throbber
130;‘)? Linden Drive
`Madison, WI 53706
`
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. Exhibit 1043 Page 1
`
`

`
`N-
`
`OFFICLAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF NEUROLOGY
`
`Robert B. Daroff, MD, Cleveland, OH
`A$SX~CIATE EDITOR
`Robert L. Ruff, MD, PhD, Cleveland, OH
`
`I
`
`EDITORIAL BOARD
`Michael J. Aminoff, MD, S u n Francisco, C A
`Jack P. Antel, MD, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
`Sudhansu Chokroverty, MD, Lyons, N J
`Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, Los Angeles, C A
`Salvatore DiMauro, MD, New York, NY
`Paula Dore-Duffy, PhD, Detroit, MI
`David A. Drachman, MD, Worcester, M A
`Peter J. Dyck, MD, Rochester, M N
`Pierluigi Gambetti, MD, Cleveland, OH
`Robert C. Griggs, MD, Rochester, NY
`Robert I. Grossman, MD, Philadelphia, P A
`Ludwig Gutmann, MD, Morgantown, WV
`Sami I. Harik, MD, Little Rock, AX
`Carlos S. Kase, MD, Boston, M A
`Ronald P. Lesser, MD, Baltimore, MD
`Barry E. Levin, MD, East Orange, NJ
`W.T. Longstreth, Jr., MD, Seattle, W A
`Michael J. Noetzel, MD, St. Louis, MO
`Alan Pestronk, MD, St. Louis, MO
`Jerome B. Posner, MD, New York, NY
`William J. Powers, MD, St. Louis, MO
`Richard W. Price, MD, Minneapol~s, M N
`James W. Prichard, MD, New Haven, CT
`Roger N . Rosenberg, MD, Dallas, TX
`A. Dessa Sadovnick, PhD, Vancouver, BC, Canada
`Harvey B. Sarnat, MD, Seattle, W A
`James A. Sharpe, MD, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
`Claude G. Wasterlain, MD, Los Angeles, C A
`G. Fred Wooten, MD, Charlottesville, V A
`EDITOR-IN-CHIEF'S OFFICE
`Lise Stevens-Ross, Editorial Associate
`Angelique E. Branch, Editorial Secretary
`NEWSLETTER
`Donald C. Mann, MD, Editor
`EXECUTIVE OFFICE
`mERICAN ACADEMY OF NEUROLOGY
`Jan W. Kolehmainen, Executive Director
`2221 University Aue. S.E., Mpls., M N 55414 (612-623-8115)
`
`PAST EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
`Russell N. DeJong, MD (1907-1990)
`(Founding Editor-in-Chiet 1951-1977)
`Lewis P. Rowland, MD
`(Editor-in-Chief 1977-1987)
`
`ACADEMY OFFICERS
`Kenneth M. Viste, Jr., MD, President
`Steven P. Ringel, MD, President-Elect
`Stanley Fahn, M D , Vice-President
`William H . Stuart, MD, Treasurer
`Darryl C. De Vivo, MD, Secretary
`
`ADVANSTAR COMMUNICATIONS
`PUBLICATION STAFF
`Kevin J. Condon, Group Vice President
`Roger Soderman, Vice President, Publisher
`Vernon E. Henry, Group Editor
`Peter G. Studer, Editor
`Anne Rossi, Managing Editor
`Nancy Ortman, Senior Associate Editor
`Kathy Dunasky, Associate Editor
`Glenn Campbell, Associate Editor
`Helen Thams, Associate Editor
`Alecia Pelech Shutovich, Assistant Editor
`Andrea Junker, Advertising Production Manager
`Bonnie Ling, Production Director
`Peter Seltzer, Art Director
`Eleanor M. Russ, Graphic Designer
`Anne Danielle, Promotion Manager
`Callie Botten, Circulation Manager
`David Soltesz, Business Manager
`Ron Ziegler, SymposiumlProject Director
`
`ADVANSTAR COMWICATIONS CORPORATE OFFICERS
`Gary R. Ingersoll: President and Chief Executive Oficer
`Brian Nairn: President, Advanstar Publishing
`William M. Windsor: President, Advanstar Expositions
`David W. Montgomery: Vice President-Finance,
`Chief Financial Ofj'icer and Secretary
`Kevin J. Condon, William J. Cooke,
`David S. Hakaim, Brian Langille,
`David Allen Shaw, Phil Stocker: Vice Presidents
`Adele D. Hartwick: Treasurer and Controller
`
`- -
`
`
`
`- p~ --
`
`Printed in U.S.A.
