MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414963642 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2025-basl.7

O8 Linerixibat significantly improves cholestatic pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC): results of the pivotal phase 3 GLISTEN trial

2025· article· en· W4414963642 on OpenAlexaff
Gideon Hirshfield, Christopher L. Bowlus, D. I. Jones, Andreas E. Kremer, Marlyn J. Mayo, Atsushi Tanaka, Pietro Andreoné, Jidong Jia, Qinglong Jin, Ricardo Ulises Macías‐Rodríguez, Alex Cobitz, Brooke M. Currie, Ciara Gorey, Ivana Lazic, D.A. Podmore, Andrea Ribeiro, Jennifer B. Shannon, Brandon Swift, Megan McLaughlin, Cynthia Levy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboAdverse effectClinical endpointMean differenceClinical trialQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Cholestatic pruritus is common, debilitating and undertreated in patients with PBC. Here, we describe the results of GLISTEN (NCT04950127), a Phase 3 study investigating efficacy and safety of linerixibat (ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor) for pruritus in PBC. Methods 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. 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) and analysis of responses to 2 patient global impression items (itch severity; change). Safety endpoints included adverse event (AE) reporting. Results 238 patients were randomised (95% female); itch severity was mean (standard deviation [SD]) 7.34 (1.54), 52% had alkaline phosphatase <1.67 times upper limit of normal; 47% were receiving stable pruritus therapy. Pruritus improvement over 24 weeks was significantly greater with linerixibat than placebo: least-squares (LS) mean change -2.86 versus -2.15, adjusted mean difference -0.72; p=0.001. At Week 24, observed mean (SD) difference from baseline in pruritus was -3.66 (2.50) with linerixibat and -2.82 (2.32) with placebo. Linerixibat effect was superior to placebo at Week 2: LS mean change -1.78 versus -1.07, adjusted mean difference -0.71; p<0.001. Linerixibat significantly improved pruritus-related sleep interference over 24 weeks versus placebo: LS mean change 2.77 versus -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. Summary/Conclusion In patients with PBC and moderate-to-severe pruritus, linerixibat significantly improved pruritus and pruritus-related sleep interference versus placebo. While GI AEs were more common with linerixibat than placebo, they rarely led to treatment discontinuation. Funding GSK [212620/NCT04950127]. Previously presented at EASL 2025 (presentation GS-011) [on behalf of the GLISTEN study group]

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)0.001
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207