Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Meta-Analysis
17 April 2026

Network meta-analysis: relative clinical efficacy and safety of elafibranor versus seladelpar as second-line treatment for patients with primary biliary cholangitis

Authors: David Jones https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0083-5564, Emily Combe, Harun Knight, Vicki Laskier-Owens https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9702-6391 [email protected], Shijie Ren https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3568-7124, Tom Wright, Elaine A Böing, and Alex Pashley https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6210-3781Author Info & Affiliations
Volume 15, Number 5
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2025-0206
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: To indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of elafibranor and seladelpar, as second-line treatments for primary biliary cholangitis. Materials & methods: Bayesian network meta-analyses compared data from randomized-controlled studies of elafibranor and seladelpar identified by a systematic literature review up to June 2024: (a) elafibranor (n = 108) versus placebo (n = 53; ELATIVE [NCT04526665]) and (b) seladelpar (n = 128) versus placebo (n = 65; RESPONSE [NCT03301506]). Patients from ELATIVE not meeting the RESPONSE upper limit of normal (ULN) criteria for alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and total bilirubin were excluded (n = 16); summary statistics for ELATIVE were recalculated using the new dataset. Random-effects models assessed the outcomes of cholestasis response (ALP <1.67 × ULN, ALP reduction ≥15% from baseline and total bilirubin ≤ULN), ALP normalization, change from baseline in ALP and pruritus, pruritus as a treatment-emergent adverse event and all-cause discontinuation. Results: Elafibranor-treated patients had greater odds of achieving cholestasis response than placebo- (median odds ratio [95% credible interval]: 84.79 [12.49, 2513.00]) or seladelpar-treated patients (13.02 [1.45, 420.20]), with posterior probabilities ≥99% that odds were higher with elafibranor than seladelpar or placebo. Among patients with ALP ≥350 U/l, the median odds ratio [95% credible interval] of cholestasis response for elafibranor-treated patients versus seladelpar-treated patients was 18.71 [0.65, 10,610.00], with a 95.2% posterior probability that odds were higher with elafibranor than seladelpar. For all other outcomes, there was no strong evidence of a difference between treatments. Conclusion: Bayesian network meta-analyses found strong probabilistic evidence supporting the treatment benefit of elafibranor compared with seladelpar for the achievement of cholestasis response at 52 weeks, while the treatment effect on other outcomes was uncertain. Head-to-head studies are needed to validate results of these indirect comparisons.

Plain language summary: Comparison of elafibranor & seladelpar treatment in patients with primary biliary cholangitis following previous treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid

What is this article about?

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic disease that gradually damages the liver over time. This damage can lead to a build-up of symptoms and life-threatening complications, such as scarring (cirrhosis) and failure of the liver. Up to 40% of people living with PBC incompletely respond to first-line treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid. Recently, two new second-line treatments for PBC were launched, called elafibranor and seladelpar, which have similar ways of working. At present, there are no head-to-head trials of elafibranor and seladelpar, and we are not aware of any planned trials. Thus, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the two second-line treatments using a technique called an ‘indirect treatment comparison’. The objective is to help doctors and patients decide which of these treatments might be more suitable for different people. The approach compared the likelihood of clinical events from data provided across individual studies of elafibranor and seladelpar.

What were the results?

We find that patients treated with elafibranor had a significantly higher chance of improving liver blood tests (specifically, cholestasis response) compared with those on seladelpar. However, for other outcomes, there was no significant difference between the treatments.

Why is this important?

These findings could support treatment decisions for patients with PBC who respond poorly to ursodeoxycholic acid.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Axley P, Mudumbi S, Sarker S, Kuo Y-F, Singal A. Patients with stage 3 compared to stage 4 liver fibrosis have lower frequency of and longer time to liver disease complications. PLoS ONE 13(5), e0197117 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
Trivedi PJ, Lammers WJ, van Buuren HR et al. Stratification of hepatocellular carcinoma risk in primary biliary cirrhosis: a multicentre international study. Gut 65(2), 321–329 (2016).
Google Scholar
3.
Cançado GGL, Lleo A, Levy C, Trauner M, Hirschfield GM. Primary biliary cholangitis and the narrowing gap towards optimal disease control. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 10(9), 855–870 (2025).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Lindor KD, Bowlus CL, Boyer J, Levy C, Mayo M. Primary biliary cholangitis: 2018 practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology (Baltimore) 69(1), 394–419 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Galoosian A, Hanlon C, Zhang J, Holt EW, Yimam KK. Clinical updates in primary biliary cholangitis: trends, epidemiology, diagnostics, and new therapeutic approaches. J. Clin. Transl. Hepatol. 8(1), 49–60 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Jung HE, Jang JY, Jeong SW et al. Prognostic indicators in primary biliary cirrhosis: significance of revised IAHG (International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group) score. Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 18(4), 375–382 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Milovanovic T, Popovic D, Stojkovic Lalosevic M, Dumic I, Dragasevic S, Milosavljević T. Quality of life in patients with primary biliary cholangitis: a single-center experience in Serbia. Dig. Dis. 38(6), 515–521 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Hirschfield GM, Dyson JK, Alexander GJM et al. The British Society of Gastroenterology/UK-PBC primary biliary cholangitis treatment and management guidelines. Gut 67(9), 1568–1594 (2018).
Google Scholar
9.
Akamatsu N, Sugawara Y. Primary biliary cirrhosis and liver transplantation. Intractable Rare Dis. Res. 1(2), 66 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Lammers WJ, van Buuren HR, Hirschfield GM et al. Levels of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin are surrogate end points of outcomes of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis: an international follow-up study. Gastroenterology 147(6), 1338–1349.e5 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Momah N, Silveira MG, Jorgensen R, Sinakos E, Lindor KD. Optimizing biochemical markers as endpoints for clinical trials in primary biliary cirrhosis. Liver Int. 32(5), 790–795 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Nevens F, Andreone P, Mazzella G et al. A placebo-controlled trial of obeticholic acid in primary biliary cholangitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(7), 631–643 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Kowdley KV, Bowlus CL, Levy C et al. Efficacy and safety of elafibranor in primary biliary cholangitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 390(9), 795–805 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• The primary reference for the Phase III ELATIVE trial reporting elafibranor versus placebo in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC).
14.
Hirschfield GM, Bowlus CL, Mayo MJ et al. A Phase III trial of seladelpar in primary biliary cholangitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 390(9), 783–794 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• The primary reference for the Phase III RESPONSE trial reporting seladelpar versus placebo in PBC.
15.
Invernizzi P, Floreani A, Carbone M et al. Primary biliary cholangitis: advances in management and treatment of the disease. Dig. Liver Dis. 49(8), 841–846 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Eruzun H, Bossen L, Gökçe DT et al. Clinical and biochemical characteristics of a Danish and Turkish cohort of incident and prevalent patients with primary biliary cholangitis. Turkish J. Gastroenterol. 36(4), 241 (2025).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Ipsen. Ipsen's Iqirvo® receives U.S. FDA accelerated approval as a first-in-class PPAR treatment for primary biliary cholangitis. (2024). https://www.ipsen.com/press-release/ipsens-iqirvo-receives-u-s-fda-accelerated-approval-as-a-first-in-class-ppar-treatment-for-primary-biliary-cholangitis/
Google Scholar
18.
Gilead Sciences Inc. Gilead's Livdelzi (seladelpar) granted accelerated approval for primary biliary cholangitis by U.S. FDA. (2024). https://www.gilead.com/news/news-details/2024/gileads-livdelzi-seladelpar-granted-accelerated-approval-for-primary-biliary-cholangitis-by-us-fda
Google Scholar
19.
Ipsen. U.K. MHRA grants marketing authorisation for Ipsen's Iqirvo® (elafibranor), a first-in-class peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) treatment for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). (2024). https://www.ipsen.com/uk-ireland/press-releases/u-k-mhra-grants-marketing-authorisation-for-ipsens-iqirvo-elafibranor-a-first-in-class-peroxisome-proliferator-activated-receptor-ppar-treatment-for-primary-biliary-cholangitis-p/
Google Scholar
20.
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Seladelpar approved to treat adult patients in the UK with liver illness. (2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/news/seladelpar-approved-to-treat-adult-patients-in-the-uk-with-liver-illness
Google Scholar
21.
Gilead Sciences Inc. Gilead's seladelpar granted conditional European marketing authorization for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis. (2025). https://www.gilead.com/news/news-details/2025/gileads-seladelpar-granted-conditional-european-marketing-authorization-for-the-treatment-of-primary-biliary-cholangitis
Google Scholar
22.
Ipsen. Ipsen's Iqirvo® (elafibranor) approved in the European union as first new treatment for primary biliary cholangitis in nearly a decade. (2024). https://www.ipsen.com/press-release/ipsens-iqirvo-elafibranor-approved-in-the-european-union-as-first-new-treatment-for-primary-biliary-cholangitis-in-nearly-a-decade-2949674/
Google Scholar
23.
Schattenberg JM, Pares A, Kowdley KV et al. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of elafibranor in patients with primary biliary cholangitis and incomplete response to UDCA. J. Hepatol. 74(6), 1344–1354 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• The primary reference for the Phase II ELATIVE trial reporting elafibranor 80 and 120 mg versus placebo in PBC.
24.
Akers J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari A. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK (2009).
Google Scholar
25.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366, l4898 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
26.
Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE. Decision Support Unit, NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: A generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, UK (2014).
Google Scholar
• The NICE DSU Technical Support Document outlines the methodology used to conduct this network meta-analysis (NMA).
27.
Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D. OpenBUGS User Manual, Version 3.0.2. MRC Biostatistics Unit, UK (2007).
Google Scholar
28.
The R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2024).
Google Scholar
29.
Sturtz S, Ligges U, Gelman A. R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R. J. Stat. Softw. 12, 1–16 (2005).
Google Scholar
30.
Levy C, Bowlus C, Lawitz E et al. P250 beyond the mean: exploring the impact of baseline alkaline phosphatase levels on endpoints in primary biliary cholangitis. Gut 74, A239–A241 (2025).
Google Scholar
• Reports the impact of baseline alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels on biochemical response and ALP normalization in ELATIVE, outlining limitations to dichotomous endpoints that limit comparability of trials with varying baseline levels.
32.
Bahar R, Wong KA, Liu CH, Bowlus CL. Update on new drugs and those in development for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 14(3), 154–163 (2018).
Google Scholar
33.
Giannini EG, Pasta A, Calabrese F et al. Second-line treatment for patients with primary biliary cholangitis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis. Liver Int. 45(1), e16222 (2025).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Reports an NMA conducted for OCA, seladelpar and elafibranor versus placebo as second-line treatments for PBC.
34.
Lin W, Wang J-X, Liu Y-J. Optimal drug regimens for improving ALP biochemical levels in patients with primary biliary cholangitis refractory to UDCA: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Sys. Rev. 13(1), 46 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|