`
`, ~ ~ ,
`
`ADVANSTAR
`
`~ O *
`
`* " N I
`
`I
`
`*
`
`,
`
`NEUROLOGY (ISSN 0028.3878) is published monthly by Advanstar Communications Inc. Corporate and Editorial offices: 7500 Old Oak Boulevard, Cleveland, Ohio 44130. Advertising
`Offices: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016. Accounting, Advertising Production, and Circulat~on offices: 131 West F ~ r s t Street, Duluth, Minnesota 55802-2065.
`Subscriber Customer Service, 218-723-9477, FAX 218-723-9437. Subscription rates (sold on volume year or calendar year basis only): $200 per year m the Urnted States and Canada. All
`Other countries: $250 per y e a (airmail available for an additional $35 per year) (for Japan exclusive agent 1s Igaku-Shoin Ltd.). Single copies (pre-pad only): $20 m the U.S. and
`Canada; elsewhere $25; add $3.50 ($5 foreign) per order for shippin and handling. Back issues (pre-paid only): $30 in the U.S. and Canada; elsewhere $35; add $3.50 ($5 foreign) per
`order for shipping and handling. Office of publication: Advanstar 8ommnnications Inc., 131 West F ~ r s t Street, Duluth, Minnesota 55802-2065. Second class postage p a d at Duluth,
`Minnesota 55806 and additional mailing offices. Copyright O 1995 by Advanstar Communications Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmtted
`" any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in wri4ing from the publisher.
`
`Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Advanstar Communications for hbranes and other users reg-
`lstered with the Copyright Clearance Center. Requests should be made to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, or call (508) 750-8400 for
`cOPJ'W beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Microfilm or Microfiche copies of annual issues are avalable through Marketmg Semces, Advanstar
`_Communications Inc., 7500 Old OakBlvd., Cleveland, Ohio 44130 (800) 225-4569 Ext. 839.
`.%cadem). members chr?pe.of-address notifications should be sent to the .hencan .Academy of Seuroloov 2221 UrCversit). Ave. S.E., S i t e 335.3heapohs \Imesotz 55414 (612-
`'Or
`623-9115 . ~ o n - ~ c a d e ; ~ members ho-ld repor chmges of address and jl correspondence re:a&g :o subs&bnor.s to. XELROLOGY, P 0. Box 6157, Dduth, Y i e s o t a 55B06.
`Cmadian G.S.T. number: R-124213133.
`*O~TMASTER: Send address changes to NEUROLOGY, 131 West First Street, Duluth, Minnesota 55802-2065.
`OFFICES: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 (212-951-6635; FAX 212-481-6561), Roger E. Soderman.
`A D m R ~
`~
`~
`~
`~
`~
`
`
`m P R ~ ~ ~ ~ AVAILABLE: Contact Marketing Services, Advanstar Communications Inc., 7500 Old Oak Boulevard, Cleveland, Ohio 44130 (800) 736-3665.
