Linerixibat significantly improves cholestatic pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis: results of the pivotal Phase 3 GLISTEN trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Cholestatic pruritus is common, debilitating and undertreated in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). Here, we describe the results of GLISTEN (NCT04950127), a Phase 3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of the ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor linerixibat for pruritus in PBC. Method: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study, patients with PBC and moderate-to-severe pruritus received oral linerixibat 40 mg or placebo twice daily. Pruritus severity and pruritus-related sleep interference were assessed using a 0–10 numerical rating scale. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in worst itch over 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included: at Week 2, change in worst itch; over 24 weeks, change in sleep interference; at Week 24, proportion of responders (≥2-,≥3,≥4-point reduction in worst itch). Safety endpoints included adverse event (AE) reporting. Results: 238 patients were randomised (95% females), itch severity was 7.34±1.54 (mean±standard deviation (SD)), 52% had alkaline phosphatase<1.67x upper limit of normal, and 47% were receiving stable therapy for pruritus. Pruritus improvement over 24 weeks was significantly greater with linerixibat than placebo: least-squares (LS) mean change -2.86 vs -2.15, adjusted mean difference -0.72; p=0.001. The effect of linerixibat was rapid and superior to placebo at Week 2: LS mean change -1.78 vs -1.07, adjusted mean difference -0.71; p<0.001. Linerixibat significantly improved pruritus-related sleep interference over 24 weeks vs placebo: LS mean change -2.77 vs -2.24, adjusted mean difference -0.53; p=0.024. At Week 24, more patients on linerixibat than placebo achieved a≥2-point (68% vs 64%),≥3-point (56% vs 43%) or≥4-point (41% vs 29%) reduction in pruritus. A higher proportion of linerixibat than placebo-treated patients reported their pruritus was very much improved (55% vs 37%) or absent (21% vs 9%). AEs reported more frequently with linerixibat than placebo were predominantly gastrointestinal (GI), including diarrhoea (61% vs 18%) and abdominal pain (18% vs 3%); 4% of patients in the linerixibat group discontinued treatment due to diarrhoea . Conclusion: In patients with PBC and moderate-to-severe pruritus, linerixibat rapidly and significantly improved pruritus and pruritus-related sleep interference vs placebo. While GI AEs were more common with linerixibat than placebo, they rarely led to treatment discontinuation. Funding: GSK Publication History Article published online: 04 September 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".