Data-Driven Decision-Making in Primary Biliary Cholangitis: Evaluating the Expanding Evidence Base for PPAR Agonists
PeerVoice
9 views
55 slides
Oct 31, 2025
Slide 1 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
About This Presentation
Stuart C. Gordon, MD and Marco Carbone, MD, PhD discuss primary biliary cholangitis in this CME activity titled "Data-Driven Decision-Making in Primary Biliary Cholangitis: Evaluating the Expanding Evidence Base for PPAR Agonists." For the full presentation, please visit us at www.peervoic...
Stuart C. Gordon, MD and Marco Carbone, MD, PhD discuss primary biliary cholangitis in this CME activity titled "Data-Driven Decision-Making in Primary Biliary Cholangitis: Evaluating the Expanding Evidence Base for PPAR Agonists." For the full presentation, please visit us at www.peervoice.com/AEX870.
Size: 4.54 MB
Language: en
Added: Oct 31, 2025
Slides: 55 pages
Slide Content
PeerVoice
Data-Driven Decision-Making in Primary Biliary Cholangitis:
Evaluating the Expanding Evidence Base for PPAR Agonists
Learning Objectives
Describe key efficacy and safety outcomes observed with use of PPAR agonists
in specific subgroups of people with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), including
those with previous exposure to fibrates or obeticholic acid and those with
compensated cirrhosis
Evaluate rates of biochemical response and alkaline phosphatase normalisation
observed with novel PPAR agonists in individuals with PBC
Assess the impact of novel PPAR agonists on pruritus and quality-of-life
measures in individuals with PBC
PeerVoice is an EBAC® accredited provider since 2022.
This program has been supported by an independent educational grant from Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Eutbrance Placa
es en Pr Mea Pt
« 1, Eliane ac
*s E oe The LS mean change did not
Edo En differ significantly between
¿o se groups (-1.93 vs -1.15
2% ES difference, -0.78
o a 95% Cl, -1.99 to 0.42; P = .20)
“mm Ye 0 4 8 @ 6 20 24 26 82 36 40 da 48 82
Time, wi Time, wk
ALP Normalisation Most Frequent AEs With Elafibranor vs Placebo
brane Placebo
35 . Event, Placebo
: % of patients 3)
5
y Abdominal pain m 56
go
¿ Diarrhoea m 94
s
= Nausea m 56
o
4 76 26 ss Vomiting mi 18
Time, wk Pruritus 20.4 26.4
Screening Double-Blind (DB) Long-Term Extension
Patients with PBC Elafibranor 80 mg (n = 108)
with inadequate
response or —— Elafibranor 80 mg
intoleranceto R21|
UDCA (N = 161) Placebo (n = 53)
‘Common DB Variable DB
2-12wk 52 wk 0-52 wk 4-5y
Safety phone calls/ i Safety phone calls/
Study visits study visita
terrae aternate
every 26 wk every 26 w
jetta ey! q q e t 4
>
SRA A ge A at
RESPONSE Study: Outcomes With Seladelpar vs Placebo
Rates of Biochemical ALP Patients With BL Pruritus NRS Score 24
Response Normalisation =
wo o
23 P<.001 P<.001
ss] — — Los
ar e +
x» 8 16 15
$ so aly 5 at —
E E = 26
E
& 3-3 33
Placebo Seledeiper Placebo Selber
(3/68) sas) (ores) (228) Time, mo
Most Frequent AEs With Seladelpar vs PBO Seladelpar, n = 49
* 180 patients from legacy studies; 104 patients from RESPONSE seladelpar group (continuous seladelpar):
55 patients from RESPONSE PBO group (crossover seladelpar).
FOLD Cohort: Characteristics and Clinical Status of Patients With PBC
Abbreviation(s): AA: African American; ASINPI: Asian American, American Indian, or Pacific Islander; PBC: primary biliary
cholangitis.
Reference(s): Lu M; FOLD Investigators. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;161333-1341.e6.
ELATIVE and RESPONSE Studies: Baseline Demographics
Reference(s): Hirschfield GM; RESPONSE Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2024;390:783-794.
Kowdley KV; ELATIVE Study Investigators’ Group. N Engl J Med. 2024;390:795-805.
Part 3 of 7: Appreciating the Primary Outcomes:
Can We Reach Biochemical Response?
NE
Stuart C. Gordon, MD Marco Carbone, MD, PhD
Professor of Medicine Professor of Gastroenterology
Wayne State University School of Medicine University of Milano-Bicocca
Michigan State College of Medicine Milano, Italy
RESPONSE Study: Primary Endpoint in Patient Subgroups
Subgroup, Placebo Seladelpa
Age at serooning «85 y 53 99 re
‘Age at scrooning 265 y ” 29 .
‘Ago at diagnosis «SO y 32 al +
Age at diagnosis 250 y 33 67 .