`
`July 1995 NEUROLOGY 45 5A
`
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. Exhibit 1043 Page 2
`
`

`
`This material may be protected by Copyright law (Title 17 U . S . Code)
`
`articles
`
`expedited publication
`Copolymer 1 reduces
`relapse iate and improves
`disability in relapsing-remitting
`multiple sclerosis:
`Results of a phase-^^^ multicenter, double-blind,
`placebo-controlled trial
`
`K.P. Johnson, MD; B.R. Brooks, MD; J.A. Cohen, MD; C.C. Ford, MD; J. Goldstein, MD; R.P. Lisak, MD;
`L.W. Myers, MD; H.S. Panitch, MD; J.W. Rose, MD; R.B. Schiffer, MD; T. Vollmer, MD; L.P. Weiner, MD;
`J.S. Wolinsky, MD; and the Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group*
`
`studied copolymer 1 (Copaxone) in a multicenter (11-university) phase 111 trial of patients with re-
`Article abstract-We
`lapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Two hundred fifty-one patients were randomized to receive copolymer 1 (n =
`125) or placebo (n = 126) at a dosage of 20 mg by daily subcutaneous injection for 2 years. The primary end point was a
`difference in the MS relapse rate. The final 2-year relapse rate was 1.19 -t. 0.13 for patients receiving copolymer 1 and
`1.68 -+ 0.13 for those receiving placebo, a 29% reduction in favor of copolymer 1 ( p = 0.007) (annualized rates = 0.59 for
`copolymer 1 and 0.84 for placebo). Trends in the proportion of relapse-free patients and median time to first relapse fa-
`vored copolymer 1. Disability was measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), using a two-neurologist (ex-
`amining and treating) protocol. When the proportion of patients who improved, were unchanged, or worsened by 21 EDSS
`step from baseline to conclusion (2 years) was evaluated, significantly more patients receiving copolymer 1 were found to
`have improved and more receiving placebo worsened ( p = 0.037). Patient withdrawals were 19 (15.2%) from the copolymer
`1 group and 17 (13.5%) from the placebo group at approximately the same intervals. The treatment was well tolerated.
`The most common adverse experience was an injection-site reaction. Rarely, a transient self-limited systemic reaction fol-
`lowed the injection in 15.2% of those receiving copolymer 1 and 3.2% of those receiving placebo. This reaction was charac-
`terized by flushing or chest tightness with palpitations, anxiety, or dyspnea and commonly lasted for 30 seconds to 30
`minutes. This rigorous study confirmed the findings of a previous pilot trial and demonstrated that copolymer 1 treat-
`ment can significantly and beneficially alter the course of relapsing-remitting MS in a well-tolerated fashion.
`NEUROLOGY 1995;45:1268-1276
`
`Progress in identifying effective therapies for multi-
`copolymer 1 (Copaxone), given subcutaneously (s.c.)
`ple sclerosis (MS) has accelerated during this decade
`a t a dosage of 20 mg per day in a rigorously con-
`as pathogenic factors active in the disease have been
`trolled 2-year trial, significantly reduced the relapse
`identified. We now report t h a t treatment with
`rate in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Neuro-
`See also page 1245
`
`*See pages 1275 and 1276 for the Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group participants.
`From the Department of Neurology (Drs. Johnson and Panitch), University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; the Department of Neurology (Dr. Brooks), Uni-
`versity of Wisconsjn, Madison, WI; the Department of Neurology (Dr. Cohen), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; the Department of Neurol-
`ogy (Dr. Ford), University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; the Department of Neurology (Drs. Goldstein and Vollmer), Yale University, New Haven,
`CT; the Department of Neurology (Dr. Lisak), Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; the Department of Neurology (Dr. Myers), University of California,
`Los h g e l e s , CA; the Department of Neurology (Dr. Rose), University of Utah and the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT; the
`Department of Neurology (Dr. Schiffer), University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, the Department of Neurology (Dr. Weiner), University of Southern Cali-
`fornia, Los Angeles, CA; and the Department of Neurology (Dr. Wolinsky), University of Texas, Houston, TX.
`Supported by the Federal Food and Drug Administration Orphan Drug Program no. FD-R000559-01, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society no. RG
`2202-A-6, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Petah Tiqva, Israel.
`Presented a t the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, San Francisco, October 1994.
`Received April 27, 1995. Accepted in final form May 1, 1995.
`Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Kenneth P. Johnson, Department of Neurology, N4W46, University of Maryland Hospital, 22 South
`Greene Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.
`
`1268 NEUROLOGY 45 July 1995
`
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. Exhibit 1043 Page 3
`
`

`
`,
`
`.
`
`loPC impairment, as measured by the Expanded
`: Disability Status Scale (EDSS),' was also favorably
`affected, and patients tolerated treatment well, with
`a low frequency of side effects. Thus, copolymer 1
`joins interferon beta-lb (IFNB-lb) (licensed in 1993)
`as a treatment shown to positively alter the natural
`of relapsing-remitting MS.2
`copolymer 1 is the acetate salt of a mixture of
`polypeptides composed of four amino
`acids, L-alanine, L-glutamic acid, L-lysine, and L-ty-
`rosine, in a molar ratio of 4.2, 1.4, 3.4, and 1.0, reh
`specti~ely, and with an average molecular weight
`of 4,700 to 13,000 daltons. First synthesized in
`1967 by M. Sela, R. Arnon, D. Teitelbaum, and
`their colleagues at the Weizmann Institute of Sci-
`ence in Israel, copolymer 1 suppresses or modifies
`experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE)3 in
`several species of mammals including nonhuman
`Other studies5 suggest that copolymer 1
`acts through cross-reactivity with myelin basic pro-
`tein (MBP) and inhibition of the cell-mediated im-
`mune response to this antigen.
