Primary biliary cholangitis drug evaluation and regulatory approval: Where do we go from here?

Abstract

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease. The management landscape was transformed 20 years ago with the advent of ursodeoxycholic acid. Up to 40% of patients do not, however, respond adequately to ursodeoxycholic acid and therefore still remain at risk of disease progression to cirrhosis. The introduction of obeticholic acid as a second-line therapy for patients failing ursodeoxycholic acid has improved outcomes for patients with PBC. There remains, however, a need for better treatment for patients at higher risk. The greatest threat facing our efforts to improve treatment in PBC is, paradoxically, the regulatory approval model providing conditional marketing authorization for new drugs based on biochemical markers on the condition that long-term, randomized placebo-controlled outcome trials are performed to confirm efficacy. As demonstrated by the COBALT confirmatory study with obeticholic acid, it is difficult to retain patients in the required follow-on confirmatory placebo-controlled PBC outcome trials when a licensed drug is commercially available. New PBC therapies in development, such as the peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor agonists, face even greater challenges in demonstrating outcome benefit through randomized placebo-controlled studies once following conditional marketing authorization, as there will be even more treatment options available. A recently published EMA Reflection Paper provides some guidance on the regulatory pathway to full approval but fails to recognize the importance of real-world data in providing evidence of outcome benefit in rare diseases. Here we explore the impact of the EMA reflection paper on PBC therapy and offer pragmatic solutions for generating evidence of long-term outcomes through real-world data collection.