Safety and Efficacy of Lonapegsomatropin in Children With Growth Hormone Deficiency: enliGHten Trial 2-Year Results.

PURPOSE: The objectives of the ongoing, Phase 3, open-label extension trial enliGHten are to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of weekly administered long-acting growth hormone lonapegsomatropin in children with growth hormone deficiency. METHODS: Eligible subjects completing a prior Phase 3 lonapegsomatropin parent trial (heiGHt or fliGHt) were invited to participate. All subjects were treated with lonapegsomatropin. Subjects in the United States switched to the TransCon hGH Auto-Injector when available. Endpoints were long-term safety, annualized height velocity, pharmacodynamics [insulin-like growth factor-1 SD score (SDS) values], and patient- and caregiver-reported assessments of convenience and tolerability. RESULTS: Lonapegsomatropin treatment during enliGHten was associated with continued improvements in height SDS through week 104 in treatment-naïve subjects from the heiGHt trial (-2.89 to -1.37 for the lonapegsomatropin group; -3.0 to -1.52 for the daily somatropin group). Height SDS also continued to improve among switch subjects from the fliGHt trial (-1.42 at fliGHt baseline to -0.69 at week 78). After 104 weeks, the average bone age/chronological age ratio for each treatment group was 0.8 (0.1), showing only minimal advancement of bone age relative to chronological age with continued lonapegsomatropin treatment among heiGHt subjects. Fewer local tolerability reactions were reported with the TransCon hGH Auto-Injector compared with syringe/needle. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with lonapegsomatropin continued to be safe and well-tolerated, with no new safety signals identified. Children treated with once-weekly lonapegsomatropin showed continued improvement of height SDS through the second year of therapy without excess advancement of bone age.

Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of Macimorelin in Children with Suspected Growth Hormone Deficiency: An Open-Label, Group Comparison, Dose-Escalation Trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Diagnosis of growth hormone deficiency (GHD) in children requires the use of provocative growth hormone (GH) stimulation tests, which can have limited reliability and are potentially contraindicated in some patients. This is the first paediatric study to test the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics (PD) of macimorelin, an oral GH secretagogue, approved for diagnosis of adult GHD. METHODS: In this open-label, group comparison, single-dose escalation trial (EudraCT 2018-001988-23), sequential cohorts of patients (C1-C3) received ascending single doses of macimorelin: 0.25 (C1), 0.5 (C2), and 1.0 (C3) mg/kg. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, and secondary endpoints were PK/PD. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients aged between 2 and <18 with suspected GHD participated in the study. No macimorelin-related adverse events were reported, and macimorelin was well tolerated. Plasma macimorelin concentrations increased with dose: mean areas under the curve were 6.69 (C1), 18.02 (C2), and 30.92 (C3) h × ng/mL; mean maximum concentrations were 3.46 (C1), 8.13 (C2), and 12.87 (C3) ng/mL. GH concentration increased following macimorelin administration: mean times of maximum measured concentration were 52.5 (C1), 37.5 (C2), and 37.5 (C3) min. CONCLUSION: All 3 doses of macimorelin had excellent safety and tolerability with PK/PD profiles in expected ranges. These results support the use of 1.0 mg/mL macimorelin in a Phase 3 test validation trial in children.

Difference in Insulin Resistance Assessment between European Union and Non-European Union Obesity Treatment Centers (ESPE Obesity Working Group Insulin Resistance Project).

INTRODUCTION: The obesity epidemic has become one of the most important public health issues of modern times. Impaired insulin sensitivity seems to be the cornerstone of multiple obesity related comorbidities. However, there is no accepted definition of impaired insulin sensitivity. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesize that assessment of insulin resistance differs between centers. METHODS: The ESPE Obesity Working Group (ESPE ObWG) Scientific Committee developed a questionnaire with a focus on the routine practices of assessment of hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, which was distributed through Google Docs platform to the clinicians and researchers from the current ESPE ObWG database (n = 73). Sixty-one complete responses (84% response rate) from clinicians and researchers were analyzed: 32 from European Union (EU) centers (representatives of 14 countries) and 29 from Non-EU centers (representatives from 10 countries). Standard statistics were used for the data analysis. RESULTS: The majority of respondents considered insulin resistance (IR) as a clinical tool (85.2%) rather than a research instrument. For the purpose of IR assessment EU specialists prefer analysis of the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) results, whereas non-EU ones mainly use Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR; p = 0.032). There was no exact cutoff for the HOMA-IR in either EU or non-EU centers. A variety of OGTT time points and substances measured per local protocol were reported. Clinicians normally analyzed blood glucose (88.52% of centers) and insulin (67.21%, mainly in EU centers, p = 0.0051). Furthermore, most participants (70.5%) considered OGTT insulin levels as a more sensitive parameter of IR than glucose. Meanwhile, approximately two-thirds (63.9%) of the centers did not use any cutoffs for the insulin response to the glucose load. CONCLUSIONS: Since there is no standard for the IR evaluation and uniform accepted indication of performing, an OGTT the assessment of insulin sensitivity varies between EU and non-EU centers. A widely accepted standardized protocol is needed to allow comparison between centers.