COBALT:奥贝胆酸治疗原发性胆汁性胆管炎的确证试验与安慰剂和外部对照。

IF 8 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
American Journal of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-14 DOI:10.14309/ajg.0000000000003029
Kris V Kowdley, Gideon M Hirschfield, Charles Coombs, Elizabeth S Malecha, Leona Bessonova, Jing Li, Nuvan Rathnayaka, George Mells, David E Jones, Palak J Trivedi, Bettina E Hansen, Rachel Smith, James Wason, Shaun Hiu, Dorcas N Kareithi, Andrew L Mason, Christopher L Bowlus, Kate Muller, Marco Carbone, Marina Berenguer, Piotr Milkiewicz, Femi Adekunle, Alejandra Villamil
{"title":"COBALT:奥贝胆酸治疗原发性胆汁性胆管炎的确证试验与安慰剂和外部对照。","authors":"Kris V Kowdley, Gideon M Hirschfield, Charles Coombs, Elizabeth S Malecha, Leona Bessonova, Jing Li, Nuvan Rathnayaka, George Mells, David E Jones, Palak J Trivedi, Bettina E Hansen, Rachel Smith, James Wason, Shaun Hiu, Dorcas N Kareithi, Andrew L Mason, Christopher L Bowlus, Kate Muller, Marco Carbone, Marina Berenguer, Piotr Milkiewicz, Femi Adekunle, Alejandra Villamil","doi":"10.14309/ajg.0000000000003029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":7608,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"390-400"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11774195/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COBALT: A Confirmatory Trial of Obeticholic Acid in Primary Biliary Cholangitis With Placebo and External Controls.\",\"authors\":\"Kris V Kowdley, Gideon M Hirschfield, Charles Coombs, Elizabeth S Malecha, Leona Bessonova, Jing Li, Nuvan Rathnayaka, George Mells, David E Jones, Palak J Trivedi, Bettina E Hansen, Rachel Smith, James Wason, Shaun Hiu, Dorcas N Kareithi, Andrew L Mason, Christopher L Bowlus, Kate Muller, Marco Carbone, Marina Berenguer, Piotr Milkiewicz, Femi Adekunle, Alejandra Villamil\",\"doi\":\"10.14309/ajg.0000000000003029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7608,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"390-400\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11774195/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003029\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:奥贝胆酸(OCA)治疗原发性胆汁性胆管炎(PBC)在3期POISE试验中获得有条件批准。COBALT确证试验评估了OCA治疗是否能改善PBC患者的临床疗效:将随机接受 OCA(5-10 毫克)治疗的患者与安慰剂(随机对照试验 [RCT])或外部对照(EC)进行比较。主要复合终点是患者死亡、肝移植、终末期肝病模型评分≥15分、腹水无法控制或因肝功能失代偿住院的时间。预设的倾向得分加权EC组来自美国医疗保健索赔数据库:在RCT中,28.6%的OCA患者(n=168)和28.9%的安慰剂患者(n=166;意向治疗[ITT]分析危险比[HR]=1.01,95% CI=0.68-1.51)出现了主要终点,但出现了功能性解盲和与商业疗法交叉的情况,尤其是在安慰剂组。使用反删减概率加权法(IPCW)和治疗分析对这些情况进行校正后,HR 转移至有利于 OCA。在EC(n=1051)中,10.1%的OCA患者和21.5%的非OCA患者出现了加权主要终点(HR=0.39;95% CI=0.22-0.69;P=0.001)。研究中未发现新的安全信号:结论:功能性解盲和治疗交叉,尤其是安慰剂组的治疗交叉,混淆了RCT中与OCA相关结果的ITT估计值。与真实世界的EC比较显示,OCA治疗显著降低了负面临床结果的风险。这些分析表明了EC数据在确证试验中的价值,并表明OCA治疗可改善PBC患者的临床预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
COBALT: A Confirmatory Trial of Obeticholic Acid in Primary Biliary Cholangitis With Placebo and External Controls.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Gastroenterology
American Journal of Gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
458
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), The American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG) stands as the foremost clinical journal in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. AJG offers practical and professional support to clinicians addressing the most prevalent gastroenterological disorders in patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信