`Extensive preclinical findings encouraged
`Abramsky et a16 to treat a small number of patients
`who had advanced MS or acute disseminated en-
`cephalomyelitis with copolymer 1. They used a low
`dose and observed no toxicity. Bornstein et a17 then
`treated four MS patients in the relapsing-remitting
`and 12 in the chronic-progressive stages of disease
`with copolymer 1 and noted fewer relapses or neu-
`rologic improvement in five. They used various
`doses and routes of administration for up to 6
`months. This open trial was later extended and the
`dose increased from 5 mg i.m. to 20 mg s.c. daily for
`up to 3 years without significant side effects or lab-
`oratory abnormalities.
`These early h u m a n studies indicated t h a t
`copolymer 1 could be given safely and prompted a
`2-year, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot trial
`to evaluate its effects on the NIS relapse rate, dis-
`ability, and patient t o l e r a n ~ e . ~ Forty-eight patients
`with relapsing-remitting MS, a high mean annual
`relapse rate of 1.9, and a mean disability status
`scale (EDSS) score of 3.0 were entered. Twenty-five
`received 20 mg of copolymer 1 s.c. daily and 23 re-
`ceived s.c. placebo. During 2 years, there were 62
`relapses in the placebo group but only 16 in the
`copolymer 1 group, a highly significant difference.
`Fifty-six percent of the copolymer 1 group and 26%
`of those receiving placebo remained relapse-free.
`The effect was most pronounced in patients with
`the lowest EDSS ratings at entry, and there was a
`trend toward benefit of copolymer 1 over placebo in
`terms of progression of disability, especially in the
`Patients with the lower EDSS scores at entry. Pa-
`tient tolerance was very good, and there were no
`laboratory abnormalities.8
`Copolymer 1 was then studied in patients with
`chronic-progressive MS at two centers, the Albert
`Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, and the
`Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.9 Patients
`with EDSS ratings from 2.0 to 6.5, inclusive, were
`
`- Table 1. Participating universities and the number
`of patients randomized to each treatment group
`I
`
`Copolymer 1 Placebo I
`
`I
`
`I Center
`
`University of California,
`Los Angeles
`University of Maryland*
`University of New Mexico
`University of Pennsylvania
`University of Rochester
`University of Southern
`California
`University of Texas, Houston
`University of Utah
`Wayne State University
`University of Wisconsin
`Yale University
`
`I ' National coordinating center.
`
`I
`
`observed for at least 12 months before randomiza-
`tion to document progression of their disease. One
`hundred six patients (mean age 42 years, mean
`EDSS score 5.6) were treated in a double-blind
`trial. They received either placebo or 15 mg of
`copolymer 1 twice daily by s.c. self-injection, and
`tolerated the therapy well. The combined results
`showed a trend toward benefit with copolymer 1
`treatment, which was, however,'not statistically
`~ignificant.~
`To further evaluate copolymer 1 treatment of pa-
`tients with relapsing-remitting MS, we conducted a
`large, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial and have
`observed patients in a blinded fashion for 2 years.
`
`Methods. The objectives of the current study were to
`compare the patient tolerance and therapeutic impact of
`daily S.C. injections of 20 mg of copolymer 1 or placebo
`over 24 months, using the number of MS relapses as the
`primary variable. The study was designed and the pa-
`tients recruited to confirm the conclusions of the previ-
`ously published pilot trial.8
`Participants. Eleven universities with active MS cen-
`ters and experience in conducting clinical neurologic re-
`search participated in the trial (table 1). The University
`of Maryland served as the administrative and clinical co-
`ordinating center. After an intensive training session for
`neurologists and study coordinators, the trial began in
`October 1991.
