throbber
CLINICAL STUDIES
`
`Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug-Associated
`Gastropathy: Incidence and Risk Factor Models
`JAMES F. FRIES, M.D., CATHERINE A. WILLIAMS, M.A., DANIEL A. BLOCH,Ph.D.,
`BEAT A. MICHEL, M.D., Stanford, California
`
`PURPOSE: The most prevalent serious drug tox-
`icity in the United States is increasingly recog-
`nized as gastrointestinal (GI) pathology associ-
`ated with the use of nonsteroidal
`anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The inci-
`dence of serious GI events (hospitalization or
`death) associated with NSAID use was therefore
`prospectively analyzed in patients with rheuma-
`toid arthritis (RA) and patients with
`osteoarthritis.
`PATIENTS, METHODS, AND RESULTS; The study
`consisted of 2,747 patients with RA and 1,091 pa-
`tients with ostecarthritis. The yearly hospital-
`ization incidence during NSAID treatment was
`1.58% in RA patients and was similar in all five
`populations studied. The hazard ratio of patients
`taking NSAIDs to those not taking NSAIDs was
`5.2. The incidence in osteoarthritis may be less.
`The risk of GI-related death in RA patients was
`0.19% per year with NSAIDs, Multivariate anal-
`yses assessing risk factors for serious GI events
`were performed in the 1,694 (98 with an event)
`RA patients taking NSAIDs at the predictive
`visit. The main risk factors were higher age, use
`of prednisone, previous NSAID GIside effects,
`prior GI hospitalization, level of disability, and
`NSAID dose. A rule is presented that allows esti-
`mation of the risk for the individual patient with
`RA.
`CONCLUSION: Knowledgeof the risk factors for
`NSAID-associated gastropathy andtheir inter-
`relationships provides a tool for identification of
`the patient at high risk and for initiation of ap-
`propriate therapeutic action.
`
`From the Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Departmentof
`Medicine, Stanford University Schoo! of Medicine, Stanford, California.
`This work was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of
`Health (AR21393) to ARAMIS (the Arthritis, Rheumatism, and Aging
`Medical
`Information System) and in part by a grant from Searle
`Laboratories.
`Requests for reprints should be addressed to James F. Fries, M.D.,
`1000 Welch Road,Suite 203, Palo Alto, California 94304.
`Manuscript submitted November 30, 1990, and accepted in revised
`
`form March18, 1991.
`
`astrointestinal (GI) pathology associated with
`the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
`drugs (NSAIDs) is increasingly recognized as the
`most prevalent serious drug toxicity in the United
`States, resulting in an estimated 2,600 deaths and
`24,000 hospitalizations annually in patients with
`rheumatoid arthritis (RA) alone [1,2]. The predom-
`inant syndromeconsists of antral prepyloric ulcers,
`which may eventuate in GI hemorrhage or perfora-
`tion, although events in the duodenum,small bow-
`el, and the large bowel are also seen. Ulcerations
`visible on endoscopy havea point prevalence of 10%
`to 25%, and severe erosions are seen in additional
`patients [3-5]. The risk of GI hospitalization has
`been estimated at 1% to 1.5% per year in persons
`taking NSAIDs[1], and the risk of death is approxi-
`mately 0.13% per year in individuals treated with
`NSAIDs [1,6,7]. The importance of the syndrome
`has been emphasized by gastroenterologists [3,8,9],
`rheumatologists [2,5,10], and the Food and Drug
`Administration (FDA) [11].
`Importantinformation required for estimation of
`the magnitudeofthe problem and for development
`of strategies for resolution, however, has been lack-
`ing. For example, the prevalence of complications in
`conditions other than RA, such as osteoarthritis,
`has not been established. Generalizability of the
`observationsto different practice sites has not been
`presented. Quantitation of likely risk factors such
`as prior bleeding has not been reported, and the
`frequency of deaths has not been confirmed by pro-
`spective study. Most importantly, while individual
`risk factors have been suggested by a number of
`investigators [1,12,13], no multivariate risk factor
`modelthat permits estimation ofrisk in the individ-
`ual patient has been presented.
`This report addresses these issues in two steps:
`(1) with descriptive analyses of 2,747 patients with
`RA followed prospectively for an average of 4 years
`at five ARAMIS (Arthritis, Rheumatism, and Aging
`Medical Information System) data bank centers
`[14,15] and 1,091 patients with osteoarthritis, and
`(2) with risk factor analyses based on the 1,694 of
`these RA patients taking NSAIDsat the predictive
`visit.
`
`September 1991 The American Journal of Medicine Volume91
`
`213
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`NSAID-ASSOCIATED GASTROPATHY/ FRIES ET AL
`
`TABLE|
`
`
`
`Rheumatoid Arthritis Gastrointestinal (GI) Hospitalization by Center
`
`
`Number of patients
`Person-years of observation
`Person-years taking NSAIDs
`Gl hospitalizations
`Numberof patients
`Rate per person-year (%)
`Number taking NSAIDs
`Rate per year while taking NSAIDs (%)
`Numberof years of observationafter Ist
`hospitalization
`Numberof additionalG! hospitalizations
`while taking NSAIDs
`Rate forat leastonemore Gl erie
`tion per yearwhile taking NSAIDs (%)
`Numberof patients with upper Gl hospi-
`talizations
`Rate of upperGI eins peryear
`while taking NSAIDs (%)
`Numberof patients with lower G! hospi-
`talizations
`Rate of lower GI hospitalizations per year
`while taking NSAIDs (%)
`
`PATIENTS AND METHODS
`
`Two thousand seven hundred and forty-seven
`patients with RA consecutively enrolled and fol-
`lowed at five ARAMIS centers,for a total of 9,525
`years of observation, were available for study (Ta-
`ble I). The Santa Clara County population of 302
`patients represents a community population re-
`cruited by advertisement. The other populations
`were formed by consecutive patient accrual at the
`site. The 679 Saskatoon patients are believed to
`make up the great majority of patients in Northern
`Saskatchewan province, the 307 Phoenix patients
`were drawn from a rheumatology private practice,
`as were the 1,080 Wichita patients, and the 379
`Stanford patients were enrolled from a tertiary care
`referral center. Data are collected in two modes.
`First, all routine clinical data including diagnosis,
`symptoms,signs, demographics,past history, labo-
`ratory tests, and treatment are entered for each
`patient encounter and hospitalization. Second, pa-
`tients complete the Health Assessment Question-
`naire (HAQ)[1,16-18] at 6-month intervals, provid-
`ing validated self-report of disability, discomfort,
`drug toxicity, and economic impact. All hospitaliza-
`tions and deaths are audited by abstraction of dis-
`charge summaries and NSAID usage at time of
`event confirmed. Deaths are reviewed by death cer-
`tificate discharge summary andrecent clinical
`notes. The system, procedures, andvalidation tech-
`niques have been previously described [2,14~18].
`The dependent variable in this study was “GI
`event,” consisting of an eventsufficiently serious as
`
`to result in hospitalization or death. Events are
`counted only when they are the primary basis for
`hospitalization or death, notif they occurred during
`a hospitalization or as part of a terminal illness
`sequence. Patients are considered to be taking
`NSAIDs if they report on the HAQ immediately
`prior to the event that they are taking any oneof the
`following drugs: aspirin, naproxen, ibuprofen,pir-
`oxicam,
`indomethacin, sulindac, meclofenamate,
`tolmetin, fenoprofen, ketoprofen, nonacetylated sa-
`licylates, salsalate, diflunisal, or diclofenac.
`Forrisk factor delineation, items considered were
`those available at the HAQ prior to the event—the
`predictive visit. Patients had had from oneto 13 6-
`month periods of observation. Obviously, patients
`analyzed for risk factors for NSAID gastropathy
`were required to be taking an NSAID atthe predic-
`tive visit. Among the 130 patients with GI events, 32
`patients were not included in the analysis because
`they were nottaking NSAIDs at the predictive visit,
`or did not have HAQ data within 9 months prior to
`the event. Therefore, 98 patients with GI events
`were available for comparison with patients with-
`out GI events (controls). Similarly, of the 2,617
`(2,747 minus 130) patients eligible as controls, 1,021
`were excluded because they did not meet one or
`moreof the abovecriteria. By definition, the non-
`event group could not have a GI event; however,
`control patients’ records were randomly truncated
`to match the numberof 6-month periods in which
`events occurred in patients with GI events. For ex-
`ample, 5% of the GI events occurred at the seventh
`
`214
`
`September 1991 The American Journal of Medicine Volume 91
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`NSAID-ASSOCIATED GASTROPATHY/ FRIES ET AL
`
`
`TABLEI
`Variables Associated with Gastrointestinal (Gl) Hospitalization or Death at Predictive Visit
`
`Gl Events (n = 98)
`Number
`Mean
`Defined
`(SE)
`
`No Gi Events (n = 1,596)
`Number
`Mean
`Defined
`{SE)
`
`p Value
`
`98
`95
`98
`98
`7§
`92
`98
`93
`93
`74
`93
`
`65.47 (1.05)
`11.94 (0.25)
`18.75 (1.20)
`1.69(0.08)
`0.10 (0.04)
`0.20 (0.08)
`0.53 (0.04)
`1.03 (0.06)
`0.45 (0.06)
`0.28 (0.05)
`0.53(0.07)
`
`1,596
`1,525
`1,583
`1,596
`1,287
`1,529
`1,558
`1,582
`1,583
`1,314
`1,583
`
`58.65 (0.33)
`12.50 (0.07)
`16.86 (0.28)
`1.38 (0.02)
`0.17 (0.01)
`0.44 (0.12)
`0.59 (0,01)
`0.91 (0.01)
`0.56 (0.01)
`0.09 (0.01)
`0.22 (0.01)
`
`<0.001
`0.06
`O11
`<0.001
`0.08
`0.09
`0.15
`<0.05
`0.07
`<0.001
`<0.001
`
`Continuous variables
`Age (years)
`Education level (years)
`Disease duration {years}
`Disability index (0~3)
`Smoking (packs/day)
`Alcohol (drinks/day)
`Specialty care
`NSAID dose (see text)
`Numberof DMARDs
`Numberof Hz-antagonists
`Numberof antacids or Hp-antagonists
`Categorical variables (% positive)
`0.97
`76.7
`1,596
`76.5
`98
`Female sex
`0.06
`94.5
`1,545
`98.9
`95
`White race
`0.14
`17.2
`1,287
`10.7
`75
`Smoker
`0.21
`18.2
`1,529
`13.0
`92
`Alcohol
`<0.001
`18.6
`1,583
`32.3
`93
`NSAIDGl side effect ever
`<0.001
`31.0
`1,583
`51.6
`93
`rednisone
`<0.01
`10.1
`1,312
`20.3
`74
`Antacids
`<0.001
`91
`1,314
`28.4
`74
`Ho-antagonists
`Antacids or Hp-antagonists <0.001 93 40.9 1,583 19.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6-month observation period and,therefore, predic-
`tion was made using information at the sixth obser-
`vation period;similarly, a random 5% of the control
`subjects were analyzed at the sixth observation pe-
`riod as predictive of an “event” at the seventh ob-
`servation period. This method was applied to each
`of the 13 possible 6-month observation periods to
`adjust for differences that would otherwise have
`been present in the amount of data available for
`prediction in cases and controls. The mean time
`interval between the predictive data at the HAQ
`prior to the event and the HAQ associated with the
`event was 6.1 months.
`Univariate analyses were performed using a t-test
`for 11 continuous variables and by using a chi-square
`test on 2 X 2 tables for nine binary variables. The p
`Variable
`values are those computed for each individual com-
`parison and may be adjusted for multiple compari-
`sons by the Bonferroni adjustment. All variables sta- a
`tistically significant as predictors at the 0.05 level
`Smoker
`(two-tailed) and several additional variables consid-
`oecomplsht
`ered as potentially important were further analyzed
`Prednisone
`by multivariate analyses. Stepwise multiple logistic
`antagonist
`regression and recursive partitioning (classification
`Antacid or Ho-antagonist
`and regression tree) analyses were employed [19].
`NSAID dose > 1.0 (see text)
`RESULTS
`> sOseer
`Incidence
`eHyears
`> 70 years
`Ofthe 2,747 RA patients available for study, 130
`> 75 years
`Disability index (0-3)
`had GIevents sufficiently serious to result in hospi-
`>L
`>2
`talization or death. When hospitalizations were
`tabulated in these 130 patients, 116 patients had
`
`128 hospitalizations (10 patients had two hospital-
`izations and one patient had three) and 17 had GI-
`related deaths. Among the 17 GI deaths, three pa-
`tients had had prior GI hospitalizations. Data
`presented in Table I describe the 116 hospitaliza-
`tion events (the last event among patients with
`multiple hospitalizations). Data subsequently pre-
`sented in Tables II through VI result from analysis
`ofthe last GI event (death or hospitalization). Four-
`teen patients had previous GI events (three pa-
`
`TABLE tll
`OddsRatios for Selected Variables with Respect to Gastrointestinal (GI)
`Hospitalization or Death
`
`1.23-2.91
`
`95%Confidence
`
`pads
`10
`0.6
`of
`24
`23
`29
`14
`ie
`a2.0
`2.2
`
`89
`
`ee
`
`September 1991 The American Journal of Medicine Volume91
`
`215
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`NSAID-ASSOCIATED GASTROPATHY/ FRIES ET AL
`
`
`TABLE \V
`Risk Factors for Gastrointestinal(Gl) Complications Related to Hospitalization or Death: Stepwise Logistic Regression
`
`for Odds Ratios 1,03-1.07
`
`Step
`Number
`
`Variable
`
`Age (years)
`Prednisone
`Previous NSAIDGl side effect
`NSAID
`dose
`Disability index (0-3)
`
`;
`Coefficient (SE)
`
`0.047(0.01)
`
`Improvement
`p Value
`<0,0001
`
`95% Confidence Interval
`
`1.15-1.76
`1.18-1.86
`0.95-1.90
`0.92-1.59
`
`TABLE V
`
`Characteristics of Classification Tree Subgroups with Respect to Gastrointestinal (G1) Hospitalization or Death
`
`GI Event Rate
`Subgroup
`NumberofPatients
`PercentofPatients
`YearTakingNSAIDs
`Number
`Characteristics
`GI/NoG! Event
`with GIEvent
`(%
`
`nsone
`1
`Age 76 years or older, no pred-
`12/79
`13.2
`4.2
`
`
`2
`
`Age 48 years or older, taking pred-
`nisone, disease duration > 3.7
`years,disability index > 1.7
`3
`Age 48 to 63 years, previous
`136
`16.3
`38
`NSAID side effects, disability
`index > 1.3
`
`4
`Gl event group: 10 second events
`3.1
`outof 98 (10.2%)
`
`33/199
`
`14.2
`
`3.9
`
`being taken, the overall frequency was 1.58% per
`tients with Gl-related deaths who had previous GI
`year. When the analysis was limited to upper GI
`hospitalizations, and 11 patients with multiple GI
`hospitalizations).
`hospitalizations, the rate during treatment with
`NSAIDs was 1.4% per year.
`Of the 116 last hospitalizations, 107 occurred
`Table I breaks down these hospitalizations by
`while patients were taking NSAIDs. Ninety-five of
`data bank center to evaluate the generalizability of
`these were noted as upper GI problems on discharge
`summaries, and 82 of these were gastric in location.
`the observations. The percentage of GI hospitaliza-
`Twelve were localized to the lower GI tract. The
`tions per year during NSAID treatment ranged
`from 1.2% in Santa Clara County to 1.8% in Saska-
`overall rate of GI hospitalizations per year of obser-
`toon and in Phoenix. Upper GI hospitalizations
`vation was 1.2%. During periods when NSAIDs were
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Age 48 years orolder, taking pred-
`nisone,disease duration > 3.7
`years,disability index 0.3 to
`l7
`
`
`13148
`
`8.1
`
`2.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`7
`
`Age 63 to 76 years, no prednisone
`Age < 47 years
`
`27/369
`3/342
`
`68
`0.9
`
`1.9
`03
`
`8
`Age 47 to 63 years, no pred-
`3340
`0.9
`nisone, never NSAIDside ef-
`fects
`
`
`03
`
`9
`Age 47 to 63years,previous
`(37
`0
`0
`NSAID side effects, disability
`
`index < 1.3, no prednisone
`
`10
`Age 47 years or older,taking pred-
`(24
`0
`0
`nisone, disease duration < 3.7
`years
