P1 Analysis of long-term treatment effects of odevixibat on clinical outcomes in children with progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis in odevixibat clinical studies vs external controls from the NAPPED database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC) is a group of rare cholestatic liver diseases characterised by intractable pruritus, elevated serum bile acids (sBAs), and progressive liver damage. NAPPED (NAtural course and Prognosis of PFIC and Effect of biliary Diversion) is a large retrospective database investigating the natural history of PFIC. Odevixibat, an ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor, reduced sBAs and pruritus in patients with PFIC in the phase 3 PEDFIC 1 and PEDFIC 2 studies. We compared clinical outcomes of surgical biliary diversion (SBD), liver transplantation (LT), and death in patients from NAPPED (not treated with odevixibat) with odevixibat-treated patients from the PEDFIC studies. Methods The analysis population comprised odevixibat-naive patients from NAPPED and odevixibat-treated patients from PEDFIC 1 and/or PEDFIC 2. Patients with bile salt export pump subtype 3 (BSEP3) mutations were excluded. Eligibility criteria were aligned across cohorts and included genetically proven diagnosis of PFIC1 or PFIC2, sBAs ≥100 µmol/L, alanine aminotransaminase and total bilirubin ≤10× the upper limit of normal, and no prior SBD or LT. Propensity scores, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and matching methods were used to identify and balance baseline covariates, including PFIC1, PFIC2-BSEP1, or PFIC2-BSEP2. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS; time to first event of SBD, LT, or death); secondary endpoints included native liver survival (NLS), SBD-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Survival outcomes were measured from study day 1; treatment differences were evaluated by weighted log-rank tests and Cox regression. Results A cohort of 80 NAPPED patients (controls) was compared with 69 odevixibat-treated patients. Median study duration in the odevixibat cohort was 22.6 months (range: 1.9–39.2 months). Follow-up duration in the NAPPED cohort was truncated accordingly. Odevixibat-treated patients showed significantly higher EFS and DFS than controls (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]: 0.20 [0.09−0.45] and 0.13 [0.04−0.39], respectively); numerical improvements in NLS and OS were also observed. Results were consistent when different sensitivity analyses were performed. Additional subgroup analyses indicated that EFS was higher in odevixibat-treated patients with PFIC1 (HR [95% CI]: 0.10 [0.02−0.55]) and PFIC2 (HR [95% CI]: 0.34 [0.12−1.00]) vs controls. Conclusions Odevixibat treatment is associated with higher EFS in patients with PFIC without prior SBD upon comparison with matched non-odevixibat-treated patients from the NAPPED registry.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".