Investigational agents for polymyalgia rheumatica treatment: assessing the critical needs for future development.

INTRODUCTION: Polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) is an inflammatory rheumatic disorder characterized by pain and stiffness in the shoulder and pelvic girdles, constitutional symptoms, and elevated acute-phase reactants. Glucocorticoids (GCs) remain the first-choice treatment for PMR, but relapses are common. Identification of steroid-sparing agents is therefore of utmost importance. AREAS COVERED: The efficacy of conventional immunosuppressive drugs is controversial. The use of interleukin (IL)-6 receptor inhibitors proved to be effective and safe in treating PMR patients. Currently, there are 12 ongoing clinical trials exploring potential treatments such as leflunomide, low-dose IL-2, rituximab, abatacept, secukinumab, Janus kinase inhibitors, and selective inhibitors like SPI-62 and ABBV 154. EXPERT OPINION: The high efficacy of IL-6 R receptor inhibitors as well as the numerous drug trials currently recruiting suggest that several therapeutic options will be available in the near future. Accurate diagnosis and early stratification of PMR patients according to the giant cell arteritis-PMR Spectrum Disease 'GPSD' and potential risk factors for relapsing disease or GC-related adverse events are crucial to identify patients who would benefit most from GC-sparing agents. The development of internationally accepted definitions for remission and relapse is urgently needed. Early referral strategies to specialist settings would improve disease stratification and personalized treatment.

The estimation and translation uncertainties in applying NOAEL to clinical dose escalation.

The systemic exposure at the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) estimated from animals is an important criterion commonly applied to guard the safety of participants in clinical trials of investigational drugs. However, the discrepancy in toxicity profile between species is widely recognized. The objective of the work reported here was to assess, via simulation, the level of uncertainty in the NOAEL estimated from an animal species and the effectiveness of applying its associated exposure value to minimizing the toxicity risk to human. Simulations were conducted for dose escalation of an investigational new chemical entity with hypothetical exposure-response models for the dose-limiting toxicity under a variety of conditions, in terms of between-species relative sensitivity to the toxicity and the between-subject variability in the key parameters determining the sensitivity and pharmacokinetics. Results show a high uncertainty in the NOAEL estimation. Notably, even when the animal species and humans are assumed to have the same sensitivity, which may not be realistic, limiting clinical dose to the exposure at the NOAEL that has been identified in the animals carries a high risk of either causing toxicity or under-dosing, hence undermining the therapeutic potential of the drug candidate. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the mechanism of the toxicity profile and its cross-species translatability, as well as the importance of understanding the dose requirement for achieving adequate pharmacology.

Investigational bispecific antibodies for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disorder with a characteristic chronic inflammation of the synovium that may lead to the destruction of the joints in untreated patients. Interestingly, despite the availability of several effective treatments, many patients do not achieve remission or low disease activity or may experience disease relapse.Following the above unmet needs, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) have emerged as a new approach to improve the disease's treatment. BsAbs are designed to simultaneously target two different proteins involved in RA pathogenesis, leading to enhanced efficacy and reduced side effects compared to traditional monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). AREAS COVERED: In this review, we discuss the development of BsAbs for RA treatment, including their mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety profile. We also deal with the challenges and future directions in this field. EXPERT OPINION: BsAbs show promise in preclinical and clinical evaluations for treating RA. Further research is needed to optimize design and dosage and identify ideal patient groups. BsAbs can benefit disease management and improve outcomes of RA patients.

The state of the art in secondary pharmacology and its impact on the safety of new medicines.

Secondary pharmacology screening of investigational small-molecule drugs for potentially adverse off-target activities has become standard practice in pharmaceutical research and development, and regulatory agencies are increasingly requesting data on activity against targets with recognized adverse effect relationships. However, the screening strategies and target panels used by pharmaceutical companies may vary substantially. To help identify commonalities and differences, as well as to highlight opportunities for further optimization of secondary pharmacology assessment, we conducted a broad-ranging survey across 18 companies under the auspices of the DruSafe leadership group of the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development. Based on our analysis of this survey and discussions and additional research within the group, we present here an overview of the current state of the art in secondary pharmacology screening. We discuss best practices, including additional safety-associated targets not covered by most current screening panels, and present approaches for interpreting and reporting off-target activities. We also provide an assessment of the safety impact of secondary pharmacology screening, and a perspective on opportunities and challenges in this rapidly developing field.