`
`
`ll
`
`(22
`
`0
`
`0
`
`
`
`
`
`Age 47 years or older, taking pred-
`nisone, disease duration > 3.7
`years, disability index <0.3
`
`
`216
`
`September 1991 The American Journal of Medicine Volume 91
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`TABLE VI
`Description of Selected Variables Within Subgroupsof Tree (Figure 1)*
`
`
`
`NSAID-ASSOCIATED GASTROPATHY/ FRIES ET AL
`
`All
`
`1,694
`
`1
`
`91
`
`2
`
`232
`
`3
`
`43
`
`Disability index (0-3)
`Previous NSAID-related
`Glside effects (%)
`NSAIDdose (see text)
`
`
`Numberof patients
`
`Variables
`66
`57
`56
`39
`69
`63
`65
`57
`65
`79
`59
`Age (years)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(03) (0.6)=(1.8)(0.3) (0.6) (0.7) (Ll (0.6) (0.2} {0.3) (0.2)
`
`
`Disease duration (years)
`17
`18
`21
`16
`19
`19
`20
`12
`17
`15
`2
`
`(0.3)
`(1.2)
`(0.7)
`(15)
`(L2
`(0.9)
`(0.7)
`(0.4)
`(0.5)
`(0.1)
`(0.2)
`
`14
`17
`23
`1.9
`17
`12
`1.5
`il
`1.2
`0.7
`15
`(0.02)
`(0.1)
`(0.02)
`(0.07)
`(0.1)
`(0.03)
`(0.04)
`(0.04)
`(0.04)
`(01)
`(0.2)
`20
`13
`20
`100
`32
`14
`20
`24
`0
`100
`8
`
`09
`0.8
`10
`1.0
`10
`0.9
`0.9
`09
`1.0
`1.0
`13
`
`(0.01)
`(0.1)
`(0.03)
`(0.1)
`(0.1)
`(0.04)
`(0.03)
`(0.03)
`(0.03)
`(0.1)
`(0.2)
`30
`0
`100
`0
`52
`100
`0
`29
`0
`0
`100
`Use of prednisone
`
`20
`20
`35
`26
`41
`28
`21
`15
`11
`24
`21
`Use of antacids or
`He-antagonists (%)
`
`Timetaking NSAIDs
`4l
`38
`43
`51
`40
`43
`43
`38
`41
`45
`16
`(months)
`(0.5)
`(2.2)
`(1.3)
`(3.3)
`(2.1)
`(1.6)
`(LL)
`(1.1)
`(1.2)
`(3.2)
`(1.2)
`
`“Valuesare means (SE).
`
`Subgroup Number (G! Event Group)
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`98
`
`161
`
`396
`
`345
`
`8
`
`343
`
`9
`
`37
`
`10
`
`24
`
`ranged from 1.2% per year with NSAID treatment
`in Santa Clara County patients to 1.6% in Saska-
`toon. Results at all centers were similar, without
`statistically significant differences.
`Table I also lists patients taking NSAIDs who
`were hospitalized more than once. One subject was
`hospitalized three times. After the first hospitaliza-
`tion, the 10 additional hospitalizations occurred in
`only 201 years of observation, for a rate of 5% for at
`least one more GI hospitalization per year during
`treatment with NSAIDs. This rate varied from 0%
`in Phoenix to 8.3% in Santa Clara County. This
`overall rate of rehospitalization is approximately
`four times the rate of first hospitalization.
`There were 17 GI-related deaths occurring dur-
`ing these 9,525 years of observation. Thirteen of
`these deaths occurred in patients whowere reliably
`known to be taking NSAIDsat the time of death;
`each of the others might have been. This gives an
`overall GI death rate of 0.18% per year and a GI
`death rate during known treatment with NSAIDsof
`0.19% per year.
`
`Risk Factor Analyses
`Table II lists continuous variables analyzed uni-
`variately for their association with serious GI events
`(hospitalization or death) for patients having taken
`NSAIDsatthe predictive visit. The numberofsub-
`jects reflects the inclusion criteria previously de-
`scribed. The most significant differences were ob-
`tained for age, HAQ disability index, NSAID dose,
`and use of antacids or Hy-antagonists. The differ-
`ence in HAQdisability scores of 0.31 is clinically
`significant, representing the equivalentof 4 years of
`disease progression in RA. NSAID dose was calcu-
`
`lated by setting a value of 1.00 for the manufactur-
`er’s highest recommendeddose on the packagein-
`sert and normalizing the dose of each patientto this
`standard. Thus, the value 1.03 means that patients
`with events, on average, were taking 103% of the
`manufacturer’s highest recommended dose.
`“DMARDs”refers to prior use of“disease-modify-
`ing antirheumatic drugs.” The variable “specialty
`care” refers to the proportion of all doctor visits
`that were made to rheumatologists.
