Isidori, Andrea M.

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 Disclosure: R.J. Auchus: Consulting Fee; Self; Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, OMass Therapeutics, H Lundbeck A/S, Adrenas Therapeutics. Research Investigator; Self; Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., Diurnal, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Spruce Biosciences. O. Hamidi: Advisory Board Member; Self; Corcept Therapeutics, Recordati Rare Diseases, Amryt Pharma, Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., Xeris, Lantheus. R. Pivonello: Advisory Board Member; Self; Corcept Therapeutics, Recordati AG, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, H. Lundbeck A/S. Research Investigator; Self; Corcept Therapeutics, Recordati AG, Strongbridge Biopharma, Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. I. Bancos: Consulting Fee; Self; Corcept Therapeutics, Recordati Rare Diseases, HRA Pharmaceuticals, Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., Diurnal, Spruce Biosciences, Sparrow Pharmaceuticals, Adrenas Therapeutics. Research Investigator; Self; Recordati Rare Diseases. G. Russo: Advisory Board Member; Self; Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Diurnal. Speaker; Self; Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Diurnal. S.F. Witchel: Research Investigator; Self; Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. A.M. Isidori: Research Investigator; Self; Pfizer, Inc., Merck Serono, HRA Pharmaceuticals, Recordati AG, Corcept. P. Rodien: Consulting Fee; Self; Pfizer, Inc., Novo Nordisk, Lilly USA, LLC, Ipsen, HRA Pharmaceuticals, IBSA Pharma, Recordati Rare Diseases. U. Srirangalingam: Advisory Board Member; Self; Diurnal. Speaker; Self; Diurnal. F.W. Kiefer: Advisory Board Member; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Company, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Inc., Sanofi. Speaker; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Company, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Inc., Sanofi. H. Falhammar: Consulting Fee; Self; Diurnal, Roche Diagnostics, Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., H Lundbeck A/S, Adrenas Therapeutics. D.P. Merke: Research Investigator; Self; Diurnal, Adrenas Therapeutics, Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. N. Reisch: Consulting Fee; Self; Diurnal, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., Spruce Biosciences, H Lundbeck A/S. J. Sturgeon: Employee; Self; Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. E. Roberts: Employee; Self; Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. V.H. Lin: Employee; Self; Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. J.L. Chan: Employee; Self; Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. R. Farber: Employee; Self; Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.. Introduction: Classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency (21OHD), a genetic disorder characterized by cortisol deficiency and excess adrenal androgens, typically requires management with supraphysiological glucocorticoid (GC) doses. Crinecerfont is a novel oral CRF1 antagonist that reduced elevated adrenocorticotropic hormone and adrenal androgens in patients with 21OHD in 14-day open-label Phase 2 studies. This Phase 3 study (CAHtalyst: NCT04490915) evaluated whether crinecerfont can reduce daily GC dose while maintaining androgen control in adults with 21OHD. Methods: Adults (≥18 years) with 21OHD, stable GC regimens at doses >13 mg/m2/d in hydrocortisone equivalents (HCe), and normal or elevated androstenedione (A4) were randomized (2:1) to crinecerfont 100 mg BID or placebo for 24 weeks. GC dosing was maintained stable for 4 weeks, followed by a planned GC down-titration over 8 weeks to achieve a GC dose of 8-10 mg/m2/d. GC doses were adjusted as needed during the last 12 weeks to maintain A4 control (≤120% of baseline or ≤upper limit of normal [ULN]) by week 24. Results: In the 182 randomized participants (51% male, mean age 31 years), demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms (122 crinecerfont, 60 placebo). Mean GC dose at baseline was 17.6 mg/m2/d HCe (32 mg/d), with 58% on HC alone, 29% taking predniso[lo]ne, and 13% taking dexamethasone; mean pre-GC A4 (620 ng/dL) was elevated >2-3-fold the ULN. Over 95% of participants completed the double-blind treatment period. At week 24, the crinecerfont arm had a significantly greater percent reduction in GC dose while maintaining A4 control vs placebo (-27% vs -10%; least squares mean difference [LSMD]: -17%; p<0.0001) (primary endpoint). At week 4 (end of GC-stable period), a greater reduction in A4 prior to the morning GC dose was observed with crinecerfont vs placebo (LSMD: -345 ng/dL; p<0.0001) (key secondary endpoint). At week 24, a higher percentage of participants reached a protocol-defined physiological GC dose (≤11 mg/m2/d) while maintaining A4 control with crinecerfont (63% vs 18% for placebo; p<0.0001) (key secondary endpoint). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) in the crinecerfont arm were fatigue (25% vs 15% for placebo), headache (16% vs 15%), and COVID-19 (14% vs 9%). There were few serious AEs (3% overall), with none assessed as related to the study drug. Conclusions: Crinecerfont, an oral CRF1 antagonist, represents a novel treatment option to improve androgen control for patients with 21OHD. In the largest interventional Phase 3 study conducted to date in adults with 21OHD, crinecerfont led to a significant reduction in A4 while GC dose was stable, enabling a significant percent reduction in GC dose while maintaining A4 control at 24 weeks. Crinecerfont was overall well tolerated. Presentation: 6/1/2024

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 Context Appropriate management of adrenal insufficiency (AI) in pregnancy can be challenging due to the rarity of the disease and lack of evidence-based recommendations to guide glucocorticoid and mineralocorticoid dosage adjustment. Objective Multicenter survey on current clinical approaches in managing AI during pregnancy. Design Retrospective anonymized data collection from 19 international centers from 2013 to 2019. Setting and Patients 128 pregnancies in 113 women with different causes of AI: Addison disease (44%), secondary AI (25%), congenital adrenal hyperplasia (25%), and acquired AI due to bilateral adrenalectomy (6%). Results Hydrocortisone (HC) was the most commonly used glucocorticoid in 83% (97/117) of pregnancies. Glucocorticoid dosage was increased at any time during pregnancy in 73/128 (57%) of cases. In these cases, the difference in the daily dose of HC equivalent between baseline and the third trimester was 8.6 ± 5.4 (range 1-30) mg. Fludrocortisone dosage was increased in fewer cases (7/54 during the first trimester, 9/64 during the second trimester, and 9/62 cases during the third trimester). Overall, an adrenal crisis was reported in 9/128 (7%) pregnancies. Cesarean section was the most frequent mode of delivery at 58% (69/118). Fetal complications were reported in 3/120 (3%) and minor maternal complications in 15/120 (13%) pregnancies without fatal outcomes. Conclusions This survey confirms good maternal and fetal outcome in women with AI managed in specialized endocrine centers. An emphasis on careful endocrine follow-up and repeated patient education is likely to have reduced the risk of adrenal crisis and resulted in positive outcomes.