MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387380870 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvad114.571

OR29-06 Flare-Ups In Patients With Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Reduced By Garetosmab Treatment: LUMINA-1 Data

2023· article· en· W4387380870 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn Dahir, Jennifer McGinniss, Eduardo Forleo‐Neto, Scott Mellis, Robert J. Sanchez, Maja Di Rocco, Richard Keen, Philippe Orcel, Christian Roux, Jacek Tabarkiewicz, Javier Bachiller‐Corral, Angela M. Cheung, Mona Al Mukaddam, Kusha Mohammadi, Dushyanth Srinivasan, A. J. Rankin, Aris N. Economides, Dinko González Trotter, Frederick S. Kaplan, Marelise Eekhoff, Robert J. Pignolo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging and Pathology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryPharmacologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Disclosure: K.M. Dahir: Consulting Fee; Self; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ultragenyx, Inozyme, AM Pharma. Grant Recipient; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca, Ultragenyx. J. McGinniss: Employee; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Stock Owner; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. E. Forleo-Neto: Employee; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Stock Owner; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. S. Mellis: Employee; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Stock Owner; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. R.J. Sanchez: Employee; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Stock Owner; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. M. Di Rocco: Research Investigator; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen. R. Keen: Advisory Board Member; Self; International Clinical Council on FOP and IFOPA Registry. Research Investigator; Self; Ipsen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Clementia. P. Orcel: Research Investigator; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. C. Roux: Consulting Fee; Self; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amgen Inc. Grant Recipient; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Kyowa, Kirin Brewery, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. J. Tabarkiewicz: Speaker; Self; Merck, Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Other; Self; SoftSystem. J. Bachiller-Corral: Research Investigator; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. A.M. Cheung: Consulting Fee; Self; Ipsen. Grant Recipient; Self; Ipsen, Incyte, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. M. Al Mukaddam: Grant Recipient; Self; Ipsen, Clementia, Incyte, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. K. Mohammadi: Employee; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Stock Owner; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. D. Srinivasan: Employee; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Stock Owner; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. A. Rankin: Employee; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Stock Owner; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. A.N. Economides: Employee; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Stock Owner; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. D. Gonzalez Trotter: Employee; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Stock Owner; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. F.S. Kaplan: Research Investigator; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Clementia, Ipsen. M.W. Eekhoff: Grant Recipient; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, IMI, IFOPA. R.J. Pignolo: Grant Recipient; Self; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Clementia, Ipsen, Incyte. Background: Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) is an ultra-rare autosomal dominant disorder driven by missense mutations in ACVR1. This results in inappropriate activation by activin-A. FOP is characterized by progressive heterotopic ossification and painful soft tissue inflammatory events known as flare-ups. Garetosmab, an investigational, fully human monoclonal antibody against activin-A, prevents formation of new heterotopic ossification lesions in FOP. Here we describe the impact of garetosmab on flare-up events in the LUMINA-1 study (NCT03188666). Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of phase 2 LUMINA-1, a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study that evaluated the safety and efficacy of garetosmab 10 mg/kg/every 4 weeks intravenous vs placebo in adult patients with FOP over 28 weeks (Period 1), followed by a 28-week open-label treatment period (Period 2) and subsequent open-label extension (Period 3). Patient-reported flare-ups were collected via a patient diary and severity of symptoms was reported as mild, moderate, or severe. Clinician-reported flare-ups were collected as adverse events. Results: In Period 1, there was a significant reduction in the proportion of patients reporting one or more flare-ups (35% vs 71%, p=0.032) and clinician-reported flare-ups (10% vs 42%, p=0.039) with garetosmab vs placebo, respectively. The overall number of patient-reported flare-ups (13 vs 34) and mean days experiencing new flare-ups (42.6 days vs 65.4 days) were also reduced with garetosmab vs placebo, respectively. Most flare-ups occurred in the back in garetosmab-treated patients, and most flare-ups occurred in the lower extremities and back for those on placebo. Pain was the most frequent symptom among both cohorts. Flare-up associated joint stiffness and severity of flare-up associated symptoms were nominally reduced at both patient and flare-up level of assessment in those treated with garetosmab. No patients reported severe swelling or severe decrease in movement. One patient reported severe pain and joint stiffness in the garetosmab cohort. In Period 2, there were significant reductions in the proportion of patients experiencing flare-ups (68% vs 14%, p=0.0002) and number of patient-reported flares (31 vs 11) among those who crossed over from placebo in Period 1 to garetosmab. Patients who continued on garetosmab through Period 2 maintained a sustained reduction in number of flare-ups (12 vs 6) and proportion of patients experiencing flare-ups (33.3% vs 22.2%). Reductions were maintained through the open-label extension. Conclusions: Patients treated with garetosmab experienced significant and sustained reductions in the frequency, duration, and severity of flare-ups. The ability of garetosmab to reduce flare-up events may provide a clinically meaningful benefit for patients with FOP. Presentation: Sunday, June 18, 2023

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicMedical Imaging and Pathology StudiesFrench-language works237,207