thank for Good joining us. you afternoon and
During of the histological in by our call unexpected discussed findings on investigation study NASH. our of ongoing update with March, Phase our continued the completing pathologists seladelpar identified focus study last quarterly in patients Xb in we
good I'm that have pleased to we news today front. that announce on
of our end take now we to gather analyze intend FDA, will it of all the the a share more Although of successfully week, time have eight completed to liver cholestatic pathologists data a from of last NASH the the in-depth that drug-induced review process. with At step liver four-day in panel cleared and injury, key and independent diseases we world's Xb study. together Phase foremost the and in knowledge a our and NASH expert that analyzed bringing hepatologists, findings extensive liver
At of statement, the by with unanimously were noted confirmed treatment this the conclusion the study following agreed at "the meeting, of pathologists panel on end review. the features
between However, features underreported. treatment. suspect and We of not differ these histologic qualitatively these did are baseline end
unanimously lifting seladelpar. subcommittee, The clinical differences biochemical and and of of the re-initiation review observed of may hold unanimously significant not pathology do of these lack NASH. treatment However, in injury supported or placebo support the also across of liver groups The evidence the in and clinical panel the features the in their features injury drug-induced to changes histologic patients the absence clinical concluded development". related the aggregate, of in with panel complete the experience and be including data that
two experience drug and in their leading Watkins liver drug-induced by of It of of UC in joined injury, by Neil hepatologist with was USC and leading Dr. Dr. liver Willis clinical was of of assembled committee who a hepatologists to Southwestern. Dr. extraordinary experts and The reputations UNC, area Maddrey Paul distinguished science this in the depth group the chaired Hill, have of is safety. liver Chapel outstanding their Kaplowitz injury,
of Joining from Kleiner, of Dr. Injury committee the Vierling with University Liver Dr. Services. pathology. Medicine. Pierre Dr. Drug-Induced Michael David the Bedossa from Head The Health out of clinical was hepatologists the three figures John Network Zach at influential Dr. NASH Dr. the College Charlton Baylor of Paris; and in the of committee Inova rounded liver in the prominent Goodman, PBC. and of University and NIH; Chicago; where
of the conclusions favorable any FDA review investigation, to is no nor results I the lift FDA. to want and that will expert full by not from continue guarantee hold the that discussed describing Before our steps the the panels panel, agree allow the with basic the us of clinical yet investigation development the emphasize of we the have to seladelpar. Despite there
and clinical quickly We the as possible, a formal hold be agency are planning to the re-engage will restart can their will development a complete gathered data all of us submission necessary decision of seladelpar. the review allow as with the clinical make but response to before to FDA the of that
review, In pathologists biopsy, thorough results of a histologic by seladelpar, was dose for identified The patients led which provide study NASH recap first last for ranging order findings context of our program to Phase to XXX and NASH. Xb halting Phase November that Xb design. study randomized study seladelpar. study the The I'll a confirmed expert with panel enrolled placebo-controlled study the double-blind, provide development
as reported NASH liver change content AST, weeks XX In inflammation outcome was key clinically comparing and of and by liver but with reductions weeks. fat markers biopsies reductions in ALT, in and at weeks, the we baseline The a alkaline secondary primary of GT baseline. in efficacy fibrosis, scoring improvement robust meaningful evaluation liver minimal XX injury, measure June of XXXX, liver and included assessed at from including the histological XX and at phosphatase in fat, Gamma
and end optimistic remained the time improvements at correlated NASH had point enzymes, liver continue that in to improvement and evaluate study effects was to of blinded with We XX-week planned that and published the seladelpar histology. studies because namely of The in remained ALT, fibrosis. NASH of reductions to histological
at this of year, treatment dose in XX versus week XX XX, in or groups in and end Seladelpar the improvement of responders ordered greater NASH XX fibrosis. resolution worsening placebo and of improvements March present fibrosis XX.X% resolution or of without of treatment. NASH in XX.X, without The in one stage worsening seladelpar XX were NASH milligram respectively. In in point no placebo X, And with fibrosis and groups reported worsening we
XX%. patients points meeting XX.X%, least in were X.X, improvement a XX.X The both percentages stage corresponding and with in XX.X% no The eight at of end and rates fibrosis worsening one responder NASH for XX.X%. were
having placebo, completed weeks seladelpar XX% the XX% XX%, the of the pathologists of liver milligram For study most biopsies. last began With November, XX-week blinded respectively. XX and their assessment the groups, treatment of patients
had February conclude weeks review their patients in biopsy to in as the active they still plan for them group of finished the final Our for of treatment. XX been the study
the histological pathology. during the patients with identified of slides, review of unfolded be on first described unexpected overlaid they of batch what pattern NASH a an to findings events As they subset of
shared review investigation order blinded experts, the In of previously original additional the the our We've details protect of not by the all on findings. pathology to paired biopsies, integrity including
biopsy, comparable XX% additional that Out information. percentage to is had enrolled, biopsy Now is complete, of NASH or to treatment end work of review we XXX XXX an which other the studies. panel's are provide in subjects able
milligram placebo milligram in The XXX of XX% between cases the of the milligram histology and and of end in was XX in flagged study group. the appeared XX similar treatment XX group. seladelpar of the and seladelpar XX% placebo atypical XX% seladelpar X the of XX XX milligram as XX the incidence of group, pathologists or with Thus in XX seladelpar of milligrams, XX or group XX in XX or XX% XX identified XX group, seladelpar total to having biopsies the or but of higher XX a X
pathology drug-induced bile predominantly or findings duct of potentially concerning interface study vascular pathologists and atypical injury. cells lesions. cases presence these injury some an hepatitis NASH findings with cholangitis, or and liver as The and described in for without The or eosinophils in as characterized were plasma unexpected
in are and examined endpoints where highlight steatosis, to eligibility evaluate lobular here atypical is It's important studies establish usually the inflammation, for for intent these scoring features that me by to clinical NASH fibrosis. hepatocellular not and ballooning
GT, the of how to remind were at Another biopsies was the element read And that is biopsies. of unfolded, baseline there protocol. the re-read alkaline biochemical many XX months as study weeks and before injury which findings. these mention levels no total and with end high studies, were of direct throughout treatment, like bilirubin, to Also clinical the of stable improving end correlate you Patients important XX least either of treatment situation not part AST, markers findings or included ALT, gamma had these sensitivity-CRP. of of and liver inflammation with the bilirubin phosphatase, without
signals no with associated allergic were eosinophils, coagulation can progressing or parameters. disease, or there that in addition, in of nor by other markers reflected clinical liver were as injury, of or be symptoms In there liver such in changes platelets reaction immune changes as
No related paired any with were peaks observed biopsy. chemistries patients end in or other decompensation in for liver occurrences liver XX-week a of liver or AEs treatment of with association
preclinical findings on and were based Seladelpar. unanticipated these with clinical Importantly, prior experience
committing development the study with of safety our to in at made the and indications with decision review while forefront expert patient findings. these to an consulting of in-depth mind, hepatologists pathologist After halt of all seladelpar and was
these The and in steps consequence flagged FDA the of input placed with agreed on clinical for significance on seladelpar study. hold this subsequently development towards understanding formally provided and the a necessary and the patients decision findings
key set existence to the between of any histology The completing inflammation and to PBC patients study, took to absence our understand. well we unexpected commitment biochemical of better the to patients in of picture our or studies. liver responsibility of was in a as who global and part unknown clinical discordant our NASH as Our liver the investigation signals subset reflects injury those in the the out
all liver in immune-mediated immunoglobulins, other Turning findings. demographics, tissue was medical any history, the injury. This including concomitant of in may to and correlate profile with and unexpected to and search included first and and markers data, drug-induced markers signal typically measure biochemical the comprehensive antibodies, cytokines inflammatory investigation, autoimmune a of elevated study additional analyze assemble the to medications, patient step that
medications, concomitant science of history that other study. associated findings The there our outcome biomarker that or of was this pattern in the laboratory effort changes atypical or having with clinical patients no was histologic medical were extensive
and review The biopsies second rigourous was Goodman a of expert three the investigation enter treatment Drs. Kleiner, independent Bedossa. baseline and pathologists, in the blinded step by
the of process first biopsies in biopsies paired biopsy one which review a blinded all a of intensive time the which included two performed adapted completely This assessing and and to chronological knowledge the of of the pair review treatment Ishak baseline histologic vary. identify been of another, randomized Histologic of patterns modified of blinded pathologists has review, of drug-induced each dose them from the second was randomly scoring This levels and the independently. Two and injury. review, Activity to review order liver assignment blinded system, used Index
