Natural history of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva: cross-sectional analysis of annotated baseline phenotypes

Robert J Pignolo, Geneviève Baujat, Matthew A Brown, Carmen De Cunto, Maja Di Rocco, Edward C Hsiao, Richard Keen, Mona Al Mukaddam, Kim-Hanh Le Quan Sang, Amy Wilson, Barbara White, Donna R Grogan, Frederick S Kaplan, Robert J Pignolo, Geneviève Baujat, Matthew A Brown, Carmen De Cunto, Maja Di Rocco, Edward C Hsiao, Richard Keen, Mona Al Mukaddam, Kim-Hanh Le Quan Sang, Amy Wilson, Barbara White, Donna R Grogan, Frederick S Kaplan

Abstract

Background: Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva (FOP; OMIM#135100) is an ultra-rare, severely disabling genetic disease characterized by congenital malformation of the great toes and progressive heterotopic ossification (HO) in muscles, tendons, ligaments, fascia, and aponeuroses often preceded by painful, recurrent soft tissue swelling (flare-ups). The formation of HO leads to progressive disability, severe functional limitations in joint mobility, and to a shortened life-span. In this prospective natural history study, we describe the baseline, cross-sectional disease phenotype of 114 individuals with FOP.

Methods: All subjects underwent protocol-specified baseline assessments to determine their disease status. Cross-sectional analyses were performed using linear regression in which functional evaluations (Cumulative Analogue Joint Involvement Scale [CAJIS] and the FOP-Physical Function Questionnaire [FOP-PFQ]) and the burden of HO as measured by low-dose whole body CT (volume of HO and number of body regions with HO) were assessed.

Results: Findings from 114 subjects (age range 4 to 56 years) were evaluated. While subject age was significantly (p < 0.0001) correlated with increased CAJIS (r = 0.66) and FOP-PFQ scores (r = 0.41), the estimated mean increases per year (based on cross-sectional average changes over time) were small (0.47 units and 1.2%, respectively). There was also a significant (p < 0.0001) correlation between baseline age and HO volume (r = 0.56), with an estimated mean increase of 25,574 mm3/year. There were significant (p < 0.0001) correlations between the objective assessment of HO volume and clinical assessments of CAJIS (r = 0.57) and FOP-PFQ (r = 0.52).

Conclusions: Based on the cross-sectional analysis of the baseline data, functional and physical disability as assessed by CAJIS and the FOP-PFQ increased over time. Although longitudinal data are not yet available, the cross-sectional analyses suggest that CAJIS and FOP-PFQ are not sensitive to detect substantial progression over a 1- to 2-year period. Future evaluation of longitudinal data will test this hypothesis. The statistically significant correlations between HO volume and the functional endpoints, and the estimated average annual increase in total HO volume, suggest that the formation of new HO will be measurable over the relative short-term course of a clinical trial, and represents an endpoint that is clinically meaningful to patients.

Trial registration: This study ( NCT02322255 ) was first posted on 23 December, 2014.

Keywords: Clinical trial endpoints; Cross-sectional analysis; Disease progression; Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva; Heterotopic ossification; Natural history.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved initially by The Committee on Human Research at the University of California San Francisco (approval number: 14–13854) and subsequently approved by the ethics committees at the six other study site institutions (University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board; Comité de Protection des Personnes, Ile de France II; Comitado Etico Regionale San Martino; Hospital Italiano Comité de Ética de Protocolos de Investigacion; NHS Health Research Authority, London-Stanmore Research Ethics Committee; Metro South Human Research Ethics Committee). The study was registered at Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

AW, BW, and DRG are Clementia employees. All other authors received funding from Clementia to implement and conduct the study. In addition, the authors’ travel expenses were paid to attend Investigator meetings at which study activities and results were discussed.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Correlation between Subject Age and Measures of Functional Disability. Correlation analysis of CAJIS Total Score and age (top) and FOP-PFQ Percent Total Score and age (bottom) in subjects with FOP. Correlation assessed using linear regression with baseline age as a covariate
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Correlation between Subject Age and HO Volume. Correlation analysis of total body volume of HO and age in subjects with FOP. Correlation assessed using linear regression with baseline age as a covariate
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Whole Body Computed Tomography Images from Representative Subjects
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Correlation between Total Body Volume of HO and Measures of Functional Disability. Correlation analysis of CAJIS Total Score and volume of total body HO (top) and FOP-PFQ Percent Total Score and volume of total body HO (bottom) in subjects with FOP. Correlation assessed using linear regression with baseline age as a covariate
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Correlation between CAJIS and FOP-PFQ. Correlation analysis of CAJIS Total Score and FOP-PFQ Percent Total Score in subjects with FOP. Correlation assessed using linear regression with baseline age as a covariate

