Cheung, Angela M

ABSTRACT Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) is an ultra‐rare, severely disabling genetic disorder of progressive heterotopic ossification (HO). The single‐arm, open‐label, phase 3 MOVE trial (NCT03312634) assessed efficacy and safety of palovarotene, a selective retinoic acid receptor gamma agonist, in patients with FOP. Findings were compared with FOP natural history study (NHS; NCT02322255) participants untreated beyond standard of care. Patients aged ≥4 years received palovarotene once daily (chronic: 5 mg; flare‐up: 20 mg for 4 weeks, then 10 mg for ≥8 weeks; weight‐adjusted if skeletally immature). The primary endpoint was annualized change in new HO volume versus NHS participants (by low‐dose whole‐body computed tomography [WBCT]), analyzed using a Bayesian compound Poisson model (BcPM) with square‐root transformation. Twelve‐month interim analyses met futility criteria; dosing was paused. An independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended trial continuation. Post hoc 18‐month interim analyses utilized BcPM with square‐root transformation and HO data collapsed to equalize MOVE and NHS visit schedules, BcPM without transformation, and weighted linear mixed‐effects (wLME) models, alongside prespecified analysis. Safety was assessed throughout. Eighteen‐month interim analyses included 97 MOVE and 101 NHS individuals with post‐baseline WBCT. BcPM analyses without transformation showed 99.4% probability of any reduction in new HO with palovarotene versus NHS participants (with transformation: 65.4%). Mean annualized new HO volume was 60% lower in MOVE versus the NHS. wLME results were similar (54% reduction fitted; nominal p = 0.039). All palovarotene‐treated patients reported ≥1 adverse event (AE); 97.0% reported ≥1 retinoid‐associated AE; 29.3% reported ≥1 serious AE, including premature physeal closure (PPC)/epiphyseal disorder in 21/57 (36.8%) patients aged <14 years. Post hoc computational analyses using WBCT showed decreased vertebral bone mineral density, content, and strength, and increased vertebral fracture risk in palovarotene‐treated patients. Thus, post hoc analyses showed evidence for efficacy of palovarotene in reducing new HO in FOP, but high risk of PPC in skeletally immature patients. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Abstract Background: Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) is an ultra-rare, autosomal dominant disorder driven by mutations in ACVR1 that render it responsive to Activin A. FOP is characterized by progressive heterotopic ossification (HO) and distressing inflammatory events called “flare-ups.” Flare-ups can precede new HO; however, limited prospective data exists on this phenomenon. Garetosmab (GAR), an investigational human monoclonal antibody against Activin A, blocks formation of new HO in FOP. Methods: This is a post-hoc analysis of LUMINA-1 (NCT03188666) a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, which evaluated the safety and efficacy of GAR (10 mg/kg/week IV) versus placebo (PBO) in adult patients with FOP over 28 weeks. Patient-reported flare-ups were collected via a patient diary and severity level was reported as mild, moderate or severe. Clinician-reported flare-ups were collected as adverse events in the trial. HO lesions were imaged by 18F-NaF positron emission tomography (PET) and whole-body low-dose X-ray computed tomography (CT). Results: There was a two-fold higher proportion of patients who reported one or more flare-ups on PBO 17/24 (71%) compared with GAR 7/20 (35%). Clinicians reported a four-fold higher proportion of patients experiencing one or more flare-ups on PBO 10/24 (42%) compared with GAR 2/20 (10%). Overall rates of flare-up events were two-fold higher on PBO vs. GAR (1.4 vs. 0.65 events/patient/28 weeks) for patient-reported events and eight-fold higher on PBO vs. GAR by clinician report (0.83 vs. 0.10 events/patient/28 weeks). Most flare-ups occurred on the extremities and back; pain was the most commonly reported symptom. Patient-reported flare-ups on PBO were more frequently reported as severe (29.4%) compared with GAR (7.7%). Among subjects with at least 12 weeks of follow-up from start of patient-reported flare-up, development of new HO near the site was 5/27 (18.5%) on PBO and (0%) on GAR. Of all new HO lesions, 41% on PBO and 0% on GAR occurred with spatial and temporal relation to flare-up. Conclusions: Approximately two-thirds of patients on PBO reported flare-ups over 28 weeks. GAR was associated with reductions in frequency and severity of flare-ups. Fewer than 20% of patient-reported flare-ups were associated with new HO, indicating frequent discordance of these phenomena, and compatible with previous reports. GAR’s ability to reduce patient- and clinician-reported flare-ups, as well as new HO lesions may provide an important therapeutic option.

Abstract Objective The objective is to provide an update of the 2019 Pharmacological Management of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the pharmacological management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women using romosozumab. Conclusions We reviewed findings from the meta-analysis and primary clinical trials assessing the efficacy of romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting sclerostin, for the prevention of fractures and concluded that this agent can be considered a treatment option for postmenopausal women at very high risk for osteoporotic fracture. The romosozumab label has a boxed warning, recommending careful consideration by the treating clinician as to cardiovascular risk profile in the individual woman who might receive this agent, since clinical trial data from an active comparator study show an imbalance in serious cardiovascular adverse events between romosozumab and alendronate.

Abstract Objective The objective is to formulate clinical practice guidelines for the pharmacological management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Conclusions Evidence from clinical trials and insights from clinical experience with pharmacologic therapies for osteoporosis were critically evaluated in formulating this guideline for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Patient preferences, data on adherence and persistence, and risks and benefits from the patient and provider perspectives were also considered in writing committee deliberations. A consensus by the Writing Committee members was achieved for four management principles: (i) The risk of future fractures in postmenopausal women should be determined using country-specific assessment tools to guide decision-making. (ii) Patient preferences should be incorporated into treatment planning. (iii) Nutritional and lifestyle interventions and fall prevention should accompany all pharmacologic regimens to reduce fracture risk. (iv) Multiple pharmacologic therapies are capable of reducing fracture rates in postmenopausal women at risk with acceptable risk-benefit and safety profiles.

Abstract The intensity of bone remodeling is a critical determinant of the decay of cortical and trabecular microstructure after menopause. Denosumab suppresses remodeling more than alendronate, leading to greater gains in areal bone mineral density (aBMD). These greater gains may reflect differing effects of each drug on bone microarchitecture and strength. In a phase 2 double-blind pilot study, 247 postmenopausal women were randomized to denosumab (60 mg subcutaneous 6 monthly), alendronate (70 mg oral weekly), or placebo for 12 months. All received daily calcium and vitamin D. Morphologic changes were assessed using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) at the distal radius and distal tibia and QCT at the distal radius. Denosumab decreased serum C-telopeptide more rapidly and markedly than alendronate. In the placebo arm, total, cortical, and trabecular BMD and cortical thickness decreased (−2.1% to −0.8%) at the distal radius after 12 months. Alendronate prevented the decline (−0.6% to 2.4%, p = .051 to &lt;.001 versus placebo), whereas denosumab prevented the decline or improved these variables (0.3% to 3.4%, p &lt; .001 versus placebo). Changes in total and cortical BMD were greater with denosumab than with alendronate (p ≤ .024). Similar changes in these parameters were observed at the tibia. The polar moment of inertia also increased more in the denosumab than alendronate or placebo groups (p &lt; .001). Adverse events did not differ by group. These data suggest that structural decay owing to bone remodeling and progression of bone fragility may be prevented more effectively with denosumab. © 2010 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research