Novel investigational drugs for alopecia areata and future perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Alopecia areata (AA) is an immune-mediated disease that causes non-scarring hair loss. While acute, solitary patches often spontaneously remit, developing secondary patches or failure of the disease to resolve within 6-12 months predicts a poor prognosis, with an increased risk of alopecia totalis or universalis. Chronic AA increases the risk of depression and suicidality and reduces quality of life. Treatment options for chronic or acute diffuse AA were previously limited to corticosteroids and traditional immunomodulators. Two Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors are now approved for the treatment of chronic AA. AREAS COVERED: The results of landmark phase 3 trials for three JAK inhibitors, baricitinib, ritlecitinib, and deuruxolitinib are discussed. Evidence for other JAK inhibitors, biologics, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors are also presented. Therapies currently undergoing clinical trials are listed. EXPERT OPINION: JAK inhibitors are a safe and efficacious treatment of moderate-to-severe AA. Early intervention, regardless of severity, allows for improved treatment efficacy. It is uncertain how long patients should remain on JAK inhibitors; discontinuation often leads to relapse. A black-box warning for JAK inhibitors was extrapolated from safety data in a rheumatoid arthritis cohort; recent meta-analyses of JAK inhibitors used in dermatology cohorts do not demonstrate the same risk profile.

The Benefits and Risks of Receiving Investigational Solid Tumor Drugs in Randomized Trials : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients participate in cancer trials to access new therapies. The extent to which new treatments produce clinical benefit for trial participants is unclear. PURPOSE: To estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) advantage of assignment to experimental groups in randomized trials for 6 solid tumors. DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for trials of investigational drugs with results posted between 2017 and 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Investigational drugs were defined as those not yet having full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the study indication. Trials were included if they were randomized and tested drugs or biologics. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was completed by 2 independent reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: The sample included 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of a new drug and a comparator. These comparisons included 47 050 patients. The pooled hazard ratio for PFS was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85), indicating statistically significant benefit for patients in experimental groups. This corresponded to a median PFS advantage of 1.25 months (CI, 0.80 to 1.68 months). The pooled hazard ratio for OS was 0.92 (CI, 0.88 to 0.95), corresponding to a survival gain of 1.18 months (CI, 0.72 to 1.71 months). The absolute risk for a serious adverse event for comparator group patients was 29.56% (CI, 26.64% to 32.65%), with an increase in risk of 7.40% (CI, 5.66% to 9.14%) for patients in experimental groups. LIMITATIONS: Trials in this sample were heterogeneous. Comparator group interventions were assumed to reflect standard of care. CONCLUSION: Assignment to experimental groups produces statistically significant survival gains. However, the absolute survival gain is small, and toxicity is statistically significantly greater. The findings of this review provide reassuring evidence that patients are not meaningfully disadvantaged by assignment to comparator groups. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Investigational drugs for the treatment of dysmenorrhea.

INTRODUCTION: Dysmenorrhea is the most common cause of gynecological pain among women that has considerable impact on quality of life and psychosocial wellbeing. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and hormonal therapies are most commonly used to treat dysmenorrhea. However, given these drugs are often associated with bothersome side effects and are less effective when there is an underlying cause contributing to dysmenorrhea (e.g. endometriosis), a patient-centered approach to managing dysmenorrhea is important. Various new drugs are currently being investigated for the treatment of primary and secondary dysmenorrhea. AREAS COVERED: This review provides an updated overview on new therapeutic targets and investigational drugs for the treatment of primary and secondary dysmenorrhea. The authors describe the clinical development and implications of these drugs. EXPERT OPINION: Among the investigative drugs discussed in this review, anti-inflammatories show the most promising results for the treatment of dysmenorrhea. However, given some trials have considerable methodological limitations, many drugs cannot be currently recommended. Research focused on understanding the mechanisms involved in menstruation and its associated symptoms will be important to identify new therapeutic targets for dysmenorrhea. Further robust clinical trials are required to better understand the efficacy and safety of investigational drugs for treating primary and secondary dysmenorrhea.

