Liver and Bile

N Engl J Med. 2024;390(9):795–805

Kowdley KV, Bowlus CL, Levy C, Akarca US, Alvares-da-Silva MR, Andreone P, Arrese M, Corpechot C, Francque SM, Heneghan MA, Invernizzi P, Jones D, Kruger FC, Lawitz E, Mayo MJ, Shiffman ML, Swain MG, Valera JM, Vargas V, Vierling JM, Villamil A, Addy C, Dietrich J, Germain JM, Mazain S, Rafailovic D, Taddé B, Miller B, Shu J, Zein CO, Schattenberg JM; ELATIVE Study Investigators’ Group

Efficacy and safety of elafibranor in primary biliary cholangitis


Background: Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) 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 α and δ agonist, may have benefit as a treatment for PBC is unknown.
Methods: In this multinational, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the authors randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients with PBC 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 [ALP] 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 ALP 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 (55/108) who received elafibranor and in 4% (2/53) who received placebo, for a difference of 47 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32–57; p < 0.001). The ALP 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: 6–23; 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: -1.99–0.42; 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.

K.V. Kowdley, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Liver Institute Northwest, Seattle, WA, USA, E-Mail: kkowdley@liverinstitutenw.org

DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa2306185

Back to overview

this could be of interest:

Lack of complete biochemical response in autoimmune hepatitis leads to adverse outcome: First report of the IAIHG retrospective registry

Hepatology. 2024;79(3):538–50

A phase 3, randomized, controlled trial of resmetirom in NASH with liver fibrosis

N Engl J Med. 2024;390(6):497–509

More articles on the topic