`The second part of Table II presents univariate
`comparisons of potentially predictive categorical
`variables dichotomized as present or absent (pre-
`sented as percent positive). The statistically most
`significant differences were seen for having previ-
`ously reported GI symptomsattributed to use of an
`NSAID (nausea, heartburn,loss of appetite, vomit-
`ing, or upper abdominal pain), use of prednisone
`(average dosage 7 mg/day) in the previous 6
`months, and use of antacids or Hy-antagonists with-
`in 9 months of the event. Female sex was not predic-
`tive. Race was not predictive, nor was cigarette
`smoking or alcohol use, although these analyses
`were limited in power because of small numbers of
`nonwhites, smokers, and heavy drinkers. Eight of
`the 10 statistically significant (p <0.05) differences
`remain significant after adjustment for the 20 mul-
`tiple comparisons of Table II.
`Odds ratios for selected variables with respect to
`GIevents along with 95% confidence intervals are
`shown in Table III. For example, the odds ratio for
`females was obtained as follows: the proportion of
`females with GI events was 75 of 98 = 76.5%; thus,
`the odds are 76.5/(100 — 76.5) = 3.26. Similarly, the
`proportion of females without GI events was 1,224
`
`September 1991 The American Journal of Medicine Volume 91
`
`217
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`NSAID-ASSOCIATED GASTROPATHY/ FRIES ET AL
`
`
` Figure 1. Classification tree for Gl
`
`
`hospitalization or death (GI event).
`The value within the circles and
`boxes is the percentage of patients
`with GI events per year during
`treatment with NSAIDs. Numbers
`below the boxes are subgroup iden-
`tification numbers of final sub-
`groups. NSAID dose = 1.0 corre-
`sponds to the manufacturer's high-
`est recommended dose.
`
`of 1,596 = 76.7%; thus, the odds are 76.7/(100 —
`76.7) = 3.29. Therefore, the odds ratio for females
`with GI events to females without GI events is
`3.26/3.29 = 1.0. For the values considered, age
`showed the highest odds ratio when dichotomized
`at age 45 (only two events occurred below that age).
`Oddsratios are significant at p <0.05 if 95% confi-
`dence limits do not include the value of 1.
`Table IV summarizes the results of stepwise logistic
`regression analysis using most of the variables of Table
`II. Three variables had improvement p values less than
`0.05: age, use of prednisone, and previous NSAID GI
`side effects. NSAID dose and disability index were the
`next two variables stepped into the model. The odds
`ratio is the estimated multiplicative effect of a 1-unit
`increase in that variable on the odds of having a GI
`event, holding all other covariates constant.
`Figure 1 summarizes theresults of the classifica-
`tion tree analysis (recursive partitioning). Each node
`of the tree (represented by round and square boxes)
`contains the risk per year during NSAID treatment
`for patients in that node, in percent. With this meth-
`od, each node of the tree is recursively partitioned
`into two subgroups, one containing cases with vari-
`able values less than some cutoff point and the other
`containing cases with values greater than this cutoff.
`
`The “best” variable along with its splitting value
`(cutoff point) is selected with the use of a “goodness-
`of-split” criterion. The program (CART)cross-vali-
`dates the results to present a stable tree structure
`(19]. The same variable may appear twice in succes-
`sion in the tree at different cutpoints; this occurred
`with both age and disability.
`Thetree splitfirst on age, yielding a very-low-risk
`group (0.3% events per year during NSAID thera-
`py) below age 47. Thetreesplit next on prednisone
`use, and then on age and disease duration. Disabili-
`ty index and previous NSAID GIside effects ap-
`peared at lower levels of the tree. The tree displayed
`in Figure 1 contains 10 classifying subgroups (rep-
`resented by square boxes). Eleven groups are num-
`bered and ranked in order of risk, from a high of
`4.2% per year while taking NSAIDs in individuals
`over the age of 75 and not taking prednisone at the
`predictive visit to near zero: for example, in the
`groups with young individuals and with individuals
`between 48 and 63 years of age not taking predni-
`sone at the predictive visit and without previously
`having had an NSAID GIside effect.
`Table V provides descriptive data for Figure 1,
`and Table VI describes the average values of the
`major risk variables in each groupof Figure 1; the
`
`218
`
`September 1991 The American Journal of Medicine Volume 91
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`very different patient characteristics are ap-
`parent.
`
`COMMENTS
`Results reported here confirm prospectively the
`highrelative risk of hospitalization or death in RA
`patients taking NSAIDs. Therate of GI hospitaliza-
`tions per year in patients taking NSAIDs is 1.58%,
`compared with a hospitalization rate of 0.3% (nine
`of 2,784) in patients not treated with NSAIDs,for a
`hazardratio of5.2. As previously reported [1], use of
`NSAIDs in RA does not appear to represent a sever-
`ity marker for RA, and mean HAQdisability scores,
`pain scores, age, disease duration, and use of pred-
`nisone are closely similar in patients taking
`NSAIDsandin those not taking NSAIDs. Without
`a randomized controlled trial of NSAID versus no
`NSAID use,one cannotabsolutely attribute causal-
`ity to the use of NSAIDs, but this use does not
`appear likely to be a marker of disease severity.
`Ourresults were consistent across all five popula-
`tions studied. It appears likely from preliminary
`data that the rate of hospitalizations in patients
`with osteoarthritis may be half or less of that ob-
`served in patients with RA. Previous GI hospital-
`ization is identified as a major risk factor.
`We performed a preliminary evaluation of pa-
`tients with osteoarthritis, with a smaller number of
`years of observation available. Patients with osteo-
`arthritis were drawn from the Wichita population
`(590 patients, 893 years of observation) and from a
`national pool of osteoarthritis patients who had
`taken the Arthritis Self-Management Course
`[20,21] offered by the Arthritis Foundation (501 pa-
`tients, 251 patient-years of observation). Only three
`GIhospitalizations occurred in these patients with
`osteoarthritis. All of these cases were gastric in loca-
`tion andall were in patients taking NSAIDs. Thus,
`the rate of upper GI hospitalizations per year dur-
`ing NSAID treatmentwas 1.4% in RA and only 0.4%
`in osteoarthritis. There were no GI-related deaths
`during this period of observation. This suggests the
`possibility of a higher hospitalization rate for RA
`patients, but the numbersof patients with osteoar-
`thritis were too small to achieve statistical
`significance.
`Other studies have addressed the question of in-
`cidence of serious GI events, and generally yield
`estimates consistent with those here. Thus, Carson
`et al [22,23] found hospitalization rates of 0.5% per
`year for bleeding ulcer in NSAID users forall indi-
`cations, and FDA estimates of “serious” problems
`are from 2% to 4% peryear [24]. Other estimates are
`somewhat lower (25-27], but underascertainment
`appears to be present in some of these studies. Our
`
`NSAID-ASSOCIATED GASTROPATHY/ FRIES ET AL
`
`data by study protocol do not allow for overascer-
`tainment. Indeed, even the data presented here are
`subject to some underascertainment, since if our
`patients did not report a hospitalization, we did not
`routinely seek discharge summaries, and addition-
`ally we failed to obtain discharge summaries about
`5% of the time. In general, the literature data are
`consistent with the highest incidences in RA pa-
`tients, who havethe highest levels of NSAID intake,
`and lower incidences for more occasional NSAID
`users [1,12,22-27].
`Two recent major publications further reinforce
`the results reported here. In a nested case-control
`study of Tennessee Medicaid GI hospitalizations,
`Griffin et al [28] found a relative risk of 4.1 for
`NSAID users versus nonusers regardless of disease
`indication,rising to a relative risk of 8.0 for current
`users at high NSAID dosage. Excess risk was found
`to be 17.4 events per 1,000 patient-years, as com-
`pared with 15.8 per 1,000 patient-years as reported
`here. Dosage was found important, and norole for
`confounding by current smoking or current heavy
`alcohol use could be identified. Soll et a! [29] pro-
`vide a careful review of published data on NSAID-
`associated ulcers, with a full discussion of relative
`risk, mechanisms, and approaches to prevention.
`Previous studies have suggested that one half to
`two thirds of GI deaths in RA patients taking
`NSAIDs are “excess,” while the remainder repre-
`sent “background” events [6,7]. Thus, these data
`are similar to the 0.18% per year excess GI death
`rate previously estimated [1].
`The individual clinical variables appearing to be
`predictive of serious GI events included age, dis-
`ability, NSAID dose, previous GI hospitalization,
`prior GI complaints with NSAIDs, and useof pred-
`nisone, antacids, or Ho-antagonists. Inadequate
`data were available for analysis of prior sucralfate
`use. Female sex was not predictive, in contrast to
`the preponderance of female admissions reported
`in a series of GI hospitalizations[9]. These findings
`are not contradictory, since the prevalence of
`NSAIDuse is muchhigherin females than in males
`[13]. A variable termed “specialty care” was not
`predictive, suggesting that hospitalization and
`death rates are not related to the experience or ex-
`pertise of the particular provider.
`The stepwise logistic regression model identified
`five variables that appear predictive (improvement
`p value <0.20), and theseare, in the main,intuitive.
