COBALT: A Confirmatory Trial of Obeticholic Acid in Primary Biliary Cholangitis With Placebo and External Controls.

OBJECTIVES: Obeticholic acid (OCA) treatment for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) was conditionally approved in the phase 3 POISE trial. The COBALT confirmatory trial assessed whether clinical outcomes in PBC patients improve with OCA therapy. METHODS: Patients randomized to OCA (5-10 mg) were compared with placebo (randomized controlled trial [RCT]) or external control (EC). The primary composite endpoint was time to death, liver transplant, model for end-stage liver disease score ≥15, uncontrolled ascites, or hospitalization for hepatic decompensation. A prespecified propensity score-weighted EC group was derived from a US healthcare claims database. RESULTS: In the RCT, the primary endpoint occurred in 28.6% of OCA (n=168) and 28.9% of placebo patients (n=166; intent-to-treat [ITT] analysis hazard ratio [HR]=1.01, 95% CI=0.68-1.51), but functional unblinding and crossover to commercial therapy occurred, especially in the placebo arm. Correcting for these using inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) and as-treated analyses shifted the HR to favor OCA. In the EC (n=1051), the weighted primary endpoint occurred in 10.1% of OCA and 21.5% of non-OCA patients (HR=0.39; 95% CI=0.22-0.69; P=0.001). No new safety signals were identified in the RCT. CONCLUSIONS: Functional unblinding and treatment crossover, particularly in the placebo arm, confounded the ITT estimate of outcomes associated with OCA in the RCT. Comparison with the real-world EC showed that OCA treatment significantly reduced the risk of negative clinical outcomes. These analyses demonstrate the value of EC data in confirmatory trials and suggest that treatment with OCA improves clinical outcomes in patients with PBC.

Primary biliary cholangitis drug evaluation and regulatory approval: Where do we go from here?

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease. The management landscape was transformed 20 years ago with the advent of ursodeoxycholic acid. Up to 40% of patients do not, however, respond adequately to ursodeoxycholic acid and therefore still remain at risk of disease progression to cirrhosis. The introduction of obeticholic acid as a second-line therapy for patients failing ursodeoxycholic acid has improved outcomes for patients with PBC. There remains, however, a need for better treatment for patients at higher risk. The greatest threat facing our efforts to improve treatment in PBC is, paradoxically, the regulatory approval model providing conditional marketing authorization for new drugs based on biochemical markers on the condition that long-term, randomized placebo-controlled outcome trials are performed to confirm efficacy. As demonstrated by the COBALT confirmatory study with obeticholic acid, it is difficult to retain patients in the required follow-on confirmatory placebo-controlled PBC outcome trials when a licensed drug is commercially available. New PBC therapies in development, such as the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists, face even greater challenges in demonstrating outcome benefit through randomized placebo-controlled studies once following conditional marketing authorization, as there will be even more treatment options available. A recently published EMA Reflection Paper provides some guidance on the regulatory pathway to full approval but fails to recognize the importance of real-world data in providing evidence of outcome benefit in rare diseases. Here we explore the impact of the EMA reflection paper on PBC therapy and offer pragmatic solutions for generating evidence of long-term outcomes through real-world data collection.

Critical shortfalls in the management of PBC: Results of a UK-wide, population-based evaluation of care delivery.

Background & Aims: Guidelines for the management of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) were published by the British Society of Gastroenterology in 2018. In this study, we assessed adherence to these guidelines in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Methods: All NHS acute trusts were invited to contribute data between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2022, assessing clinical care delivered to patients with PBC in the UK. Results: We obtained data for 8,968 patients with PBC and identified substantial gaps in care across all guideline domains. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) was used as first-line treatment in 88% of patients (n = 7,864) but was under-dosed in one-third (n = 1,964). Twenty percent of patients who were UDCA-untreated (202/998) and 50% of patients with inadequate UDCA response (1,074/2,102) received second-line treatment. More than one-third of patients were not assessed for fatigue (43%; n = 3,885) or pruritus (38%; n = 3,415) in the previous 2 years. Fifty percent of all patients with evidence of hepatic decompensation were discussed with a liver transplant centre (222/443). Appropriate use of second-line treatment and referral for liver transplantation was significantly better in specialist PBC treatment centres compared with non-specialist centres (p <0.001). Conclusions: Poor adherence to guidelines exists across all domains of PBC care in the NHS. Although specialist PBC treatment centres had greater adherence to guidelines, no single centre met all quality standards. Nationwide improvement in the delivery of PBC-related healthcare is required. Impact and implications: This population-based evaluation of primary biliary cholangitis, spanning four nations of the UK, highlights critical shortfalls in care delivery when measured across all guideline domains. These include the use of liver biopsy in diagnosis; referral practice for second-line treatment and/or liver transplant assessment; and the evaluation of symptoms, extrahepatic manifestations, and complications of cirrhosis. The authors therefore propose implementation of a dedicated primary biliary cholangitis care bundle that aims to minimise heterogeneity in clinical practice and maximise adherence to key guideline standards.