Biller, Beverly M. K.

Abstract Context Biochemical test results are central to clinical decision-making for the diagnosis and management of Cushing syndrome (CS). With emerging research and increasing availability of different tests, updated consensus on the utility of these biomarkers is warranted. Objective To establish an updated consensus on the role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and monitoring of adrenocorticotropic hormone-dependent CS, address novel therapeutic approaches, and identify areas for future research. Design A modified 2-round Delphi panel was conducted. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement/disagreement for Likert-scale statements or ≥70% selection of the same option for single-choice questions. Setting Participants represented a range of international expertise. Participants Forty-one participants took part in the Delphi panel, with no attrition between rounds (one nonclinician was not required to complete the second round). An 8-member Steering Committee guided statement development. Results Of statements designed to reach consensus, 45% (14/31) and 44% (11/25) statements reached consensus in Rounds 1 and 2, respectively. Notably, most panelists reported the use of late-night salivary cortisol for diagnosis of mild CS and for monitoring following pituitary surgery or medical or radiation therapy. Most panelists responded that block-and-replace therapies can be considered in patients with cyclical or severe CS, and consensus was reached that restoration of circadian rhythm is a treatment goal for patients with CS. Conclusion Areas of alignment among experts on the diagnosis and monitoring of CS are presented. The findings from this study are intended to support clinicians in their clinical decision-making and highlight priority areas for future research.

Abstract Context Adult growth hormone (GH) deficiency (GHD) is characterized by metabolic abnormalities caused by insufficient GH production. Lonapegsomatropin, a prodrug administered once weekly, was designed to provide sustained release of unmodified somatropin to reduce the burden of daily somatropin injections. Objective This work aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lonapegsomatropin vs placebo as treatment for adults with GHD. Methods The foresiGHt trial was a multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled (double-blind) and active-controlled (open-label) trial (NCT04615273) conducted at 116 centers in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. The trial randomly assigned and dosed 259 adults with GHD. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive once-weekly lonapegsomatropin, once-weekly placebo, or daily somatropin for 38 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in trunk percent fat at week 38. Secondary efficacy end points included change from baseline in trunk fat mass and total body lean mass. Results At week 38, lonapegsomatropin significantly reduced trunk percent fat (−1.68% vs +0.37%; least squares [LS] mean difference −2.04%; P < .001), increased total body lean mass (+1.60 kg vs −0.11 kg; LS mean difference 1.70 kg; P < .0001), and reduced trunk fat mass (−0.48 kg vs +0.22 kg; LS mean difference −0.70 kg; P = .0053) vs placebo. The safety and tolerability profile of lonapegsomatropin was comparable to somatropin. Conclusion The foresiGHt trial met its primary efficacy end point by demonstrating superiority of lonapegsomatropin vs placebo with similar safety and tolerability, supporting its potential as a once-weekly treatment option for adults with GHD.

Abstract Although most cases of endogenous Cushing syndrome are caused by a pituitary adenoma (Cushing disease), approximately one-third of patients present with ectopic or adrenal causes. Surgery is the first-line treatment for most patients with Cushing syndrome; however, medical therapy is an important management option for those who are not eligible for, refuse, or do not respond to surgery. Clinical experience demonstrating that osilodrostat, an oral 11β-hydroxylase inhibitor, is effective and well tolerated comes predominantly from phase III trials in patients with Cushing disease. Nonetheless, reports of its use in patients with ectopic or adrenal Cushing syndrome are increasing. These data highlight the importance of selecting the most appropriate starting dose and titration frequency while monitoring for adverse events, including those related to hypocortisolism and prolongation of the QT interval, to optimize treatment outcomes. Here we use illustrative case studies to discuss practical considerations for the management of patients with ectopic or adrenal Cushing syndrome and review published data on the use of osilodrostat in these patients. The case studies show that to achieve the goal of reducing cortisol levels in all etiologies of Cushing syndrome, management should be individualized according to each patient’s disease severity, comorbidities, performance status, and response to treatment. This approach to osilodrostat treatment maximizes the benefits of effective cortisol control, leads to improvements in comorbid conditions, and may ameliorate quality of life for patients across all types and severities of Cushing syndrome.