Female so 123 *
Malo 5 5 2
white 56 na =
North America 13 50
Europe 24 39
Rest of world 28 39
ALP <350 U/L at boselino a 93 :
ALP 2350 U/L at baselne 18 35 +
T8 «O8 xUuN 32 59 >
78206 XULN 33 69 >
T8 x UN 60 108 :
TS >1KUN 5 20 q
Cirrosis, yes 2 a +
Girhosis no se 10 >
Pruritis NRS «4 42 7m
Pruritis NAS 24 23 49
UDCA, yes. si no =
Prior OCA andor fibrates, yes 1 20 a
Prior OCA andor fibrates, no 52 108 >
720 | sandr omg.
Ak Deena (95%)
Risk difference = % difference in response (change from baseline).
Reference(s): Kowdley KV; ELATIVE Study Investigators’ Group. N Engl J Med. 2024;390:795-805.
RESPONSE Study: Primary Endpoint in Patient Subgroups
Reference(s): Hirschfield GM; RESPONSE Study Group. N Engl J Med, 2024:390:783-794.
RESPONSE Study: Change From Baseline in ALP
Abbreviation(s): BL: baseline; LS: least squares; SE: standard error.
Reference(s): Villamil A et al. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) 2024. Presentation 164.
Part 5 of 7: Looking Beyond Biochemical Markers:
Can We P e Control of Pruritus?
As
Stuart C. Gordon, MD Marco Carbone, MD, PhD
Professor of Medicine Professor of Gastroenterology
Wayne State University School of Medicine University of Milano-Bicocca
Michigan State College of Medicine Milano, Italy
Change in 5-D Itch Scale Total Domain Scores Through Week 52 in
Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Pruritus
Proportions of patients with overall improvement or worsening through Week 52
History of pruritus, % 738 nu
pe om soo 2028
Pruritus NRS 24, % 354 383
Pruritus NRS 24, lu en
mean + SD
www.peervoice.com/AEX870
Time, mo
Seladelpar resulted in a greater reduction in score on
the pruritus numerical rating scale than placebo
(least-squares mean change from baseline, -3.2 vs
-17; least-squares mean difference, -1.5;
95% Cl, -2.5 to -0.5, P = .005)
ELATIVE OLE Study: Impact of Elafibranor on Fatigue
From Baseline to Week 104
From Baseline to Week 130
uw x 100
El 3
3 80 3 80 ze
& €
E 60 2 58
i 5 co so
E 8
zw Ê 40
5 2 3 20
& 5
2° so =
PESETA PBC-40 Fatigue = PFSF 7e PBC-40 Fatigue ESS
(n= 18) [Ren eo (n=9) Pass (n=8)
Patients with fatigue/ =
sleepiness at BL n/N 18/48 (38%) 24148 (50%) 16145 (53%) 9/26 (35%) 12/26 (46%) 8/26 (31%)
Patients included are those with non-missing data at baseline and week 104 and week 130. MCIDs defined as an improvement (decrease)
from BL 23, 25, and 23 for the PFSF 7a; PBC-40 Fatigue domain; and ESS, respectively. Moderate-to-severe fatigue defined as PFSF 7a
total score 260 or PBC-40 Fatigue domain total score 229 at BL, and excessive sleepiness defined as ESS total score 210 at BL.
PBC-Specific Tools for Measuring Health-Related QoL
Abbreviation(s): PBC: primary biliary cholangitis; QoL: quality of life.
Reference(s): Ai X et al. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2022:57:333-339.
Alrubaiy L; UK-PBC Research Consortium. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019;50:1223-1231.
Elman S et al. Br J Dermatol. 2010;162:587-593.
Jacoby A et al. Gut, 2005:54:1622-1629.
Montali L; Italian-Japanese PBC Study Group. Dig Liver Dis. 2010;42:718-723.
Schattenberg J et al. J Hepatol. 2023;78:5995
ELATIVE OLE Study: Impact of Elafibranor on Fatigue
Abbreviation(s): BL: baseline; ESS: Epworth Sleepiness Scale; MCID: minimum clinically important difference; OLE: open-
label extension; PFSF: patient-specific functional scale.
Reference(s): Swain MG et al. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) 2024. Abstract 5042.
ELATIVE Study: Impact of Elafibranor on Fatigue and Pruritus
Abbreviation(s): ELA: elafibranor; NRS: numerical rating scale; PBO: placebo; WI: worst itch.
Reference(s): Jones DE et al. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) 2025. Poster THU-294.
RESPONSE Study: Quality-of-Life Measures in Patients With Pruritus
Abbreviation(s): LS: least squares; SE: standard error.
Reference(s): Kremer A et al. AASLD 2024. Abstract 0167.
Part 7 of 7: Targeting Transplant-Free Survival:
Can We Improve Predicted Prognosis?
hy
Stuart C. Gordon, MD Marco Carbone, MD, PhD
Professor of Medicine Professor of Gastroenterology
Wayne State University School of Medicine University of Milano-Bicocca
Michigan State College of Medicine Milano, Italy