Development of a Predictive Enrichment Marker for the Oral GH Secretagogue LUM-201 in Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency

Intranasal Delivery of a Ghrelin Mimetic Engages the Brain Ghrelin Signaling System in Mice

Ghrelin, the endogenous ligand of the growth hormone secretagogue receptor (GHSR), promotes food intake and other feeding behaviors, and stimulates growth hormone (GH) release from the pituitary. Growth hormone secretagogues (GHS), such as GHRP-6 and MK-0677, are synthetic GHSR ligands that activate orexigenic neuropeptide Y neurons that coexpress agouti-related peptide (AgRP) in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus when administered systemically. Systemic GHRP-6 also stimulates GH release in humans and rats. Thus, GHS and ghrelin have therapeutic relevance in patients who could benefit from its orexigenic and/or GH-releasing effects. This study examined whether intranasal delivery of ghrelin, GHRP-6, or MK-0677 engages the brain ghrelin signaling system. Effective compounds and doses were selected based on increased food intake after intranasal application in mice. Only GHRP-6 (5 mg/kg) increased food intake without adverse effects, prompting detailed analysis of meal patterns, neuronal activation in the arcuate nucleus (via Fos mapping) and neurochemical identification of c-fos messenger RNA (mRNA)-expressing neurons using RNAscope. We also assessed the effect of intranasal GHRP-6 on serum GH levels. Intranasal GHRP-6 increased food intake by increasing meal frequency and size. Fos expression in the arcuate nucleus was higher in GHRP-6-treated mice than in saline controls. When examining the neurochemical identity of c-fos-mRNA-expressing neurons, we found coexpression with 63.5 ± 1.9% Ghsr mRNA, 79 ± 6.8% Agrp mRNA, and 11.4 ± 2.5% Ghrh mRNA, demonstrating GHRP-6's ability to engage arcuate nucleus neurons involved in food intake and GH release. Additionally, intranasal GHRP-6 elevated GH serum levels. These findings suggest that intranasal GHRP-6, but not ghrelin or MK-0677, can engage the brain ghrelin signaling system.

Current understanding and perspectives on growth and long-acting GH therapy in Japan

From the perspective of clinical pediatric endocrinology, progress in molecular biology over the past few decades has improved our understanding of growth physiology. This progress was particularly conspicuous in the early era of Sanger-based sequencing and has continued into the current era of next-generation sequencing. The first half of this review summarizes the current understanding about growth. The latter half discusses the development of long-acting GH (LAGH), an important, recent topic in pediatric endocrinology, with a focus on the Japanese market. LAGH is administered weekly over several years in some developed countries as treatment for GH deficiency (GHD). In Japan, somatrogon and somapacitan are available, and lonapegsomatropin has completed a clinical trial. As per recent meta-analyses, these three products were not inferior to conventional, daily GH therapy for short-term growth in pediatric GHD. Although LAGH is promising, some concerns remain. Well-designed clinical research is needed to expand the indications for LAGH to other conditions, such as idiopathic short stature. Finally, future research on orally administered agents may open new avenues for the treatment of short stature.

Novel therapies for growth disorders

As we continue to understand more about the complex mechanism of growth, a plethora of novel therapies have recently been developed that aim to address barriers and optimize efficacy. This review aims to explore these novel therapies and provide a succinct review based on the latest clinical studies in order to introduce clinicians to therapies that will soon constitute the future in the field of short stature.  Conclusion: The review focuses on long-acting growth hormone formulations, a novel growth hormone oral secretagogue, novel treatments for children with achondroplasia, and targeted therapies for rare forms of skeletal dysplasias. What is Known: • Recombinant human growth hormone has been the mainstay of treatment for children with short stature for years. • Such therapy is not always effective based on the underlying diagnosis (e.g achondroplasia, Turner syndrome). Compliance with daily injections is challenging and can directly affect efficacy. What is New: • Recent development of long-acting growth hormone regimens and oral secretagogues can overcome some of these barriers, however several limitations need to be taken into consideration. • Newer therapies for achondroplasia, and other rare forms of skeletal dysplasias introduce us to a new era of targeted therapies for children with short stature. Clinicians ought to be aware of pitfalls and caveats before introducing these novel therapies to every day practice.