Aggregate IND Safety Reporting for Smaller Companies and Programs.

The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational New Drug (IND) Final Rule (US FDA, Final rule: Investigational new drug safety reporting requirements for human drug and biological products and safety reporting requirements for bioavailability and bioequivalence studies in humans, 2010) applies to all human drugs and biological products being studied under an IND. The Final Rule specifies that a sponsor must file an IND safety report for any Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR) of a medicinal product being investigated. To make a proper SUSAR classification, sponsors need to go beyond conventional Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) with an interdisciplinary effort, using all relevant data (including data outside clinical trials), to make judgments on the possibility of serious adverse events being caused by the study drug-rather than the underlying condition of the patient or a concomitant therapy. Ball et al. (Ball et al. in Ther Innov Regul Sci 55:705-716, 2021) have reported on how the Final Rule has been implemented by large pharmaceutical companies. This paper explores the experiences of small sponsor companies regarding the Final Rule, to understand the current challenges that they have been facing to meet aggregate IND safety reporting requirements.

The Importance of Assessing Drug Exposure and Medication Adherence in Evaluating Investigational Medications: Ensuring Validity and Reliability of Clinical Trial Results.

The objective of this current opinion paper is to draw global attention to medication adherence, emphasizing its crucial role in drug trials. Frequently, trialists lean on traditional approaches to assess medication adherence, which, while comfortable, may only reveal what trialists desire rather than offering the essential insights needed for informed decision making in drug development. Understanding drug exposure and medication adherence is paramount when evaluating the effectiveness and safety of investigational medications. Without a comprehensive understanding of how patients adhere to their prescribed treatment regimens, the integrity and dependability of clinical trial results can be compromised. This paper emphasizes the need for measures that accurately and reliably assess medication intake behaviors, enabling the differentiation between minor dosing errors and significant deviations that may impact the drug's efficacy and safety. Accurate knowledge of drug exposure empowers researchers to make informed decisions, identify potential confounding factors, and appropriately interpret study outcomes, ultimately ensuring the validity and reliability of the research findings. By prioritizing drug exposure assessment and medication adherence measurement, clinical trials can enhance their scientific rigor, contribute to more accurate evaluations of investigational medications, and ultimately speed up the development process.

Use of suboptimal control arms in randomized clinical trials of investigational cancer drugs in China, 2016-2021: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: The use of suboptimal controls in randomized trials of new cancer drugs can produce potentially unreliable clinical efficacy results over the current standard of care and expose patients to substandard therapy. We aim to investigate the proportion of randomized trials of investigational cancer drugs that used a suboptimal control arm and the number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments in China. The association between the use of a suboptimal control and concluding statistical significance on the primary endpoint was also examined. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This observational study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer drugs that were authorized by specific Chinese institutional review boards between 2016 and 2021, supporting investigational new drug applications of these drugs in China. The proportion of trials that used a suboptimal control arm and the total number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments were calculated. In a randomized trial for a specific condition, a comparator was deemed suboptimal if it was not recommended by clinical guidelines published in priori or if there existed a regimen with a higher level of recommendation for the indication. The final sample included 453 Phase II/III and Phase III randomized oncology trials. Overall, 60 trials (13.2%) adopted a suboptimal control arm. Among them, 58.3% (35/60) used comparators that were not recommended by a prior guideline for the indication. The cumulative number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments totaled 18,610 by the end of 2021, contributing 15.1% to the total number of enrollees of all sampled RCTs in this study. After adjusting for the year of ethical approval, region of participant recruitment, line of therapy, and cancer site, second-line therapies (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.7, 95%CI [1.2, 5.9]), adjuvant therapies (aOR = 8.9, 95% CI [3.4, 23.1]), maintenance therapies (aOR = 5.2, 95% CI [1.6, 17.0]), and trials recruiting participants in China only (aOR = 4.1, 95% CI [2.1, 8.0]) were more likely to adopt a suboptimal control. For the 105 trials with publicly available results, no statistically significant difference was observed between the use of a suboptimal control and concluding positive on the primary endpoint (100.0% [12/12] versus 83.9% [78/93], p = 0.208). The main limitation of this study is its reliance on clinical guidelines that could vary across cancer types and time in assessing the quality of the control groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, over one-eighth of randomized trials of cancer drugs registered to apply for regulatory approval in China used a suboptimal comparator. Our results highlight the necessity to refine the design of randomized trials to generate optimal clinical evidence for new cancer therapies.

