Osteonecrosis in Gaucher Disease in the era of multiple therapies: biomarker set for risk stratification from a tertiary referral center

Mohsen Basiri, Mohammad E. Ghaffari, Jiapeng Ruan, Vagishwari Murugesan, Nathaniel Kleytman, Glenn Belinsky, Amir Akhavan, Andrew Lischuk, Lilu Guo, Katherine Klinger, Pramod K. Mistry
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.21.23287476

Abstract

BACKGROUND A salutary effect of treatments for Gaucher disease (GD) has been reduction in the incidence of avascular osteonecrosis (AVN). However, there are reports of AVN in patients receiving enzyme replacement therapy (ERT), and it is not known whether it is related to individual treatments, GBA genotypes, phenotypes, biomarkers of residual disease activity or anti-drug antibodies.

OBJECTIVE Prompted by development of AVN in several patients receiving ERT, we aimed to delineate the determinants of AVN in patients receiving ERT or eliglustat substrate reduction therapy (SRT) during 20 years in a tertiary referral center.

METHODS Longitudinal follow-ups of 155 GD patients between 2001 and 2021, were analyzed for episodes of AVN on therapy, type of therapy, GBA1 genotype, spleen status, biomarkers, and other disease indicators. We applied mixed-effects logistic model to delineate the independent correlates of AVN while receiving treatment.

RESULTS The patients received cumulative 1382 years of treatment. There were 16 episodes of AVN in 14 patients, with two episodes, each occurring in two patients. Heteroallelic p.Asn409Ser GD1 patients were 10 times (95% CI,1.5 - 67.2) more likely than p.Asn409Ser homozygous patients to develop osteonecrosis during treatment. History of AVN prior to treatment initiation was associated with 4.8-fold increased risk of AVN on treatment (95% CI, 1.5-15.2). The risk of AVN among patients receiving velaglucerase ERT was 4.68 times higher compared to patients receiving imiglucerase ERT (95% CI,1.67-13). No patient receiving eliglustat SRT suffered AVN. There was a significant correlation between GlcSph levels and AVN. Together, these biomarkers reliably predicted risk of AVN during therapy (ROC AUC 0.894, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS There is a low, but significant risk of AVN in GD in the era of ERT/SRT. We found increased risk of AVN was related to GBA genotype, history of AVN prior to treatment initiation, residual serum GlcSph level, and the type of ERT. No patient receiving SRT developed AVN. These findings exemplify a new approach to biomarker applications in a rare inborn error of metabolism to evaluate clinical outcomes in comprehensively followed patients and will aid identification of GD patients at higher risk of AVN who will benefit from closer monitoring and treatment optimization.

Funding LSD Training Fellowship from Sanofi to MB.

1. Introduction

In Gaucher disease (GD), biallelic mutations in GBA1 result in defective lysosomal glucocerebrosidase and the cellular accumulation of glucosylceramide (GlcCer) and its downstream metabolite, glucosylsphingosine (GlcSph)1,2. These lipids accumulate classically in tissue macrophages and trigger a cascade of myeloid cell activation and chronic metabolic inflammation3-6.

Classical disease manifestations of GD include hepatosplenomegaly, cytopenia and complex skeletal disease involving marrow infiltration, bone pain, osteopenia, fragility fractures and recurrent avascular osteonecrosis (AVN) 7-9. In the neuronopathic forms of the disease (GD type 2 and type 3), there is additionally childhood onset of neurodegeneration, spinal deformity, pectus carinatum, and pulmonary involvement. Remarkably, severely disabling skeletal manifestations, would a priori, will be expected to be associated with commensurate severe involvement of other disease compartment, but no such relationship can be discerned10. In a large study from the International Gaucher Registry (ICGG, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00358943), occurrence of AVN did not correlate with severity of hepatosplenomegaly, genotype, thrombocytopenia, or extent of elevation of the disease biomarker, chitotriosidase. Only low hemoglobin and previous splenectomy were correlated with risk of AVN10. Therefore, clinicians and patients must remain vigilant of risk of AVN whether or not receiving treatment. Fortunately, there has been a reduction in the incidence of AVN since enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with macrophage mannose receptor (MMR)-targeted imiglucerase became the standard of care in 1990s.11 The incidence of osteonecrosis in untreated GD patients was reported to be 22.8 per 1000 person years (95% CI, 20.2–25.7) of follow-up. In small single center studies, AVN was reported in as many as half of GD patients12 13. The introduction of ERT in the 1990s led to reduction in the incidence of AVN to 13.8 per 1000 years of follow-up. Studies have also shown striking reduction in reports of bone pain and bone crisis in the era of therapeutics2,14. Since 2010, two other MMR-targeted ERTs have become available: velaglucerase and taliglucerase15-17. Specific impact of newer ERTs on risk of AVN is not known. A recent introduction to first-line therapies for GD1 includes substrate reduction therapy (SRT), using eliglustat, a potent inhibitor of glucosylceramide synthase. In the extensive clinical trial program spanning more than 10 years, only few episodes of AVN were reported18. In the placebo-controlled ENGAGE trial, there was only one case of AVN, which occurred in a patient receiving placebo19.