References

    1. Shore EM, Xu M, Feldman GJ, Fenstermacher GJ, Cho T-J, Choi IH, et al. A recurrent mutation in the BMP type I receptor ACVR1 causes inherited and sporadic fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. Nat Genet. 2006;38(5):525–527. doi: 10.1038/ng1783.
    1. Kaplan FS, Pignolo RJ, Shore EM. The FOP metamorphogene encodes a novel type I receptor that dysregulates BMP signaling. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2009;20(5–6):399–407. doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2009.10.006.
    1. Lilijesthrom M, Bogard B. The global known FOP population. In: FOP Drug Development Forum. Boston, MA; 2016.
    1. Baujat G, Choquet R, Bouée S, Jeanbat V, Ruel A, Michot C, et al. Prevalence of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) in France: an estimate based on a record linkage of two national databases. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0674-5.
    1. Connor JM, Evans DA. Genetic aspects of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. J Med Genet. 1982;19(1):35–39. doi: 10.1136/jmg.19.1.35.
    1. Connor JM, Evans DA. Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. The clinical features and natural history of 34 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1982;64(1):76–83. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.64B1.7068725.
    1. Kaplan F, Al Mukaddam M, Baujat G, Brown M, Cali A, Cho T-J, et al. The medical management of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva: current treatment considerations. Proc Int Clin Counc FOP. 2019;1:1–111.
    1. Pignolo RJ, Bedford-Gay C, Liljesthrom M, Durbin-Johnson B, Shore EM, Rocke DM, et al. The natural history of flare-ups in Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva (FOP): a comprehensive global assessment. J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31(3):650–656. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.2728.
    1. Kaplan FS, Zasloff MA, Kitterman JA, Shore EM, Hong CC, Rocke DM. Early mortality and cardiorespiratory failure in patients with fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(3):686–691. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00705.
    1. Cohen RB, Hahn GV, Tabas JA, Peeper J, Levitz CL, Sando A, et al. The natural history of heterotopic ossification in patients who have fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. A study of forty-four patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(2):215–219. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199302000-00008.
    1. Morales-Piga A, Bachiller-Corral J, Trujillo-Tiebas MJ, Villaverde-Hueso A, Alonso-Ferreira V, Vazquez-Diaz M, et al. Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva in Spain: epidemiological, clinical, and genetic aspects. Bone. 2012;51(4):748–755. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2012.07.002.
    1. Smith R, Athanasou NA, Vipond SE. Fibrodysplasia (myositis) ossificans progressiva: clinicopathological features and natural history. QJM Mon J Assoc Physicians. 1996;89(6):445–446. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/89.6.445.
    1. Kaplan FS, Al Mukaddam M, Pignolo RJ. A cumulative analogue joint involvement scale (CAJIS) for fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) Bone. 2017;101:123–128. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2017.04.015.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. . Published December 2009. Accessed 20 Sep 2017.
    1. Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, Cella D. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2009;18(7):873–880. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9.
    1. Forrest CB, Bevans KB, Pratiwadi R, et al. Development of the PROMIS((R)) pediatric global health (PGH-7) measure. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2014;23(4):1221–1231. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0581-8.
    1. Gavin P. The importance of natural histories for rare diseases. Expert Opin Orphan Drugs. 2015;3(8):855–857. doi: 10.1517/21678707.2015.1063415.
    1. Zhang W, Zhang K, Song L, et al. The phenotype and genotype of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva in China: a report of 72 cases. Bone. 2013;57(2):386–391. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2013.09.002.
    1. Kaplan FS, Al Mukaddam M, Pignolo RJ. Acute unilateral hip pain in fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) Bone. 2018;109:115–119. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2017.08.009.
    1. Pignolo RJ, Shore EM, Kaplan FS. Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva: clinical and genetic aspects. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:80. doi: 10.1186/1750-1172-6-80.
    1. Kaplan FS, Xu M, Seemann P, Connor JM, Glaser DL, Carroll L, et al. Classic and atypical fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) phenotypes are caused by mutations in the bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) type I receptor ACVR1. Hum Mutat. 2009;30(3):379–390. doi: 10.1002/humu.20868.

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj