PofoliaShared via Pofolia

The American Journal of Gastroenterology· 2024Q1

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

Kris V. Kowdley, Gideon M. Hirschfield, Charles Coombs, Elizabeth Smoot Malecha et al.

Short summary

In a confirmatory trial for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), obeticholic acid (OCA) did not show a significant benefit versus placebo in an intent-to-treat analysis (HR 1.01), but did show a significant benefit when compared to an external, real-world control group (HR 0.39).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Obeticholic acid (OCA) did not meet its primary endpoint versus placebo in the intent-to-treat analysis of the COBALT trial (HR 1.01).
  • Functional unblinding and crossover in the placebo arm confounded the randomized controlled trial (RCT) results.
  • When compared to a real-world external control group (n=1,051), OCA significantly reduced the risk of major adverse clinical outcomes by 61% (HR 0.39).
  • No new safety signals were identified for OCA in the RCT.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: 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 patients with PBC 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 analysis hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 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 and as-treated analyses shifted the HR to favor OCA. In the EC (n = 1,051), the weighted primary endpoint occurred in 10.1% of OCA and 21.5% of non-OCA patients (HR = 0.39; 95% confidence interval = 0.22-0.69; P = 0.001). No new safety signals were identified in the RCT. DISCUSSION: Functional unblinding and treatment crossover, particularly in the placebo arm, confounded the intent-to-treat 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.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2024 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Hepatology

HepatologyMedicine