MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OC22 Long-term maintenance of response and improved liver heath with maralixibat in patients with progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC): 2-year data from the MARCH-ON study

2025· article· en· W4414218197 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Miethke, Adib Moukarzel, Gilda Porta, Joshue Covarrubias Esquer, Piotr Czubkowski, Felipe Ordonez, Antonella Mosca, Amal Aqul, Robert H. Squires, Étienne Sokal, Daniel D’Agostino, Ulrich Baumann, Lorenzo D’Antiga, Nagraj Kasi, Nolwenn Laborde, Çiğdem Arıkan, Chuan-Hao Lin, Susan Gilmour, Naveen Mittal, Fang Kuan Chiou, Simon Horslen, Wolf‐Dietrich Huber, Tiago Nunes, Anamaria Lascau, Lara Longpre, Douglas Mogul, Marshall Baek, Pamela Vig, Vera Hupertz, Regino P. González‐Peralta, Udeme D. Ekong, Jane Hartley, Noémie Laverdure, Nadia Ovchinsky, Richard J. Thompson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Hepatobiliary Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgressive familial intrahepatic cholestasisCholestasisBile acidIncidence (geometry)Adverse effectPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC) is a group of genetic disorders resulting in disrupted bile composition, cholestasis, and pruritus. Maralixibat, an inhibitor of the ileal bile acid transporter, is approved in the EU for the treatment of Progressive Familial Intrahepatic Cholestasis (PFIC) in individuals ≥3 months of age. In the 26-week placebo-controlled MARCH Phase 3 study, MRX at 570 μg/kg BID demonstrated significant improvements in pruritus, serum bile acids (sBA), total bilirubin (TB) and growth in patients across the broadest range of PFIC types studied to date. We report on long-term maintenance of effect of up to 2 years of treatment with MRX in MARCH-ON, an open-label, long-term extension study of MARCH. Long-term maintenance of response was assessed for patients who were originally randomized to receive MRX in MARCH and continued with treatment in MARCH-ON (MRX-MRX group: n=47), and for patients who received placebo (PBO) in the MARCH study and switched to open-label MRX in MARCH-ON (PBO-MRX group: n=41). Assessments included: pruritus, sBA, TB, growth z-scores, and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Baseline (BL) was defined as the start of MRX for each group. For the MRX-MRX group, the median (min, max) time on MRX was 638 days (10, 1135). 13 of 47 patients reached Week 104 at time of analysis. Significant improvements observed in the first 26 weeks of the MARCH study were sustained through Week 104 in MARCH-ON for pruritus (-2.03, p<0.0001), sBA (-166 μmol/L, p=0.003), TB (-27.7 μmol/L, p=0.02), and growth (height z-score: +0.40, p=0.046; weight z-score: +0.52, p=0.01). In the PBO-MRX group, the median time on MRX was 456 days (22, 720). 18 of 41 patients reached Week 52 of MRX treatment at time of analysis. Significant improvements through Week 52 for pruritus (-1.1, p=0.0001), sBA (-71 μmol/L, p=0.03), and growth (height z-score: +0.37, p=0.01; weight z-score: +0.32, p=0.03) were in line with observations from the initial MARCH MRX group. Additionally, numeric reductions in TB (-6.4 μmol/L; p=0.7) were observed. No new safety signals were identified. The most common TEAEs were GI-related with diarrhea (50%) being mostly mild and transient. Significant and sustained improvements in pruritus, sBA, TB, and growth are observed with up to 2 years of MRX treatment across the broadest range of genetic PFIC types studied to date. These data suggest overall improved liver health with MRX treatment which can be maintained long-term.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPediatric Hepatobiliary Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207