IntroductionPrevious studies have demonstrated the superior efficacy of a novel aerosol foam formulation of fixed combination calcipotriene 0.005% (Cal) and betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (BD), compared with the ointment formulation. The aim of this study is to ascertain whether enhanced bioavailability of the active ingredients due to supersaturation and/or occlusive properties can explain the observed greater clinical efficacy.MethodsSolubility and evaporation experiments were conducted to examine the abilities of Cal/BD aerosol foam ingredients to create a supersaturated environment. Optical microscopy, Raman imaging and X-ray powder diffraction were used to examine the physical state of Cal and BD in the formulations after application, and determine whether a supersaturated state remained stable for clinically relevant time periods. In vitro skin penetration and ex vivo biomarker assays were conducted to compare the skin penetration and bioavailability of Cal and BD from the aerosol foam and ointment formulations, respectively. Occlusive properties were examined via transepidermal water loss.ResultsSolubility studies showed that Cal and BD solubility increased with increasing dimethyl ether (DME) content. Both active ingredients are completely dissolved in the final aerosol foam formulation. DME rapidly evaporates after spraying, and the amount was reduced to 0.5% of the initial amount after 2 min. This led to the formation of a supersaturated environment, where Cal and BD crystals were absent for at least 26 h after application. Cal/BD aerosol foam had significantly greater in vitro skin penetration and had increased bioavailability compared with Cal/BD ointment. Both formulations effectively occluded the skin.ConclusionA stable supersaturated solution of Cal/BD in the aerosol foam leads to increased bioavailability and explains the improved clinical effect when compared to the Cal/BD ointment.FundingThe studies included in the paper are all conducted by LEO Pharma A/S or CROs on behalf of LEO Pharma A/S.

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of age at growth hormone (GH) treatment start on near adult height (NAH) in children with isolated GH deficiency (GHD).DesignNordiNet® International Outcome Study (IOS) (Nbib960128), a non-interventional, multicentre study, evaluates the long-term effectiveness and safety of Norditropin® (somatropin) (Novo Nordisk A/S) in the real-life clinical setting.MethodsPatients (n = 172) treated to NAH (height at ≥18 years, or height velocity <2 cm/year at ≥16 (boys) or ≥15 (girls) years) were grouped by age (years) at treatment start (early (girls, <8; boys, <9), intermediate (girls, 8–10; boys, 9–11) or late (girls, >10; boys, >11)) and GHD severity (<3 ng/mL or 3 to ≤10 ng/mL). Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the effect of age at treatment start (as a categorical and continuous variable) on NAH standard deviation score (SDS).ResultsAge at treatment start had a marked effect on NAH SDS; NAH SDS achieved by patients starting treatment early (n = 40 (boys, 70.0%); least squares mean (standard error) −0.76 (0.14)) exceeded that achieved by those starting later (intermediate, n = 42 (boys, 57.1%); −1.14 (0.15); late, n = 90 (boys, 68.9%); −1.21 (0.10)). Multiple regression analysis showed a significant association between NAH SDS and age at treatment start (P < 0.0242), baseline height SDS (HSDS) (P < 0.0001), target HSDS (P < 0.0001), and GHD severity (P = 0.0012). Most (78.5%) patients achieved a normal NAH irrespective of age at treatment start.ConclusionsEarly initiation of GH treatment in children with isolated GHD improves their chance of achieving their genetic height potential.