Despite, the success of ERT in reducing the risk of AVN, there are occasional reports of AVN occurring in patients receiving ERT20-22. Therefore, it becomes important to understand whether there are identifiable risk factors for AVN, despite receiving GD-specific therapy. Knowledge of such factors will guide physicians in more comprehensive monitoring of patients beyond hematological and visceral disease as well as potentially advance understanding of underlying mechanisms. Prompted by AVN occurring in two pediatric patients despite ERT, we conducted an analysis of longitudinally followed patients at our tertiary national referral center to identify risk factors for AVN among patients receiving GD-specific therapy. We found patients with compound heterozygous p.Asn409Ser/other genotype, compared to p.Asn409Ser homozygous genotype were at higher risk of AVN. Other risk factors included history of prior AVN before treatment initiation, type of ERT and serum level of glucosylsphingosine, a validated biomarker of Gaucher disease. Glucosylsphingosine is downstream metabolite produced by deacylation of glucosylceramide via acid ceramidase. Glucosylsphingosine is a relevant biomarker to study inflammatory manifestations of GD including AVN, as it is known to trigger immune activation and osteoblast dysfunction 5,23-26.

2. Methods

2.1. Patients

We conducted a retrospective study of 187 GD patients longitudinally followed from 2001 to December 2021 at our center. Our observational study is approved by Yale’s Human Investigation Committee. A total of 155 patients met the inclusion criteria including confirmed diagnosis of GD by enzymatic and molecular testing, known treatment status and date of initiation/switch (imiglucerase, velaglucerase, and eliglustat), known splenectomy status, previous history of AVN and longitudinal data of MRI volumetrics for liver and spleen, CBC, and biomarkers including glucosylsphingosine (GlcSph) and chitotriosidase.

Diagnosis of GD was based on diminished levels (<10% compared to controls) of acid β-glucosidase activity in peripheral blood leukocytes and full GBA1 sequencing using a combination of pacBio sequencing, WES and Sanger sequencing, as described previously 27. Patients were followed every 1 to 2 years with standard of care evaluations, including MRI to assess organomegaly and marrow infiltration, and laboratory testing28. Volumetric MRI of liver and spleen was converted to multiples of normal with normal liver volume: 2.5% of body weight and normal spleen volume: 0.2% body weight.

Patients developing new bone pain were evaluated earlier. Serum samples were collected at each clinic visit to determine biomarker trends for GlcSph and chitotriosidase, as well as other indicators of disease activity.

2.2. Surrogate disease biomarkers

Serum chitotriosidase activities were determined using a method described previously, with slight modifications29. Briefly, assay buffer was adjusted to pH 4.5, and the final concentration of 4-Methylumbelliferyl-beta-D-N,N’,N”-triacetylchitotriose (4MUT) fluorogenic substrate was 10 µM. CHIT1 genotyping was performed to normalize serum levels as described previously30. Serum glucosylsphingosine (GlcSph) levels were measured via liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry, LC-MS/MS25. Normal healthy control levels were ≤1 ng/ml.

2.3. AVN episodes

Generally, episodes of AVN were associated with new bone pain or exacerbation of chronic bone pain that prompted new visits, earlier than regular 1-2 yearly follow up. Occasionally, we found new AVN on MRI scans and on closer questioning patients reported bone pain that they managed symptomatically.

2.4. Statistical analysis

Frequency and percentage were used to describe qualitative data and mean, and standard deviation were used for quantitative data. Mixed effects logistic regression was applied to analyze repeated-measure data during treatment. In this study, three mixed-effects models were fitted on the data. A logistic mixed-effects model with the response of AVN incidence and two linear mixed models with the responses of chitotriosidase and glucosylsphingosine to different therapies. A random intercept was chosen to account for the presence of different quantitative variables and the uniformity of sizes with different numbers for patients 31. To compare the effect of each treatment on the changes of chitotriosidase and glucosylsphingosine, a linear mixed model with two-by-two Bonferroni comparisons was used. The structure of logistics mixed model was as follows: Embedded Image

Where Yi is a binary variable describing the outcome of case i (0 or 1), β is a fixed parameter vector, xi is a covariate vector for fixed effects, u is a vector of random variables from probability distributions, and zi is a covariate vector for random effects. u represents unmeasured covariates as a way of modeling heterogeneity and correlated data.