Abstract Disclosure: B.M. Biller: Consulting Fee; Self; HRA Pharmaceuticals, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Sparrow, Strongbridge Biopharma. Grant Recipient; Self; Strongbridge Biopharma. A. Gilis-Januszewska: Speaker; Self; Ipsen, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Recordati, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.. M. Doknic: None. A.M. Pico: None. M. Fleseriu: Consulting Fee; Self; Ascendis, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson &Johnson, Karyopharm, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacosmos. Research Investigator; Self; Ascendis. G. Raverot: None. A.M. Isidori: None. Y. Takahashi: None. J.M. Garcia: None. J.M. Silverstein: None. I. Bancos: None. E. Huang: Employee; Self; Ascendis Pharma, Inc. J. Kang: Employee; Self; Ascendis Pharma, Inc. A.S. Komirenko: Employee; Self; Ascendis Pharma, Inc. L. Domrzalski: Employee; Self; Ascendis Pharma, Inc. A. Shu: Employee; Self; Ascendis Pharma, Inc. K. Yuen: Advisory Board Member; Self; Amryt, Ascendis, Corcept, Crinetics, Novo Nordisk, Recordati, Strongbridge, Xeris. Grant Recipient; Self; Amryt, Ascendis, Corcept, Crinetics. Speaker; Self; Corcept, Novo Nordisk, Recordati. Background: Adult GHD (aGHD) is characterized by metabolic abnormalities due to insufficient growth hormone (GH) production. Lonapegsomatropin was designed to provide sustained release of unmodified somatropin, with the identical amino acid sequence as endogenous GH, and once-weekly injection reduces the burden of daily GH replacement therapy. MethodsForesiGHt was a randomized, parallel-3-arm, placebo(PL)-controlled (double-blind) and active-controlled (open-label) trial designed to establish the efficacy and safety of lonapegsomatropin in aGHD. It evaluated 259 adults with GHD across 21 countries who were GH treatment-naïve or not treated with GH in the prior year, randomized 1:1:1 to receive lonapegsomatropin, once-weekly PL, or daily somatropin (dGH). Fixed dosing was based on age and oral estrogen intake, and designed to be comparable across lonapegsomatropin and dGH arms. Following a 12-week (w) titration period to target maintenance dose, fixed doses were administered for 26w. ResultsBaseline (BL) characteristics were similar between arms. Lonapegsomatropin demonstrated superiority on the primary efficacy endpoint of change from BL in trunk percent fat at Week 38 vs PL (lonapegsomatropin -1.7% vs PL 0.4%, LS mean difference -2.0%, p < 0.0001) and on the key secondary efficacy endpoints of change from BL in total body lean mass (lonapegsomatropin 1.6 kg vs PL -0.1 kg, LS mean difference 1.7 kg, p < 0.0001) and change from BL in trunk fat mass (lonapegsomatropin -0.5 kg vs PL 0.2 kg, LS mean difference -0.7 kg, p = 0.0053). Mean total exposure and maintenance doses were similar for lonapegsomatropin and dGH arms, with larger changes from BL in average IGF-I SDS mean at Week 38 in the lonapegsomatropin arm (1.4) vs dGH arm (0.5). To assess outcomes at comparable weekly IGF-I exposure, a post-hoc analysis was performed in a subset of participants with average IGF-I SDS ≤1.75 SDS at Week 38. Mean IGF-I SDS for these subsets were similar (lonapegsomatropin -0.1, dGH -0.5), and comparable effects in fat and lean tissue compartments were demonstrated (change from BL in trunk percent fat mean -2.4% and -2.6% respectively; change from BL in total body lean mass mean 1.7 kg and 1.4 kg respectively). In the safety population, the incidence of severe AEs was low (lonapegsomatropin, 3.4%; placebo, 1.2%; dGH, 2.3%) and the incidence of treatment-related AEs was similar (lonapegsomatropin 24.7%, dGH 22.1%). Injection site reaction incidence was low and similar for lonapegsomatropin (4.5%), dGH (5.8%) and placebo (4.8%), and A1c levels remained stable in all treatment arms. ConclusionsThe results of the foresiGHt trial indicate that lonapegsomatropin is a safe, efficacious, and tolerable replacement for endogenous GH. Once-weekly dosing may be impactful for adults with GHD who typically manage multiple other medical therapies. Presentation: 6/3/2024