`The univariate finding that prior use of GI protec-
`tive agents (antacids or H»-antagonists) was a
`strong predictive factor (p <0.001) was somewhat
`surprising. Most NSAID GIulcers are “silent” [3,8],
`but a substantial number of patients had prior
`
`September 1991 The American Journal of Medicine Volume91
`
`219
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`NSAID-ASSOCIATED GASTROPATHY/ FRIES ET AL
`
`GI-EVENT SCORE TABLE FOR RA
`
`paceyens)dfeee
`HISTORY OF PREVIOUSNSAIDGI SIDE EFFECT|so=|
`Figure 2. GI event score table for
`RA. Derived from logistic regres-
`x10=
`DISABILITY INDEX (0-3) OR (ARA CLASS - 1)
`sion results, a simplified scheme is
`x15=
`NSAID DOSE(fraction of maximum recommended)
`presented here:
`the sum of (1) pa-
`tient age X 2, (2) 50 points if there
`CURRENT PREDNISONE USE
`is a prior history of NSAID dyspep-
`sia, (3) 0 points for American Rheu-
`matism Association (ARA) function-
`al class 1
`(normal), 10 for class 2
`(adequate), 20 for class 3 (limited),
`or 30 for class 4 (unable), (4) 15
`times the fraction patient NSAID
`dose /manufacturer's highest rec-
`ommended dose, and (5) 40 points
`for current prednisone use, When
`100 is subtracted from this sum
`and the result divided by 40, the
`risk of GI hospitalization or death
`over the next 12 months, in per-
`cent, is obtained,
`
`TOTALSCORE
`
`=
`
`GI-EVENT RISK PER YEAR ON NSAIDS IN RA
`
`
`
`
`RISK = (SCORE- 100) /40
`
`symptomatology that might have led to the use of
`“protective” agents. These agents are not believed
`to be effective in prevention of NSAID ulcers
`[4,5,10,30-33], and this is supported by the experi-
`ence reported here. There are two possible mecha-
`nismsby which these agents might prove harmful in
`
`practice: first, by treating dyspeptic symptoms and
`removing premonitory warning signs, and second,
`by reassuring the physician that preventive mea-
`sures had been taken. However, “protective” agents
`are probablygiven to patients already considered to
`be at higher risk, thus expressing the higher risk
`
`© Actual Values
`@ Values from
`RISK = SCORE - 100
`40
`
`Figure 3. Risk for GI hospitalization
`or death per year during treatment
`with NSAIDs. Comparison of risk
`scores for individual patients (Fig-
`ure 2) with actual measured risk
`(GI events/years at risk) for pa-
`tients grouped by 20-unit score
`categories, demonstrating a strong
`correlation between results pre-
`dicted by the simplified scoring rule
`and actual experience.
`
`220
`
`September 1991 The American Journal of Medicine Volume 91
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`NSAID-ASSOCIATED GASTROPATHY/ FRIES ET AL
`
`mended dose, and contributes relatively little for
`most patients. Other factorsare readily ascertained
`by history. Figure 2 presents asimplescoring table.
`In these data sets, the estimated risk for serious
`GI events over the next year is well approximated
`by subtracting 100 from the score and dividing by
`40. Figure 3 displays the relationship between risk
`as estimated by the scoring rule and actual inci-
`dence of events per year during NSAID therapyin
`subjects grouped into 20-unit score categories.It is
`apparent that the scoring rule accurately models
`actual experience of events per year during NSAID
`therapy in these RA patients.
`These major risk factors are modifiable in part,
`since prednisone use and NSAID dose may be
`changed.It is likely, but not yet proven, that sub-
`stantial differences between NSAIDs, not analyzed
`here, may allow choice of less hazardous agents for
`some patients. Prophylaxis with exogenous prosta-
`glandins greatly reduces the rate of endoscopic ul-
`cerationsin similar patients, and current evidence
`suggests consideration of use of these agents in
`high-risk groups [1,8,13,25,28,29]. Increased under-
`standing of the role of clinical and demographic
`factors in determining the risk of NSAID gastro-
`pathy will provide an important means to reduce
`the magnitudeof this serious national problem.
`
`ACKNOWLEDGMENT
`We thank Hong Shi for statistical support and Lisa Cendejas for typing ot the
`manuscript We also thank Drs. Fred Wolfe, Don Mitchell, John Sibley, and
`Sanford Roth for permission to study their ARAMIS populations.
`
`le

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket