SynthesisMedicine2026
Safety profile of elafibranor versus placebo in primary biliary cholangitis: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile elafibranor's safety has been addressed within a 3 outcome network meta-analysis of second-line primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) agents and within a mixed design review using serious adverse events (AEs) as its sole safety endpoint, no review has yet applied trial sequential analysis (TSA) or Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) certainty assessment to a dedicated, 10-outcome, placebo-controlled elafibranor evidence base. PBC is a chronic autoimmune liver disease affecting the small bile ducts, with approximately 30% to 40% of patients failing to respond adequately to first-line ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) therapy. Elafibranor, a dual peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α/δ agonist, received Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approval in 2024 as a second-line option, yet no pooled randomized evidence for its safety profile had been synthesized.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing elafibranor with placebo in UDCA-inadequate-responder PBC patients, searching PubMed, Scopus, and Embase through June 2026. Three RCTs (Schattenberg 2021, Kowdley 2024/ELATIVE, Levy 2026/ELMWOOD) enrolling 274 patients (elafibranor n = 183; placebo n = 91) were included, all with low risk of bias. Ten safety outcomes were pooled via a random-effects model, with GRADE and TSA.
resultsElafibranor showed no significant difference from placebo across any prespecified safety outcome. The primary outcome, any AE, showed RR 1.06 (95% CI: 0.97-1.16; I2 = 0%). Trends favored elafibranor for pruritus (RR 0.77) and fatigue (RR 0.71), with modest nonsignificant increases for nausea and treatment-related AEs. GRADE certainty was moderate across outcomes, downgraded solely for imprecision. TSA confirmed futility for any AE but found the remaining 9 outcomes substantially underpowered, with only 2.2% to 9.7% of required information accrued.
conclusionElafibranor shows a broadly reassuring safety profile, with encouraging trends toward improved pruritus and fatigue. However, evidence remains insufficient for definitive conclusions on rare or long-term safety signals, underscoring the need for larger, adequately powered trials. Jointly applying GRADE and TSA to this dedicated, placebo-controlled elafibranor evidence base clarifies which safety signals are genuinely null versus underpowered, a distinction broader second-line PBC comparisons have not resolved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.