In the model used in our study, the response variable is incidence of AVN during treatment (yes/no). For fixed effects, the covariates included type of treatment (imiglucerase, velaglucerase and eliglustat), previous history of AVN (occurrence and non-occurrence), sex, GBA1 genotype, spleen status (intact spleen with volumetric measurement or splenectomized) and glucosylsphingosine (GlcSph), chitotriosidase, hemoglobin, platelet count, spleen volume, liver volume. The random effect was intercept. Several variance-covariance structures were examined for obtaining the best fit. To make this selection, Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC) was used for the least value. Autoregressive of Order 1 (Ar (1)) was chosen based on this criterion. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 28 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. MedCalc version 20.026 was used for ROC curve analysis and graphs were plotted by GraphPad Prism version 9.3.1.

3. Illustrative cases: The importance of awareness of AVN in pediatric patients

Two illustrative cases underscore the premise for our study. Patient 1 was born in in 2006-2010, had presented at pre-school age with history of chronic epistaxis and easy bruising and found to have cytopenia and splenomegaly. The proband was diagnosed with GD1, GBA1 genotype p.Asn409Ser/c.217delC mutations. Liver and spleen volumes were 1.68 and 10.68 multiples of normal respectively. The patient was commenced velaglucerase ERT at dose 60 U/kg/2 weeks. The patient developed infusion-associated reactions (IARs) initially controlled with premedication but became refractory by 24th infusion and was switched to taliglucerase ERT which also caused IARs. Further switch back to velaglucerase caused recurrent IARs. Hematological parameters began to decline and at age 6-10 and developed severe pain in femur concerning for AVN. Plain radiology was normal. Symptoms progressed, and patient was confined to the wheelchair. MRIs revealed diffuse bone marrow signal abnormality throughout the femur consistent with osteonecrosis in left femur (Fig 1a). Few months later, the patient developed AVN in right femur. (Figure 1 b). Patient was evaluated at our center one year later. The patient appeared chronically ill and in pain, was in wheelchair and had limited ability to weight-bear. Further studies revealed that patient had developed pan-neutralizing antibodies to all enzyme preparations (velaglucerase, imiglucerase, taliglucerase) after starting velaglucerase ERT. Due to high risk of extension of primary AVN in the femora and recurrent AVN at other sites we secured approval from our IRB for treatment with eliglustat via Emergency Use Protocol. During past 6 years on eliglustat, there have been no further bone crises, Hb increased from 10.6 to 13.6, and platelets from 107 to 184. Concomitantly, serum GlcSph was reduced from 644 ng/ml to 101 ng/ml.

Fig. 1a.
Fig. 1a.

T2 weighted MR image of the femurs, showing diffuse bone marrow signal abnormality throughout the left femur with associated periostitis and subperiosteal fluid collection. Fig. 1b. STIR MR image of the pelvis of the same patient one year after Fig. 1a. showing an expanding lesion of the greater trochanter, superiorly displacing fragments of bone and collapsed right hip joint.

Patient 2: The proband who was in good state of health, started to suffer from left femur pain during school age requring multiple ER admissions. Initial diagnosis included leg sprain, growing pains, Lyme arthritis and then osteomyelitis based on MRI findings. Despite antibiotics, femur pain persisted and pathology of debridement for presumed osteomyelitis was positive for Gaucher cells. GBA1 genotype was p.Asn409Ser/p. Leu483Pro mutations. The proband was started on velaglucerase ERT but few months later, the patient had recurrent AVN in left femur. The patient was switched to imiglucerase and has been remained free of AVN and hematological, visceral and biomarkers indicators show stable GD activity. More recently after the patient turned young adult, was switched to eliglustat SRT and continues to do well.

4. Results

4.1. Patient demographics and AVN on treatment

The demographics of patients in the study are shown in table 1. The cohort comprises 79 (50.3%) male individuals. Of the 155 patients studied, 42 (27.1%) had history of osteonecrosis prior to treatment initiation and 32 patients (20.6%) had undergone prior splenectomy.

View this table:
Table 1:

Demographic characteristics of entire patients

During 20 years span of this study, there were 16 episodes of AVN in 14 patients, with two episodes, each occurring in two patients. In aggregate, the patients received 1,382 cumulative years of treatment. By treatment type, total treatment years for imiglucerase ERT was 834 years and a total of six episodes of AVN occurred on imiglucerase ERT, i.e. 0.72 AVN per 100 years imiglucerase. Patients received cumulative 310 years velaglucerase ERT and there were ten episodes of AVN, i.e. 3.2 AVN per 100 years of velaglucerase ERT. Total treatment years for eliglustat SRT was 238 years and so far, there have been no episodes of AVN among patients receiving eliglustat SRT. The demographics of these 14 patients shown in table 2.

View this table:
Table 2:

Demographics and clinical features of patients with osteonecrosis on treatment at the proximity to AVN occurrence. Modes of presentation of AVN shown as ‘painful’ indicating new onset of bone pain prompting early evaluation and ‘silent’ discovered on routine annual MRI and in retrospect, further history indicated patients had exacerbation of chronic pain that they treated symptomatically. * age range: C (Child: age<18), YA (Young adult; age 18-40), MA (Middle-aged adult; age 40-60), OA (Older adult; age>60)

4.2. Delineating the determinants of AVN on treatment

Mixed effects logistic regression was applied for analyzing repeated-measure data during treatment to decipher risk factors for developing AVN on treatment (table 3). Heteroallelic p.Asn409Ser GD patients were 10 times (95% CI,1.5 - 67.2, P=0.003) more likely than p.Asn409Ser homozygous patients to develop osteonecrosis during treatment. History of AVN prior to treatment initiation increased the risk of AVN by 4.8-fold while receiving a specific Gaucher disease treatment (95% CI, 1.5-15.24, P=0.008). The risk of AVN among patients who had received velaglucerase ERT was 4.7 times higher compared to patients receiving imiglucerase ERT (95% CI,1.67-13.07, P=0.003). No patient receiving eliglustat SRT suffered AVN. There was a significant correlation between residual GlcSph levels and AVN (95% CI,1.004-1.02, P=0.004). For every 1 ng/ml increase in the level of GlcSph there was estimated 1.2% increase in the risk of developing osteonecrosis during treatment.

View this table:
Table 3:

Output of mixed-effects modeling

4.3. Assessing the role of serum GlcSph levels for the risk of AVN

ROC curve analysis was done to estimate cut-offs for GlcSph levels to predict the risk of AVN in GD patients while receiving treatment. The ROC curve shows true positive rate (sensitivity) as a function of the false positive rate (100-Specificity) for different cut-off points. We found the value of the area under the ROC curve at GlcSph serum level of 77.64 ng/ml to be 0.857 (Figure 2a.), i.e. GlcSph level is a significant variable correlated with the incidence of AVN while receiving treatment.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Diagnostic accuracy of serum level of glucosylsphingosine for diagnosis of AVN on treatment:

4.4. Effect of GD-specific therapies on biomarkers, Chitotriosidase and GlcSph

The three drugs used to treat GD showed differential response in reducing serum chitotriosidase activity. Velaglucerase appeared to be most effective in reducing chitotriosidase, followed by imiglucerase. Pairwise comparisons, showed the mean chitotriosidase in patients receiving velaglucerase was significantly lower than eliglustat, however, no significant difference was observed between velaglucerase and imiglucerase (P > 0.999). (Figure 3a.)

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Effect of different therapies on Chitotriosidase and GlcSph Fig. 3a. effects of three drugs on chitotriosidase (nmol/hr/ml) Fig. 3b. effects of three drugs on glucosylsphingosine (ng/ml)

Next, we examined serum GlcSph biomarker, and we found the three drugs were significantly different for effect on GlcSph reduction (P <0.001). Eliglustat was the most effective in reducing serum GlcSph, followed by imiglucerase, followed by velaglucerase. Pairwise comparisons, showed that the mean serum GlcSph in eliglustat-treated patients was significantly lower than the ERTs. There was no significant difference in patients receiving velaglucerase vs imiglucerase (P = 0.478). (Figure 3b.)

5. Discussion

Avascular osteonecrosis is one of the most devastating and life-altering manifestations of Gaucher disease that results in chronic disability and need for orthopedic surgeries 32. The underlying mechanism(s) of osteonecrosis in GD is not understood. Several mechanisms have been proposed including disruption of microcirculation by lipid-laden Gaucher macrophages, abnormal red cell morphology leading to ischemia and osteocyte death 33. Bone marrow cells in GD, exhibit abnormal secretome and osteoblast dysfunction in GD has been linked with accumulating bioactive Gaucher lipid, GlcSph 34,35. There is also evidence of aberrant osteoclast-osteoblast coupling via reduced sphingosine-1-phosphate in GD 36,37. Another emerging player in bone cellular pathology of GD, is the damage associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) released by necrotic osteocytes via macrophage-inducible C-type lectin (Mincle), which is known to induce osteoclastogenesis and bone loss38. In patients with osteonecrosis, Mincle was highly expressed at skeletal sites of osteocyte death and correlated with strong osteoclastic activity 38. GlcCer is a ligand for Mincle, which underscores the complex bone marrow-bone microenvironment in Gaucher disease and need for optimal therapeutic targeting to prevent disabling AVN.

While AVN occurred frequently in GD in the pre-ERT era 14, introduction of ERT since 1991, has reduced its incidence11,39. However, there are occasional reports of AVN among GD patients receiving ERT 20-22. Therefore, despite multiplicity of proposed mechanisms underlying AVN in GD, the final pathway likely involves the pathogenic lipids, metabolic inflammation and lipid-laden Gaucher macrophages. These aberrant pathways are expected to be ameliorated by ERTs and eliglustat SRT but their tissue distribution may have a differential effect 19,40, for example small molecule SRT vs recombinant macrophage mannose receptor-targeted recombinant ERT.

Our study is the first, to critically examine outcomes with respect to types (imiglucerase and velaglucerase) and mode of therapy (eliglustat SRT). In experience garnered over 20 years at a single tertiary referral center involving 1,382 cumulative years of Gaucher disease-specific treatments, we found no episode of AVN among eliglustat SRT-treated patients but there were several episodes among patients receiving imiglucerase and velaglucerase ERT. Unexpectedly, we found compared to imiglucerase ERT, patients receiving velaglucerase ERT had 4.7 odds ratio of AVN (95% CI,1.67-13.07, P=0.003). The basis for this apparent differential effectiveness to prevent AVN is not known. It should be kept in mind that imiglucerase and velaglucerase are not bioidentical. They differ in glycan residues and have minor amino acid changes. Gene expression analysis in mice infused with these enzymes result in different transcriptional profiles41. Moreover, velaglucerase have greater number of mannose residues compared to imiglucerase42. Theoretically, greater clearance by the liver and spleen via mannose receptors in macrophages of these organs could result in less delivery to the bone marrow. Additionally, imiglucerase have been shown to reverse osteoblast defect in cell cultures even though osteoblasts do not exhibit mannose receptors43. Our findings underscore the need for investigation of this topic in registry setting such as the Gaucher Outcomes Survey (GOS) that monitor long-term outcomes of velaglucerase ERT. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03291223). A phase 4 study on bone outcomes was recently completed, and its results will be relevant (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02574286) although the primary end-point for the trial appears to be bone density only. During our study, we did not have any episodes of AVN among patients treated with eliglustat SRT. This is in keeping with strikingly low episodes of AVN in extensive clinical trials18. In the ENGAGE placebo-controlled trial only one episode of AVN occurred in patient on placebo19,44.

Our results advance optimal management of patients with GD based on their biomarker profile. We found that other significant predictors of AVN while receiving treatment included patients with history of AVN prior to initiation of therapy, p.Ser409Asp/other GBA genotype and serum glucosylsphingosine level. We did not find any association of splenectomy with occurrence of AVN while on treatment. Some studies have suggested association of AVN with splenectomy11 but studies in longitudinally followed patients in UK showed AVN occurrence frequently preceded splenectomy suggesting that both AVN and need for splenectomy in pre-ERT era were indicators of severe disease13.

In our cohort, GBA genotype had a significant effect on the risk for developing osteonecrosis during treatment. Patients who were heteroallelic for p.Asp409Ser were 10 times more likely than p.Asp409Ser homozygous patients to develop osteonecrosis during treatment. In contrast, p.Asp409Ser / p.Asp409Ser appears to be protective against developing osteonecrosis, underscored by the fact that 51% of our cohort were homozygous for p.Asp409Ser mutation, among whom only one patient developed AVN during treatment. Another significant risk factor for developing AVN on treatment was previous history of AVN prior to treatment initiation.

The biomarkers of GD, chitotriosidase and GlcSph, are reduced by ERT and eliglustat SRT25. Of the therapies we examined, we found eliglustat to be most effective in reducing serum GlcSph compared to ERTs (imiglucerase > velaglucerase). We did not find any association of residual chitotriosidase and AVN. This is in keeping with other reports10. In our study we found residual serum GlcSph to be significantly associated with risk of AVN. Residual GlcSph level refers to serum concentration measured in sample taken at close proximity to the onset of AVN (but not levels prior to initiation of treatment). For the first time, our data demonstrate the significance of residual biomarker level which should aid patient stratification for risk of AVN among patients receiving treatment. We used a dual cut-off strategy for serum level of GlcSph to stratify patients for the risk of AVN while receiving treatment in GD patients. There were no episodes of AVN when GlcSph level was less than 21.7 ng/ml with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 79.4%–100%) and specificity 24.6%. In contrast GlcSph level of 77.64 ng/ml has sensitivity of 81.2% (95% CI, 54.4%-96%) and specificity of 82.8% (95% CI, 80.7%-84.8%) for association with AVN in GD patients receiving treatment. Therefore, our findings permit AVN risk stratification based on GlcSph levels into three groups (Table 4.): patients with low risk: GlcSph < 21.7 ng/ml, patients with intermediate risk: 21.8 ng/ml <GlcSph< 77.64 ng/ml and patients at high risk: GlcSph> 77.64 ng/ml.

View this table:
Table 4:

Serum GlcSph levels according to probabilities for AVN occurrence while on treatment with dual cutoffs to stratify patients for AVN risk.

These findings suggest it is prudent to aim to achieve GlcSph levels < 21.8 ng/ml as a therapeutic goal, i.e., <21.8-fold above normal. In practice, the significance of considering these GlcSph levels is greatly enhanced by considering its context of use regarding other risk factors. For example, as shown in figure 2b. in patients with at least one of delineated risk factors in our study i.e. compound heterozygosity for p.Asn409Ser, history of AVN prior to treatment or velaglucerase ERT, sensitivity for GlcSph level at 77.64 ng/ml increases to 87.5% (Figure 2b.). In patients who harbor at least two of these risk factors, GlcSph level of 77.14 ng/ml has sensitivity of 92.9% and specificity of 78.8% to rule in the probability of AVN on ERT (Figure 2c.). In patients with all three risk factors, GlcSph level of 71.8 ng/ml is 100% sensitive to support the probability of AVN with specificity of 82.4% (Figure 2d.).

Our findings are not an indication to change ERTs, as we recognize many patients are benefiting from both imiglucerase as well as velaglucerase. However, our experience suggests it is unwise for empirical changes in types of ERTs by third parties 45. Rather, our findings help to elevate optimal management of GD from prevalent practice of monitoring blood counts with or without biomarkers and occasional imaging to new level of risk stratification to identify high risk patients who would benefit from closer monitoring and treatment optimization. Our study is not without limitations. First, it is a single center study, however, the uniform protocol for comprehensive evaluation and long-term follow up of individual patients are significant strengths. Second, our center is a tertiary referral center, and a referral bias could have enriched patients with AVN, however, this potential bias would apply across our entire patient population. It will be important to examine the GOS which captures data on outcomes of velaglucerase ERT. Hitherto, reports from GOS have iteratively reported only hematological and visceral outcomes, frequently conflating outcomes from multiple ERTs under a generic term ERT46. It behooves on the investigators to build incremental evidence of efficacy, instead of iterative reports of end-points used in primary trials. It should be noted that in 2014, a study was initiated to assess bone outcomes on velaglucerase ERT (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02574286), however, there are no reports to date from this study and end-points do not include reduction of AVN incidence.

In conclusion, our study demonstrates residual risk of AVN on Gaucher disease patients receiving therapy. Independent risk factors for AVN whilst patients were receiving therapy were pAsp409Ser/other GBA mutation, pre-ERT history of AVN, serum GlcSph level and velaglucerase ERT. Our results will aid optimal monitoring of GD patients, help enrich clinical trials of rare heterogeneous Gaucher disease and stimulate comparative effectiveness analysis in the era of multiple therapies.

Data Availability

All data used for this study have been collected from patients' electronic medical records (EMR) and due to patient privacy and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) we are not allowed to share patients' data. The main barrier for us is that for example patient identity would be identifiable based on the constellation of a specific Gaucher genotyping, age, gender, type of treatment, etc. therefore, we are only able to provide patients' data after Yale's IRB approval and re-consenting the patients. For interested researchers and academic physician investigators we can provide Excel sheet of our dataset with numbers used to plot the graphs and charts in our manuscript upon request. They can directly reach out to the corresponding author Dr. Pramod Mistry.

Disclosures

PKM receives a research grant from Sanofi and has received travel support from Sanofi. LG and KK are employees of Sanofi and may hold stocks.

Acknowledgements

We thank our patients for the opportunity to provide their Gaucher-related care and for their participation in our studies. MB is supported by Lysosomal Disease Fellowship from Sanofi.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Mistry PK, Belmatoug N, vom Dahl S, Giugliani R. Understanding the natural history of G aucher disease. American journal of hematology. 2015;90:S6–S11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    van Dussen L, Biegstraaten M, Dijkgraaf MG, Hollak CE. Mtodelling Gaucher disease progression: longterm enzyme replacement therapy reduces the incidence of splenectomy and bone complications. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. 2014;9(1):1–19.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Orvisky E, Park JK, LaMarca ME, et al. Glucosylsphingosine accumulation in tissues from patients with Gaucher disease: correlation with phenotype and genotype. Molecular genetics and metabolism. 2002;76(4):262–270.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    Rigante D, Cipolla C, Basile U, Gulli F, Savastano MC. Overview of immune abnormalities in lysosomal storage disorders. Immunology letters. 2017;188:79–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Nair S, Boddupalli CS, Verma R, et al. Type II NKT-TFH cells against Gaucher lipids regulate B-cell immunity and inflammation. Blood, The Journal of the American Society of Hematology. 2015;125(8):1256–1271.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    Nair S, Branagan AR, Liu J, Boddupalli CS, Mistry PK, Dhodapkar MV. Clonal immunoglobulin against lysolipids in the origin of myeloma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;374(6):555–561.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Hughes D, Mikosch P, Belmatoug N, et al. Gaucher Disease in Bone: From to Practice Pathophysiology. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 2019;34(6):996.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.
    Grabowski GA, Petsko GA, Kolodny EH. Gaucher Disease. In: Valle DL, Antonarakis S, Ballabio A, Beaudet AL, Mitchell GA, eds. The Online Metabolic and Molecular Bases of Inherited Disease. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education; 2019.
  9. 9.↵
    Yeh M, Weinreb N, Deegan P, Vellodi A, Cole J, Mistry P. Avascular necrosis in untreated patients with type 1 Gaucher disease. Paper presented at: Molecular Genetics and Metabolism2009.
  10. 10.↵
    Khan A, Hangartner T, Weinreb NJ, Taylor JS, Mistry PK. Risk factors for fractures and avascular osteonecrosis in type 1 Gaucher disease: a study from the International Collaborative Gaucher Group (ICGG) Gaucher Registry. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 2012;27(8):1839–1848.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Mistry PK, Deegan P, Vellodi A, Cole JA, Yeh M, Weinreb NJ. Timing of initiation of enzyme replacement therapy after diagnosis of type 1 Gaucher disease: effect on incidence of avascular necrosis. British journal of haematology. 2009;147(4):561–570.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    Desnick RJ, Gatt S, Grabowski GA. Gaucher Disease, a Century of Delineation and Research: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Gaucher Disease, Held in New York City, July 22–24, 1981. Vol 1: A. Liss; 1982.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Deegan PB, Pavlova E, Tindall J, et al. Osseous manifestations of adult Gaucher disease in the era of enzyme replacement therapy. Medicine. 2011;90(1):52–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Mistry PK, Batista JL, Andersson HC, et al. Transformation in pretreatment manifestations of Gaucher disease type 1 during two decades of alglucerase/imiglucerase enzyme replacement therapy in the International Collaborative Gaucher Group (ICGG) Gaucher Registry. American journal of hematology. 2017;92(9):929–939.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Cox TM. Competing for the treasure in exceptions. Am J Hematol. 2013;88(3):163–165.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.
    Zimran A, Pastores GM, Tylki-Szymanska A, et al. Safety and efficacy of velaglucerase alfa in Gaucher disease type 1 patients previously treated with imiglucerase. American journal of hematology. 2013;88(3):172–178.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Gonzalez DE, Turkia HB, Lukina EA, et al. Enzyme replacement therapy with velaglucerase alfa in Gaucher disease: Results from a randomized, double-blind, multinational, Phase 3 study. American journal of hematology. 2013;88(3):166–171.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Cox TM, Charrow J, Lukina E, Mistry PK, Foster MC, Peterschmitt MJ. Long-term effects of eliglustat on skeletal manifestations in clinical trials of patients with Gaucher disease type 1. Genetics in Medicine. 2022.
  19. 19.↵
    Mistry PK, Lukina E, Ben Turkia H, et al. Clinical outcomes after 4.5 years of eliglustat therapy for Gaucher disease type 1: Phase 3 ENGAGE trial final results. American journal of hematology. 2021;96(9):1156–1165.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Goker-Alpan O. Therapeutic approaches to bone pathology in Gaucher disease: past, present and future. Molecular genetics and metabolism. 2011;104(4):438–447.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.
    Potnis KC, Flueckinger LB, Ha CI, Upadia J, Frush DP, Kishnani PS. Bone manifestations in neuronopathic Gaucher disease while receiving high-dose enzyme replacement therapy. Molecular genetics and metabolism. 2019;126(2):157–161.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    Fost Md, van Noesel CJ, Aerts JM, Maas M, Poll RG, Hollak CE. Persistent bone disease in adult type 1 Gaucher disease despite increasing doses of enzyme replacement therapy. Haematologica. 2008;93(7):1119–1120.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Mistry PK, Liu J, Yang M, et al. Glucocerebrosidase gene-deficient mouse recapitulates Gaucher disease displaying cellular and molecular dysregulation beyond the macrophage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(45):19473–19478.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.
    Dekker N, van Dussen L, Hollak CE, et al. Elevated plasma glucosylsphingosine in Gaucher disease: relation to phenotype, storage cell markers, and therapeutic response. Blood, The Journal of the American Society of Hematology. 2011;118(16):e118–e127.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Murugesan V, Chuang WL, Liu J, et al. Glucosylsphingosine is a key biomarker of Gaucher disease. American journal of hematology. 2016;91(11):1082–1089.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Saville JT, McDermott BK, Chin SJ, Fletcher JM, Fuller M. Expanding the clinical utility of glucosylsphingosine for Gaucher disease. Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease. 2020;43(3):558–563.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Drelichman GI, Escobar NF, Soberon BC, et al. Long-read single molecule real-time (SMRT) sequencing of GBA1 locus in Gaucher disease national cohort from Argentina reveals high frequency of complex allele underlying severe skeletal phenotypes: Collaborative study from the Argentine Group for Diagnosis and Treatment of Gaucher Disease. Molecular Genetics and Metabolism Reports. 2021;29:100820.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Charrow J, Esplin JA, Gribble TJ, et al. Gaucher disease: recommendations on diagnosis, evaluation, and monitoring. Archives of internal medicine. 1998;158(16):1754–1760.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    Schoonhoven A, Rudensky B, Elstein D, et al. Monitoring of Gaucher patients with a novel chitotriosidase assay. Clinica chimica acta. 2007;381(2):136–139.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    Boot RG, Renkema GH, Verhoek M, et al. The human chitotriosidase gene: nature of inherited enzyme deficiency. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1998;273(40):25680–25685.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    Detry MA, Ma Y. Analyzing repeated measurements using mixed models. Jama. 2016;315(4):407–408.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Marcucci G, Zimran A, Bembi B, et al. Gaucher disease and bone manifestations. Calcified tissue international. 2014;95(6):477–494.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Mikosch P, Hughes D. An overview on bone manifestations in Gaucher disease. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift. 2010;160(23):609–624.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Mistry PK, Liu J, Yang M, et al. Glucocerebrosidase gene-deficient mouse recapitulates Gaucher disease displaying cellular and molecular dysregulation beyond the macrophage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010;107(45):19473–19478.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    Campeau PM, Rafei M, Boivin M-N, Sun Y, Grabowski GA, Galipeau J. Characterization of Gaucher disease bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells reveals an altered inflammatory secretome. Blood, The Journal of the American Society of Hematology. 2009;114(15):3181–3190.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Ryu J, Kim HJ, Chang EJ, Huang H, Banno Y, Kim HH. Sphingosine 1-phosphate as a regulator of osteoclast differentiation and osteoclast–osteoblast coupling. The EMBO journal. 2006;25(24):5840–5851.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    Ishii M, Egen JG, Klauschen F, et al. Sphingosine-1-phosphate mobilizes osteoclast precursors and regulates bone homeostasis. Nature. 2009;458(7237):524–528.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    Andreev D, Liu M, Weidner D, et al. Osteocyte necrosis triggers osteoclast-mediated bone loss through macrophage-inducible C-type lectin. The Journal of clinical investigation. 2020;130(9):4811–4830.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    Mistry PK, Deegan P, Vellodi A, Cole JA, Yeh M, Weinreb NJ. Avascular Necrosis in Untreated Patients with Type 1 Gaucher Disease. Blood. 2009;114(22):1353.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Weinreb NJ, Camelo Jr JS, Charrow J, McClain MR, Mistry P, Belmatoug N. Gaucher disease type 1 patients from the ICGG Gaucher Registry sustain initial clinical improvements during twenty years of imiglucerase treatment. Molecular Genetics and Metabolism. 2021;132(2):100–111.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Dasgupta N, Xu Y-H, Oh S, et al. Gaucher disease: transcriptome analyses using microarray or mRNA sequencing in a Gba1 mutant mouse model treated with velaglucerase alfa or imiglucerase. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e74912.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Tekoah G. functionality of recombinant β-glucocerebrosidase from various production systems. Biosci Rep. (33).
  43. 43.↵
    Panicker LM, Srikanth MP, Castro-Gomes T, Miller D, Andrews NW, Feldman RA. Gaucher disease iPSC-derived osteoblasts have developmental and lysosomal defects that impair bone matrix deposition. Human molecular genetics. 2018;27(5):811–822.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Cox TM CJ, Lukina E, Mistry PK, Foster MC, Peterschmitt MJ Long-term Effects of Oral Eliglustat on Skeletal Manifestations in Patients with Gaucher Disease Type 1: Results from Four Clinical Trials. Genetics in Medicine. 2022;in press.
  45. 45.↵
    Barranger JA, Brady RO, Grabowski GA, Mankin H, Mistry PK, Weinreb NJ. Position statement: National Gaucher Foundation Medical Advisory Board, January 7, 2014. American Journal of Hematology. 2014;89(5):457–458.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Hughes DA, Deegan P, Giraldo P, et al. Switching between Enzyme Replacement Therapies and Substrate Reduction Therapies in Patients with Gaucher Disease: Data from the Gaucher Outcome Survey (GOS). Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022;11(17):5158.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted March 27, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Osteonecrosis in Gaucher Disease in the era of multiple therapies: biomarker set for risk stratification from a tertiary referral center
Mohsen Basiri, Mohammad E. Ghaffari, Jiapeng Ruan, Vagishwari Murugesan, Nathaniel Kleytman, Glenn Belinsky, Amir Akhavan, Andrew Lischuk, Lilu Guo, Katherine Klinger, Pramod K. Mistry
medRxiv 2023.03.21.23287476; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.21.23287476
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area