Abstract Disclosure: I. Bancos: Advisory Board Member; Self; Adrenas, Diurnal, Neurocrine, Spruce, HRA Pharmaceuticals, Sparrow, Recordati Rare Diseases, Xeris, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Corcept. Consulting Fee; Self; Adrenas, Diurnal, Neurocrine, Spruce, HRA Pharmaceuticals, Sparrow, Recordati Rare Diseases, Xeris, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Corcept. Grant Recipient; Self; Recordati, HRA Pharmaceuticals. Other; Self; Adrenas, Diurnal, Neurocrine, Spruce, HRA Pharmaceuticals, Sparrow, Recordati Rare Diseases, Xeris, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Corcept. E.B. Geer: Advisory Board Member; Self; Recordati Rare Diseases. Consulting Fee; Self; Lundbeck, Crinetics, HRA Pharmaceuticals, Recordati Rare Diseases, Sparrow, Xeris Pharmaceuticals (Strongbridge). Grant Recipient; Self; Xeris Pharmaceuticals (Strongbridge), Corcept, Recordati Rare Diseases, Sparrow. F. Castinetti: Consulting Fee; Self; HRA Pharmaceuticals, Recordati. Grant Recipient; Self; HRA Pharmaceuticals, Recordati. R. Feelders: Advisory Board Member; Self; Recordati. Consulting Fee; Self; HRA Pharmaceuticals, Recordati. Grant Recipient; Self; Corcept Therapeutics. M. Fleseriu: Advisory Board Member; Self; Recordati Rare Diseases. Consulting Fee; Self; Recordati Rare Diseases, Sparrow, Xeris Pharmaceuticals (Strongbridge). Grant Recipient; Self; Recordati Rare Diseases, Sparrow, Xeris Pharmaceuticals (Strongbridge). R. Pivonello: Consulting Fee; Self; Corcept Therapeutics, Recordati, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, H Lundbeck. Grant Recipient; Self; Recordati, Corcept Therapeutics, Xeris Pharmaceuticals (Strongbridge), Neurocrine Biosciences. M. Reincke: Advisory Board Member; Self; Recordati Rare Diseases. Consulting Fee; Self; Recordati Rare Diseases, HRA Pharmaceuticals, Lundbeck, Crinetics. Grant Recipient; Self; Recordati Rare Diseases, HRA Pharmaceuticals, Lundbeck, Crinetics. Speaker; Self; Recordati Rare Diseases, HRA Pharmaceuticals, Lundbeck, Crinetics. A. Tabarin: Advisory Board Member; Self; Recordati Rare Diseases. Consulting Fee; Self; H Lundbeck, Crinetics, HRA Pharmaceuticals, Recordati Rare Diseases. J. Le Mouhaër: Employee; Self; Recordati. J. Stermenska: Employee; Self; Recordati. M. Maldonado: Employee; Self; Recordati. B.M. Biller: Advisory Board Member; Self; Recordati Rare Diseases. Consulting Fee; Self; H Lundbeck, Recordati Rare Diseases, Sparrow, Xeris Pharmaceuticals (Strongbridge). Introduction: Osilodrostat, a potent oral 11β-hydroxylase inhibitor, provides control of cortisol production and improves outcomes in patients (pts), as shown by the clinical development program of Cushing’s disease (CD; Fleseriu M et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2021;9:847-75) leading to EMA approval for Cushing’s syndrome (CS) and FDA approval for CD. The prospective LINC 6 study (NCT05382156) evaluates long-term safety and efficacy of osilodrostat in routine clinical practice over a 3-­year follow-up of CS pts. Here, we report 1-year interim data. Methods: Pts aged ≥18 years with endogenous CS are being enrolled in countries where osilodrostat is approved and available (including USA and Europe), irrespective of prior osilodrostat use. Treatment decisions and follow-up are at investigator discretion. The primary endpoint is incidence of osilodrostat-related adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs, focusing on AEs related to hypocortisolism, accumulation