independently blinded pathologists inflammation, performed same hepatocellular features assessing worse interface parenchymal of inflammation, or three fibrosis. second histology, portal All ballooning, the multiple across review, paired hepatitis, better, including and steatosis
noted the In absence pathologists of vascular presence injury. and addition, injury plasma including bile features, the cells, eosinophils, duct or
histology are biopsy to types by The NASH was make that very its to study generally studies. overlooked. the highlight conducted By paired had X from very out called order only we reviews nothing the histology Phase provided in pathologists in different of to direction to pathologists score certain nature, was been reviews these the
types done called First, more baseline clinical was it were NASH define studies biopsies treatment of that steatosis, inflammation, because lobular for comprehensive included same than at all fibrosis, the of pathology And time. as specific study blinded as features out the atypical the what end the ballooning usually by pathologists. and and is second, well classically NASH, reviews it done of
they full then raised to discuss. cases Our panel on pathologists by brought histology intention three were that expert NASH have a the independent a histology, to did from injury an agreement that for patient was identify independent biopsies. be seen any was to to be liver would review What in suspicion analysis case of objective that basis pathology the in couldn't review that all not transpired drug-induced case observe that
would alarming And flagged be features they of not that histology any red were liver drug-induced or did that injury. for observe
through these liver biopsies were these study pathologists that drug-induced the treatment. our identified panel, unchanged evidence features be absence the visible, significance conclusion deemed injury signal to pathologists' seen in NASH end anything clinical features at underreported by for the of of was of the these by for in the population injury. pathologists observed point qualitatively Furthermore, review or or were to patients baseline can biochemical liver patient that Although not in certainly the be any and otherwise clinical study did panel alarming of
that course injury of their With in by overall expert this panel XX based view, of the patients no full the there would pathologists review adjudicate study having the pathologists on best the biopsies agreed cases review from action liver that the view the of be drug-induced study. confirm was to review identified evidence
in the step all members the study third XX review The brought flagged pathologists. by expert to investigation cases together panel the
observed were of laboratory To the or biochemical have patients Medical injury deemed patients. ultimately histology of evidence not baseline liver seladelpar liver markers to treatment and clinical in or injury. discuss of and patient XX whether reviewed drug-induced our concomitant the will treatment to NASH caused each study. into and for any the findings XX drug-induced assess significance of any None detail at medications, demographics, in history, with liver
a deemed XX deemed no XX The unexpected of have of were across liver liver drug or placebo. had of XX be Furthermore, deemed the lupus were seladelpar unlikely of deemed to remaining evidence patients of treatment be distributed were or for to have progressive to a evidence was diagnosis study pathology, or to related pathology. progressive and patients patient possibly not emergent related to were related, emergent study which also drug XX unexpected who either to groups, erythematosus. systemic equally One including
Hy’s patients the around ALT drug-induced Law, there under had related The of in day of progression that confirmed clinical reviewed panel was no was meet Although of centered study. population, of and conclusion features overall of bilirubin what histology evidence the observed and clinical discussed injury. NASH analysis to of features pathology of reported significance and and the elevations eDISH an their our present patients observations no in baseline in discussion final presence at panel to export our and liver
plan clinical FDA data meetings. at a their to complete to hold. we our reach and moment, to highest out to feedback, review response to we the priority. we date the panel plan We to effort uncertain all Timelines the this Once the remains of seladelpar results of collected discuss have but gather this submit the are
the will have the they if will require to respond, we whether support the panel, independent we not that drug-induced seladelpar Although confident information conducted conclusions injury when our world cannot in gather that us guarantee we X have the with been by a or truly cause experts are how additional and FDA did us or they definitively made NASH study. Phase will rigorous, in review the conclusion that foremost leading help not liver the to liver accept
have with our for closely and worked have their next steps support our review Board the and throughout forward. We investigation panel
and end open balance provide me at Dan through we financial of midyear. Dan? call Before for our the an overview QX of let position to up the over projected our to Q&A, you call turn the cash with
