Efficacy and Safety of Elafibranor in Primary Biliary Cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: Primary biliary cholangitis is a rare, chronic cholestatic liver disease characterized by the destruction of interlobular bile ducts, leading to cholestasis and liver fibrosis. Whether elafibranor, an oral, dual peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) α and δ agonist, may have benefit as a treatment for primary biliary cholangitis is unknown. METHODS: In this multinational, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients with primary biliary cholangitis who had had an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects with ursodeoxycholic acid to receive once-daily elafibranor, at a dose of 80 mg, or placebo. The primary end point was a biochemical response (defined as an alkaline phosphatase level of <1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a reduction of ≥15% from baseline, and normal total bilirubin levels) at week 52. Key secondary end points were normalization of the alkaline phosphatase level at week 52 and a change in pruritus intensity from baseline through week 52 and through week 24, as measured on the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS; scores range from 0 [no itch] to 10 [worst itch imaginable]). RESULTS: A total of 161 patients underwent randomization. A biochemical response (the primary end point) was observed in 51% of the patients (55 of 108) who received elafibranor and in 4% (2 of 53) who received placebo, for a difference of 47 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 32 to 57; P<0.001). The alkaline phosphatase level normalized in 15% of the patients in the elafibranor group and in none of the patients in the placebo group at week 52 (difference, 15 percentage points; 95% CI, 6 to 23; P = 0.002). Among patients who had moderate-to-severe pruritus (44 patients in the elafibranor group and 22 in the placebo group), the least-squares mean change from baseline through week 52 on the WI-NRS did not differ significantly between the groups (-1.93 vs. -1.15; difference, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.99 to 0.42; P = 0.20). Adverse events that occurred more frequently with elafibranor than with placebo included abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with elafibranor resulted in significantly greater improvements in relevant biochemical indicators of cholestasis than placebo. (Funded by GENFIT and Ipsen; ELATIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04526665.).

Composite prognostic models across the non-alcoholic fatty liver disease spectrum: Clinical application in developing countries.

Heterogeneity in clinical presentation, histological severity, prognosis and therapeutic outcomes characteristic of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) necessitates the development of scientifically sound classification schemes to assist clinicians in stratifying patients into meaningful prognostic subgroups. The need for replacement of invasive liver biopsies as the standard method whereby NAFLD is diagnosed, graded and staged with biomarkers of histological severity injury led to the development of composite prognostic models as potentially viable surrogate alternatives. In the present article, we review existing scoring systems used to (1) confirm the presence of undiagnosed hepatosteatosis; (2) distinguish between simple steatosis and NASH; and (3) predict advanced hepatic fibrosis, with particular emphasis on the role of NAFLD as an independent cardio-metabolic risk factor. In addition, the incorporation of functional genomic markers and application of emerging imaging technologies are discussed as a means to improve the diagnostic accuracy and predictive performance of promising composite models found to be most appropriate for widespread clinical adoption.