteyer, P. Czubkowski, R. Artan, B. Dalgic, H. Özen, and G. Gupte: Nothing to disclose Q. Ni, L. Kjems, P. Horn: Albireo – Current or former employment This study was sponsored by Albireo. Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, and were funded by Albireo Pharma, Inc.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".