of adrenal hormone precursors, QT prolongation and pituitary tumor enlargement. Secondary endpoints include change in mean urinary free cortisol (mUFC), serum cortisol and late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC). Evaluation of biochemical parameters is recommended at baseline, months 1 and 3, and every 3 months thereafter, as available. AEs are recorded at baseline and each visit. Analyses are descriptive. We report change for pts with assessments at baseline and every 3 months. Results: Of 106 pts enrolled at the 1-year interim analysis, 94 were included in the safety population: CD, n=78; non-CD CS, n=16 (adrenal adenoma, n=3; adrenal hyperplasia, n=3; ectopic, n=9; other, n=1). Mean (SD) age was 53.2 years (12.7); 70.2% (n=66) were female. Median (min-max) osilodrostat exposure and dose were 5.5 months (0.1-13.9) and 5.0 mg/day (1.0-60.0). 29 pts reported 109 AEs; 12 pts reported 44 AEs that were considered treatment related. Overall, the most common (≥5%) AEs were asthenia and vomiting (both n=6/109; 5.5%); treatment-related AEs with highest frequency were vomiting and dizziness (both n=4/44; 9.1%). 7 AEs led to discontinuation in 4 pts; 5 AEs were considered osilodrostat related (nausea and vomiting in 1 pt; worsening hypertension, uncontrolled blood pressure and dizziness in another) and 2 were not (pituitary tumor surgery and right adrenalectomy). AEs related to hypocortisolism, accumulation of adrenal hormone precursors, QT prolongation and pituitary tumor enlargement occurred in 7 (7.4%), 4 (4.3%), 2 (2.1%) and 0 pts, respectively. At month 3, mUFC, serum cortisol and LNSC were normalized in 71.4% (n=10/14), 69.2% (n=18/26) and 50.0% (n=7/14) of pts. Conclusions: Results from this real-world clinical setting show that osilodrostat is generally well tolerated and provides early improvements in mUFC and LNSC in pts with endogenous CS, building on evidence from the previous randomized, controlled trials LINC 3 and LINC 4. Presentation: 6/3/2024

Abstract To determine if replacement of GH improves BMD in adult-onset GHD, we administered GH in physiologic amounts to men and women with GHD. GH replacement significantly increased spine BMD in the men by 3.8%. Introduction: Growth hormone (GH) deficiency (GHD) acquired in adulthood results in diminished BMD; the evidence that replacement of GH improves BMD is not conclusive. We therefore performed a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether GH replacement would increase lumbar spine BMD in a combined group of men and women with adult-onset GHD. Materials and Methods: We randomized 67 men and women to receive GH (n = 33) or placebo (n = 34) for 2 yr. The GH dose was initially 2 μg/kg body weight/d, increased gradually to a maximum of 12 μg/kg/d and adjusted to maintain a normal IGF-I concentration for age and sex. BMD was assessed before treatment and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo of treatment. Fifty-four subjects completed the protocol. Results: BMD of the lumbar spine in the entire group increased by 2.9 ± 3.9% above baseline in the GH-treated subjects, which was significantly (p = 0.037) greater than the 1.4 ± 4.5% increase in the placebo-treated subjects. In a secondary analysis, spine BMD in GH-treated men increased 3.8 ± 4.3% above baseline, which was significantly (p = 0.001) greater than that in placebo-treated men (0.4 ± 4.7%), but the change in GH-treated women was not significantly different from that in placebo-treated women. Treatment with GH did not increase total hip BMD more than placebo treatment after 2 yr. Conclusions: We conclude that GH replacement in men who have adult-onset GHD improves their spine BMD, but we cannot draw any conclusions about the effect of GH replacement on spine BMD in women with adult-onset GHD.