Comparing Dose-dependent Outcomes of Weekly and Daily Growth Hormone Therapy in Children with Growth Hormone Deficiency: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.. [DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3123741/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

Background Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) is a condition impacting children and adults, leading to low height and other health issues. The primary treatment is daily injections of recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH), though they can be inconvenient and costly. These injections may also negatively impact treatment adherence and outcomes. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly growth hormone treatment vs daily growth hormone therapy in children with growth hormone insufficiency. Methods To examine the efficacy and safety of once-weekly and once-daily growth hormone treatment for children with growth hormone insufficiency, this meta-analysis followed PRISMA and Cochrane standards. RCTs and prospective cohort studies with children aged 0–18 diagnosed with GHD were considered eligible. We used the risk of bias 2 and the certainty of evidence using the Cochrane tools. Two authors independently assessed papers for eligibility and extracted data after conducting a thorough search of electronic resources. Height velocity, height standard deviation score, insulin-like growth factor 1 levels, and the incidence of adverse events were the primary outcomes. The Revman software version 5.4 was used for data synthesis, and heterogeneity was determined by I-squares greater than 60%. Results This meta-analysis and comprehensive review includes 14 randomized clinical trials and one study was cohort, including 1,322 children with growth hormone insufficiency. Weekly growth hormone treatment at dosages ranging from 0.11 to 0.25 mg enhanced a variety of growth outcomes, including increased height velocity dose (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI, 0.23–0.51; P < 0.001), height standard deviation scores chronological age (SMD= -0.10, 95% CI, -0.13–0.07; P < 0.001), and insulin-like growth factor 1 standard deviation score (SMD = 0.41, 95% CI, 0.40–0.42; P < 0.001). The dosage range of 0.26 to 0.50 mg also improved insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 significantly (SMD= -0.63, 95% CI, -0.90 – -0.37; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events through the dosage levels (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.40; P = 0.32). Conclusions In children with growth hormone deficit, weekly growth hormone treatment, particularly in the 0.11 to 0.25 mg dose range, can function as a viable alternative to daily growth hormone therapy.

The Changing Face of Paediatric Human Growth Hormone Therapy

Human growth hormone (hGH) has been used therapeutically to promote growth in children for over 60 years. Pituitary-extracted hGH has demonstrated positive growth promotion since the early 1960s. In 1985, prion-induced contamination of hGH triggered a global epidemic of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease that was responsible for its discontinuation. Recombinant hGH immediately replaced pituitary hGH and, being available in large amounts, was used and licenced for therapy in GH-deficient children, followed by approval for non-GH deficient disorders such as Turner syndrome, short stature related to birth size small for gestational age, idiopathic short stature, SHOX deficiency, Prader–Willi syndrome and Noonan syndrome. RhGH therapy was refined by the use of growth prediction models; however, unmet needs, such as the variability in response and non-adherence resulted in the development of long-acting rhGH (LArhGH) molecules, which are currently in clinical trials and have shown non-inferiority in comparison with daily rhGH. It is likely that LArhGH will enter clinical practice in 2022 and 2023 and will need to demonstrate safety in terms of immunogenicity, IGF-1 generation, metabolic status and tolerability of potential injection pain and local reactions.

Binding domain characterization of growth hormone secretagogue receptor

Background and Objectives

Activation of ghrelin receptor growth hormone secretagogue receptor (GHS-R) by endogenous or synthetic ligands amplifies pulsatile release of growth hormone (GH) and enhances food intake, very relevant to development and growth. GHS-R is a G-protein coupled receptor that has great druggable potential. Understanding the precise ligand and receptor interactions is crucial to advance the application of GHS-R.

Materials and Methods

We used radiolabeled ligand-binding assay and growth hormone release assay to assess the binding and functional characteristics of GHS-R to synthetic agonists MK-0677 and GHS-25, as well as to endogenous peptide ligand ghrelin. We analyzed the ligand-dependent activity of GHS-R by measuring aequorin-based [Ca⁺⁺]_i responses. To define a ligand-binding pocket of GHS-R, we generated a series of human/puffer fish GHS-R chimeras by domain swapping, as well as a series of mutants by site-directed mutagenesis.

Results

We found that the synthetic ligands have high binding affinity to GHS-R in the in vitro competitive binding assay. Remarkably, the in vivo GH secretagogue activity is higher with the synthetic agonists MK-0677 and GHS-25 than that of ghrelin. Importantly, the activity was completely abolished in GHS-R knockout mice. In GHS-R chimera analysis, we identified the C-terminal region, particularly the transmembrane domain 6 (TM6), to be critical for the ligand-dependent activity. Our site-directed mutagenesis study further revealed that amino acid residues D99 and W276 in GHS-R are essential for ligand binding. Interestingly, critical residues distinctively interact with different ligands, MK-0677 activation depends on E124, while ghrelin and GHS-25 preferentially interact with F279.

Conclusion

The ligand-binding pocket of human GHS-R is mainly defined by interactive residues in TM6 and the adjacent region of the receptor. This novel finding in GHS-R binding domains advances the structural/ functional understanding of GHS-R, which will help to select/design better GHS-R agonists/ antagonists for future therapeutic applications.

A GH Secretagogue Receptor Agonist (LUM-201) Elicits Greater GH Responses than Standard GH Secretagogues in Subjects of a Pediatric GH Deficiency Trial

INTRODUCTION

LUM-201 (ibutamoren, formerly MK-0677) is an orally administered GH secretagogue receptor agonist under development for treatment of pediatric growth hormone deficiency (PGHD).

METHODS

The GH response to a single dose of LUM-201 and to other GH secretagogues used for diagnosis of PGHD were compared in 68 pediatric subjects participating in a trial for growth hormone deficiency.

RESULTS

LUM-201 elicited greater GH responses than observed in GHD diagnostic tests with arginine, glucagon, clonidine, L-dopa, and insulin-induced hypoglycemia [median and interquartile ranges 15.0 ng/mL (3.5, 49) vs. 5.5 ng/mL (1.8, 7.6) (p < 0.0001)]. The difference between responses was greatest in subjects with higher baseline IGF-I concentrations and higher GH responses to standard GH stimuli.

CONCLUSION

LUM-201 elicits greater GH responses than standard stimuli in subjects with higher peak GH in response to conventional testing and is potentially an orally administered treatment alternative to injectable rhGH in a subset of patients with adequate responses to an acute dose of LUM-201.

When Is a Positive Test for Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency a True-Positive Test?

BACKGROUND

In most cases, the growth hormone stimulation test is a necessary component for the diagnosis of growth hormone deficiency (GHD) in children. Diagnostic testing can lead to unnecessary treatment of children with false-positive test results and omission of treatment in children with false-negative results. False-positive results are suggested by the absence of typical growth responses in treated children and false-negative results are suggested by continued growth failure in those left untreated.

SUMMARY

The probability that a positive test result indicates the presence of the condition (true positive) depends on the prevalence of that condition in the test population and the false positive rate of the test. This probability has been estimated using published data on the prevalence of GHD in children and the false positive rates estimated from performance of stimulation tests in normally growing children and from repeated testing in short children. Because of the low prevalence of GHD and the substantial false positive rate of the test, the probability of a true-positive result in a child with short stature is 0.028, or about 1 in 36 cases. Key Messages: In children with short stature, most positive growth hormone stimulation test results will be false-positive results, resulting in growth hormone treatment of children misdiagnosed as growth hormone deficient. Additional information is required for accurate diagnosis and prediction of successful treatment outcomes in children. Improvements in diagnostic accuracy and treatment outcome predictions can be anticipated from the use of additional predictive enrichment markers identified and evaluated in broadly based studies of growth hormone treatment in children.

