Treatment of pruritus in primary sclerosing cholangitis: Analysis of the consortium for autoimmune liver disease registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cholestasis from primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) frequently causes pruritus. However, the prevalence of pruritus and its management have not been well studied. Investigating the Cholestatic Pruritus of Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (ItCh-PSC) includes a retrospective medical record review to determine the prevalence, severity, and treatment patterns of pruritus. METHODS: Data was collected at 5 academic medical centers in the United States. Medical records were searched for the terms "itch" and "pruritus" and data abstracted related to itch severity, number of encounters, and treatment. RESULTS: Among 724 patients with PSC, 359 (50%) of patients had a documented history of pruritus, including 40%, 39%, and 21% with mild, moderate, or severe itch. Itch was less common in those with small ducts compared to large duct PSC (p=0.02) and more frequent in those of Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity (p=0.001). Compared to patients with mild itch, patients with moderate or severe itch were younger, and had more elevated liver biochemistries, more encounters with itch, and more frequently prescribed 2 or more anti-pruritic medications. Bile acid-binding resins were prescribed in 36%, hydroxyzine in 23%, rifampin in 11%, and fenofibrate in 4% of patients with any itch. The prevalence and severity of pruritus were not affected by cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, or inflammatory bowel disease. CONCLUSION: Itch is common in patients with PSC and is often associated with multiple prescriptions of antipruritic agents. Effective treatments for pruritus in patients with PSC remain an unmet need.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".