ObjectiveRandomized controlled trials have shown that growth hormone (GH) therapy has effects on growth, metabolism, and body composition. GH therapy is prescribed for children with growth failure and adults with GH deficiency. Carefully conducted observational study of GH treatment affords the opportunity to assess long-term treatment outcomes and the clinical factors and variables affecting those outcomes, in patients receiving GH therapy in routine clinical practice.DesignThe NordiNet® International Outcome Study (IOS) and the American Norditropin® Studies: Web Enabled Research (ANSWER Program®) are two complementary, non-interventional, observational studies that adhere to current guidelines for pharmacoepidemiological data.PatientsThe studies include pediatric and adult patients receiving Norditropin®, as prescribed by their physicians.MeasurementsThe studies gather long-term data on the safety and effectiveness of reallife treatment with the recombinant human GH, Norditropin®. We describe the origins, aims, objectives, and design methodology of the studies, as well as their governance and validity, strengths, and limitations.ConclusionThe NordiNet® IOS and ANSWER Program® studies will provide valid insights into the effectiveness and safety of GH treatment across a diverse and large patient population treated in accordance with real-world clinical practice and following the Good Pharmacoepidemiological Practice and STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.

BackgroundFew studies have compared the response to growth hormone (GH) treatment between indications such as isolated growth hormone deficiency (IGHD), born small for gestational age (SGA), idiopathic short stature (ISS), and multiple pituitary hormone deficiency (MPHD). The aim of this analysis of data, collected from two large ongoing observational outcome studies, was to evaluate growth and insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) response data for children of short stature with IGHD, MPHD, SGA, or ISS following two years of treatment with the recombinant GH product Norditropin® (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark).MethodsAnalysis of auxologic data from two ongoing prospective observational studies, NordiNet® International Outcomes Study (NordiNet® IOS) and NovoNet®/American Norditropin® Studies: Web-enabled Research (ANSWER) Program®.Results4,582 children aged <18 years were included: IGHD, n = 3,298; SGA, n = 678; ISS, n = 334; and MPHD, n = 272. After two years’ GH treatment, change in height standard deviation score (SDS) was +1.03 in SGA and +0.84 in ISS vs. +0.97 in IGHD (p = 0.047; p < 0.001 vs. IGHD, respectively). Height gain was comparable between IGHD and MPHD. In pre-pubertal children vs. total population, height SDS change after two years was: IGHD, +1.24 vs. +0.97; SGA, +1.17 vs. +1.03; ISS, +1.04 vs. +0.84; and MPHD, +1.16 vs. +0.99 (all p < 0.001).ConclusionsAfter two years’ GH treatment, change in height SDS was greater in SGA and less in ISS, compared with IGHD; the discrepancy in responses may be due to the disease nature or confounders (i.e. age). Height SDS increase was greatest in pre-pubertal children, supporting early treatment initiation to optimize growth outcomes.

The use of appropriate growth standards/references is of significant clinical importance in assessing the height of children with short stature as it may determine eligibility for appropriate therapy. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of using World Health Organization (WHO) instead of national growth standards/references on height assessment in short children. Data were collected from routine clinical practice (1998–2014) from nine European countries that have available national growth references and were enrolled in NordiNet® International Outcome Study (IOS) (NCT00960128), a large-scale, non-interventional, multinational study. The patient cohort consisted of 5996 short pediatric patients diagnosed with growth hormone deficiency (GHD), Turner syndrome (TS) or born small for gestational age (SGA). The proportions of children with baseline height standard deviation score (SDS) below clinical cut-off values (–2 SDS for GHD and TS; –2.5 SDS for SGA) based on national growth references and WHO growth standards/references were compared for children aged <5 years and children aged ≥5 years. In seven of the countries evaluated, significantly fewer children aged ≥5 years with GHD (22%; P<0.0001), TS (21%; P<0.0001) or born SGA (32%; P<0.0001) had height below clinical cut-off values using WHO growth references vs. national references. Likewise, among children aged <5 years in the pooled analysis of the same seven countries, a significantly lower proportion of children with GHD (8%; P<0.0001), TS (12%; P = 0.0003) or born SGA (12%; P<0.0001) had height below clinical cut-off values using WHO growth standards vs. national references. In conclusion, in NordiNet® IOS the number of patients misclassified using WHO growth standards/references was significantly higher than with national references. This study highlights that, although no growth reference has 100% sensitivity for identifying growth disorders, the most recent national or regional growth charts may offer the most appropriate tool for monitoring childhood growth in Europe.