Approach to the Patient: Safety of Growth Hormone Replacement in Children and Adolescents

The use of recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) in children and adolescents has expanded since its initial approval to treat patients with severe GH deficiency (GHD) in 1985. rhGH is now approved to treat several conditions associated with poor growth and short stature. Recent studies have raised concerns that treatment during childhood may affect morbidity and mortality in adulthood, with specific controversies over cancer risk and cerebrovascular events. We will review 3 common referrals to a pediatric endocrinology clinic, followed by a summary of short- and long-term effects of rhGH beyond height outcomes. Methods to mitigate risk will be reviewed. Finally, this information will be applied to each clinical case, highlighting differences in counseling and clinical outcomes. rhGH therapy has been used for more than 3 decades. Data are largely reassuring, yet we still have much to learn about pharmaceutical approaches to growth in children and the lifelong effect of treatment.

Growth Hormone Stimulation Testing: To Test or Not to Test? That Is One of the Questions

The evaluation of children with short stature includes monitoring over a prolonged period to establish a growth pattern as well as the exclusion of chronic medical conditions that affect growth. After a period of monitoring, evaluation, and screening, growth hormone stimulation testing is considered when the diagnosis of growth hormone deficiency (GHD) is entertained. Though flawed, growth hormone stimulation tests remain part of the comprehensive evaluation of growth and are essential for the diagnosis of growth hormone (GH) deficiency. Variables including testing length, growth hormone assay and diagnostic cut off affect results. Beyond the intrinsic issues of testing, results of GH stimulation testing can be influenced by patient characteristics. Various factors including age, gender, puberty, nutritional status and body weight modulate the secretion of GH.

Effect of Weekly Long-Acting Growth Hormone Replacement Therapy Compared to Daily Growth Hormone on Children With Short Stature: A Meta-Analysis

Background

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of weekly long-acting growth hormone replacement therapy compared to daily growth hormone in children with short stature.

Methods

A systematic literature search up to April 2021 was performed and 11 studies included 1,232 children with short stature treated with growth hormone replacement therapy at the start of the study; 737 of them were using weekly long-acting growth hormone replacement therapy and 495 were using daily growth hormone. They were reporting relationships between the efficacy and safety of long-acting growth hormone replacement therapy and daily growth hormone in children with short stature. We calculated the odds ratio (OR), and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the efficacy and safety of weekly long-acting growth hormone replacement therapy compared to daily growth hormone in children with short stature using the dichotomous or continuous method with a random or fixed-effect model.

Results

Long-acting growth hormone replacement therapy had significantly lower height standard deviation scores chronological age (MD, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.08, p <0.001), and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 (MD, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.30, p <0.001) compared to daily growth hormone in children with short stature.However, growth hormone replacement therapy had no significantly difference in height velocity (MD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.69-0.5, p = 0.76), height standard deviation scores bone age (MD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.10-0.02, p = 0.16), insulin-like growth factor 1 standard deviation scores (MD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.26-0.79, p = 0.33), and incidence of adverse events (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.90-1.50, p = 0.25) compared to daily growth hormone in children with short stature.

Conclusions

Long-acting growth hormone replacement therapy had significantly lower height standard deviation scores chronological age, and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 compared to daily growth hormone in children with short stature. However, growth hormone replacement therapy had no significant difference in height velocity, height standard deviation scores bone age, insulin-like growth factor 1 standard deviation scores, and incidence of adverse events compared to daily growth hormone in children with short stature. Further studies are required to validate these findings.

Structural basis of human ghrelin receptor signaling by ghrelin and the synthetic agonist ibutamoren

The hunger hormone ghrelin activates the ghrelin receptor GHSR to stimulate food intake and growth hormone secretion and regulate reward signaling. Acylation of ghrelin at Ser3 is required for its agonistic action on GHSR. Synthetic agonists of GHSR are under clinical evaluation for disorders related to appetite and growth hormone dysregulation. Here, we report high-resolution cryo-EM structures of the GHSR-G_i signaling complex with ghrelin and the non-peptide agonist ibutamoren as an investigational new drug. Our structures together with mutagenesis data reveal the molecular basis for the binding of ghrelin and ibutamoren. Structural comparison suggests a salt bridge and an aromatic cluster near the agonist-binding pocket as important structural motifs in receptor activation. Notable structural variations of the G_i and GHSR coupling are observed in our cryo-EM analysis. Our results provide a framework for understanding GHSR signaling and developing new GHSR agonist drugs.

Development of a Predictive Enrichment Marker for the Oral GH Secretagogue LUM-201 in Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency

Context

We hypothesize, based on the degree of residual hypothalamic-pituitary function, that some, but not all, children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD) may have beneficial growth responses to the orally administered growth hormone (GH) secretagogue LUM-201.

Objective

To determine if pretreatment testing can identify predictive enrichment markers (PEM) for subjects with adequate residual function who are responsive to LUM-201.

Methods

We performed an analysis of a completed, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of LUM-201, a GH secretagogue receptor agonist, in which all randomized subjects had pretreatment testing.

This international multicenter study conducted in pediatric endocrinology clinics included 68 naïve-to-treatment, prepubertal children with established diagnoses of GHD. Outcome measures included the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracy of potential markers to predict 6-month growth responses to oral LUM-201 and daily rhGH.

Results

Two PEM were identified for use in defining PEM-positive status: (1) baseline insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) concentration >30 ng/mL and (2) peak GH response of ≥5 ng/mL upon administration of single-dose LUM-201. PEM-positive status enriches a population for better growth responses to LUM-201. PEM-negative status enriches a population for better growth responses to rhGH.

Conclusion

Combined, the peak GH response to single-dose LUM-201 and the baseline IGF-I concentration are effective PEMs for 6-month growth responses to LUM-201 and rhGH in prepubertal children with GHD.

Corroboration of Height Velocity Prediction Markers for rhGH With an Oral GH Secretagogue Treatment in Children With GHD

Context

Recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) is approved for treatment of pediatric growth hormone deficiency (GHD), with greatest growth responses observed in those with severe GHD. Orally administered GH secretagogues (GHS) may be useful treatment in patients with moderate GHD. Distinguishing children with severe vs moderate GHD could identify children who would be better treated with rhGH or GHS.

Objectives

Evaluate baseline insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) and stimulated peak GH response as predictors of 12-month height velocity (HV) in children with GHD.

Design

Data on children with GHD were analyzed in a legacy data base (GeNeSIS data).

Participants

514 naïve to rhGH-treatment, prepubertal children with idiopathic isolated GHD for whom stimulated GH, baseline serum IGF-I, and first-year HV during rhGH treatment data are available.

Outcome Measures

Children with severe or moderate GHD were categorized based on GH and IGF-I data and evaluated based on baseline auxologic and hormone profiles and first-year growth response to rhGH.

Results

Cohorts of severe and moderate GHD were 81/514 (15.8%) and 433/514 (84.2%). Cohorts differed significantly with regard to indicators of GHD [eg, baseline height SD score (SDS), height SDS minus target height SDS, HV, HV SDS, and change in height SDS during rhGH treatment]. Multiple regression analysis showed IGF-I and stimulated GH were significant predictors of HV independent of other known variables. Expected first-year HV in moderate GHD was 8.3 cm/y.

Conclusions

The combination of peak GH to GH stimulation testing and baseline IGF-I concentration are predictive enrichment markers for annualized HV responses to rhGH therapy.