Efficacy and safety of compassionate use for rare diseases: a scoping review from 1991 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: Compassionate use is a system that provides patients with expedited access to drugs which has not yet been approved, but currently in clinical trials. The investigational drugs have been authorized for compassionate use in cases involving patients suffered from life-threatening diseases and with no alternative treatments. For instance, patients afflicted with highly heterogeneous rare diseases are eligible for treatment assistance through the compassionate use program. This study aims to investigate the characteristics of compassionate use in the context of rare diseases, evaluate the efficacy and safety of compassionate use for rare diseases, and analyze the marketing approval of investigational drugs. METHODS: The case reports/case series of compassionate use were collected by conducting searches on Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI and SinoMed, spanning from January 1991 to December 2022. Subsequently, two independent reviewers evaluated these reports. Case reports/case series that met the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria were enrolled. Information extracted from these reports and series included patients' basic information, the investigational drug's name, its indication, adverse events, treatment outcomes, and other relevant data. RESULTS: A total of forty-six studies were included, encompassing 2079 patients with an average age of 38.1 years. Thirty-nine different drugs were involved in 46 studies. Furthermore, neoplasms emerged as the most common therapeutic area for compassionate use in rare disease management (23/46, 50.0%). Regarding the treatment efficacy, four studies reported successful disease resolution, while 35 studies observed symptom improvement among patients. Conversely, four studies documented no significant effects on patients' diseases. Moreover, one study reported worsened results following compassionate use, while the efficacy was not described in 2 studies. Adverse events were reported in 31 studies (67.4%) because of the compassionate use, while no adverse events occurred in 13 studies (28.3%). In other 2 studies, there was no description about whether treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were happened. 136 patients (6.5%) had Grade 5 adverse events (death), of which 19 deaths (0.9%) were considered to be related to compassionate use. Furthermore, the investigational drugs in 33 studies (33/46, 71.7%) received new drug approval at the end of January 31, 2023.The time lag from the start of the compassionate use to the formal approval of the investigational drug was 790.5 (IQR 359-2199.3) days. We found that in 11 studies, encompassing 9 different drugs, some compassionate use indications had not received regulatory authorities at the end of January 31, 2023. CONCLUSION: The current status of compassionate use for rare diseases was clarified systematically in this study. Compassionate use of investigational drug is a significant treatment option for rare disease. In general, compassionate use appears to demonstrate favorable efficacy in the context of rare diseases, with a significant proportion of compassionate use drugs subsequently receiving marketing approval. However, the safety of drugs for compassionate use cannot be fully evaluated due to the safety data were not covered in some enrolled studies. Therefore, the establishment of an adverse event reporting system specific to compassionate use is warranted.

Investigational drugs inhibiting complement for the treatment of geographic atrophy.

INTRODUCTION: Geographic atrophy (GA) is a progressive form of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) that leads to severe visual impairment and central vision loss. Traditional treatment options for GA are limited, highlighting the need for new therapeutic approaches. In recent years, targeting the complement system has emerged as a promising strategy for the treatment of GA. AREAS COVERED: This expert opinion article reviews the investigational drugs inhibiting the complement cascade for the treatment of GA. Specifically, it focuses on the recent FDA approved pegcetacoplan, a C3 complement inhibitor, and avacincaptad pegol, a C5 complement inhibitor, highlighting their potential efficacy and safety profiles based on clinical trial data. EXPERT OPINION: FDA approval of intravitreal pegcetacoplan and avacincaptad pegol marks significant progress in the landscape of GA treatment. However, variable results from trials underscore the complex nature of GA and the importance of patient selection. Complement inhibition holds promise, but ongoing research is vital to refine treatment strategies and offer improved outcomes for GA patients.

The ARTS (Avoiding Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in Surgery) Trial: Lessons Learnt in Setting Up an International Multicentre Clinical Trial of an Investigational Medicinal Product in the UK.

We describe our experience in setting up the UK arm of the ARTS trial and highlight regulatory and funding challenges in relation to an international multicentre setting for an investigational medicinal product.

The holistic approach to psoriasis patients with comorbidities: the role of investigational drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriasis is a high-burden syndrome characterized by cutaneous and extracutaneous manifestations that profoundly reduce patients' quality of life. The presence of concomitant comorbidities often represents a limit to the most appropriate psoriasis treatment that will be overcome by the development of drugs effective for diseases with common pathogenetic pathways. AREAS COVERED: The current review summarizes the latest findings on investigational drugs for psoriasis and their role on potentially concomitant diseases that share similar pathogenetic pathways. EXPERT OPINION: The development of novel drugs that target key-molecules in the pathogenesis of several diseases, including psoriasis, will impact on the reduction of polypharmacy and drug interaction with increased patients' compliance to treatment, wellbeing, and quality of life. Certainly, the efficacy and safety profile of each novel agent must be defined and evaluated in real-life since the performance may vary according to comorbidities and their severity. Anyway, future is now, and research must continue in this direction.

Investigational new drugs for the treatment of Dravet syndrome: an update.

INTRODUCTION: While there are already approved anticonvulsants for treatment of children with Dravet syndrome, disease modifying therapy is at its beginning. AREAS COVERED: This narrative review is updating the latest information about efficacy and safety of both anticonvulsant and disease modifying investigational drugs for Dravet syndrome. Relevant publications were searched for in MEDLINE, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, SCINDEKS, and CLINICALTRIALS.GOV databases, from the dates of their foundation till January 2023. EXPERT OPINION: The main advancements were made in the treatment of Dravet syndrome with confirmed haploinsufficiency of SCN1A gene. The application of antisense oligonucleotides has so far proven to be the most successful within disease-modifying therapy, but it also requires further refinement of the methodology of application and delivery to target cells, as well as additional testing of the effectiveness of antisense oligonucleotides outside of TANGO technology. Also, the full potential of gene therapy has yet to be explored, given that high capacity adenoviral vectors that can incorporate the SCN1A gene have recently been prepared.

Improving the in Vivo QTc assay: The value of implementing best practices to support an integrated nonclinical-clinical QTc risk assessment and TQT substitute.

Recent updates and modifications to the clinical ICH E14 and nonclinical ICH S7B guidelines, which both relate to the evaluation of drug-induced delayed repolarization risk, provide an opportunity for nonclinical in vivo electrocardiographic (ECG) data to directly influence clinical strategies, interpretation, regulatory decision-making and product labeling. This opportunity can be leveraged with more robust nonclinical in vivo QTc datasets based upon consensus standardized protocols and experimental best practices that reduce variability and optimize QTc signal detection, i.e., demonstrate assay sensitivity. The immediate opportunity for such nonclinical studies is when adequate clinical exposures (e.g., supratherapeutic) cannot be safely achieved, or other factors limit the robustness of the clinical QTc evaluation, e.g., the ICH E14 Q5.1 and Q6.1 scenarios. This position paper discusses the regulatory historical evolution and processes leading to this opportunity and details the expectations of future nonclinical in vivo QTc studies of new drug candidates. The conduct of in vivo QTc assays that are consistently designed, executed and analyzed will lead to confident interpretation, and increase their value for clinical QTc risk assessment. Lastly, this paper provides the rationale and basis for our companion article which describes technical details on in vivo QTc best practices and recommendations to achieve the goals of the new ICH E14/S7B Q&As, see Rossman et al., 2023 (this journal).

Toxicologic Pathology Forum: Opinion on Approaches for Reporting Toxic and Adverse Dose Levels in Nonclinical Toxicology Studies Supporting the Development of Anticancer Pharmaceuticals.

The advancement of an investigational new drug in humans is a significant developmental milestone. In first-in-human (FIH)-enabling toxicology studies, the highest dose without a test article-related adverse effect (no-observed-adverse-effect-level [NOAEL]) serves as the basis for deriving a safe FIH starting dose. For anticancer pharmaceuticals, the FIH dose may be calculated using the highest non-severely toxic dose (HNSTD) in nonrodent models or the dose severely toxic to 10% (STD10) in rodents. Given the practice of reporting the NOAEL, but the lack of regulatory requirements to do so for anticancer pharmaceuticals, we conducted an informal survey of 20 companies to answer the question "How is our industry reporting toxic/adverse dose levels in FIH-enabling toxicology studies for anticancer indications?" The data indicated 4 reporting approaches, each providing a path to regulatory acceptance. Within the integrated toxicology study report, 45% of respondents report the HNSTD/STD10, 25% report the NOAEL, 20% report both the HNSTD/STD10 and NOAEL, and 10% do not define either, reserving definitions for regulatory submissions. One reporting approach may be preferred over another for reasons including consistency across indications, repurposing pharmaceuticals, regulatory feedback, or simplicity. The reporting approach should be defined in advance of study initiation, and the pathologist should provide context to support the chosen approach.

Ocular toxicity of investigational anti-cancer drugs in early phase clinical trials.

Ocular toxicities arising from anti-cancer drugs occur sporadically and are sometimes underestimated because they are not life-threatening. Reports focusing on ocular toxicities from cancer therapy are limited. We investigated the detailed progress of ocular toxicities of anti-cancer drugs including first-in-class ones. A retrospective review of medical records was conducted for patients who were involved in early phase clinical trials with scheduled ophthalmologic examinations according to their protocols between January 2014 and August 2021. Patients with ocular toxicity suspected to be related to the investigational drugs in the ophthalmic examination were investigated in detail. In total, 37 ocular toxicities related to investigational drugs occurred in 7.6% of patients (33/434). The median age of the 33 patients was 61 years (range, 33-76 years), and 20 were male. Causal drugs with a high incidence of ocular toxicities were HSP90 inhibitors and FGFR inhibitors. Retinopathy was most frequent, while conjunctivitis, dry eye, keratitis, keratopathy, and uveitis were also observed. Dim vision as a subjective finding was a unique adverse event. Most patients developed ocular toxicities even though their dose was below the drug's maximum tolerated dose. Except for one case, all ocular toxicities occurred bilaterally. About 60% (22/37) of ocular toxicity cases needed a temporary hold of the drug. All except for three cases fully recovered. This study reported the risks and timing of the onset of a variety of ocular toxicities of anti-cancer drugs, which were fundamentally controllable. (Trial registration number. Retrospectively registered).

Seladelpar: an investigational drug for the treatment of early-stage primary biliary cholangitis (PBC).

INTRODUCTION: Generic fibrates are used off-label as add-in therapy for the management of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) but with unproven long-term liver-related survival benefits. The recently developed fibrate, seladelpar, has shown promising results in clinical trials, but these outcomes have been previously marred by safety concerns. AREAS COVERED: We summarize existing treatment options in PBC and evaluate current trial data for seladelpar in relation to liver biochemistry, symptomology, and safety. EXPERT OPINION: Seladelpar leads to marked improvement in liver biochemistry and may improve symptoms. Safety concerns around liver toxicity appear to have been addressed. With likely increasing evidence compared to existing off-label fibrates, seladelpar has the potential as an attractive future second-line agent in PBC.