`Study design. The primary end point, determined
`prospectively in this phase I11 study, was a comparison of
`the mean number of relapses experienced by copolymer
`1- or placebo-treated relapsing-remitting MS patients
`during 2 years of treatment. A relapse was defined as the
`appearance or reappearance of one or more neurologic
`abnormalities persisting for at least 48 hours and imme-
`diately preceded by a relatively stable or improving neu-
`rologic state of at least 30 days. A relapse was confirmed
`only when the patient's symptoms were accompanied by
`objective changes on the neurologic examination consis-
`tent with an increase of at least a half a step on the
`EDSS, two points on one of t h e seven functional
`systems,l or one point on two or more of the functional
`
`July 1995 NEUROLOGY 45 1269
`
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. Exhibit 1043 Page 4
`
`

`
`systems. Events associated with fever were excluded. A
`change in bowellbladder or cognitive function could not
`be solely responsible for the changes in either the EDSS
`or the functional system scores. Several secondary end
`points were also predetermined: proportion of relapse-
`free patients, time to first relapse after initiation of ther-
`apy, proportion of patients with sustained disease pro-
`gression (defined as an increase of at least one full step
`on the EDSS that persisted for at least 3 months), and
`mean change in EDSS and ambulation index between
`the copolymer 1 2nd placebo groups from baseline to con-
`clusion. All patients had periodic, standardized neu-
`ropsychological tests, and a subset of patients underwent
`serial gadolinium-enhanced MRIs; results will be re-
`ported in separate publications.
`Conduct of the study. Patients were screened to deter-
`mine eligibility and then randomized within 21 days. A
`centralized randomization scheme was used. All patients
`met the criteria of clinically definite MS or laboratory-
`supported definite MS.1° Male and female patients be-
`tween the ages of 18 and 45 years were eligible. They
`were all ambulatory with an EDSS score of 0 through
`5.0, a history of at least two clearly identified and docu-
`mented relapses in the 2 years prior to entry, onset of the
`first relapse at least 1 year before randomization, and a
`period of neurologic stability and freedom from cortico-
`steroid therapy of at least 30 days prior to entry. Pa-
`tients were excluded if they had ever received copolymer
`1 or previous immunosuppressive therapy with cytotoxic
`chemotherapy (azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, or cy-
`closporine) or lymphoid irradiation. Other exclusion cri-
`teria included pregnancy or lactation, insulin-dependent
`diabetes mellitus, positive HIV or HTLV-I serology, evi-
`dence of Lyme disease, or required use of aspirin or
`chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during the
`course of the trial. All women were required to use an ad-
`equate method of contraception.
`The study medication was supplied by Teva Pharma-
`ceutical Industries, Ltd, Petah Tiqva, Israel, under a
`manufacturing protocol approved by the US Food and
`Drug Administration. It was distributed to each of the
`11 cooperating university centers by an independent
`data management and coordination center, National
`Medical Research Corporation, Hartford, CT. Study
`medication was supplied i n single-dose vials of
`lyophilized material along with ampules of sterile water
`diluent. Patients were given a 1-month supply each
`month and were instructed in reconstitution and S.C.
`self-administration of the study medication. At each
`monthly visit, patients received medication and reported
`adverse events and use of concomitant medications.
`Every 3 months, the patients underwent a complete
`evaluation that employed a two-neurologist protocol.
`Each patient was assigned a single examining neurolo-
`gist who evaluated only the objective neurologic condi-
`tion without discussing symptoms or side effects. A sec-
`ond treating neurologist evaluated symptoms and ad-
`verse events and was responsible for determining the
`need for steroid therapy at the time of a confirmed re-
`lapse. A nurse coordinator at each center distributed
`medication, noted concomitant treatments, and obtained
`blood and urine specimens for laboratory analysis. The
`nurse coordinator and both neurologists were blinded to
`study medication assignment throughout the trial. Pa-
`tients were allowed to use the conventional medications
`they were receiving at the time of randomization for
`spasticity, bladder control, fatigue, and other MS symp-
`toms. An approved protocol for steroid therapy was em-
`
`1270 NEUROLOGY 45 July 1995
`
`I
`I
`
`ployed by the treating neurologist at the time of con- /
`firmed relapse. Use of immunosuppressive, cytotoxic, or
`experimental drugs or aspirin and chronic nonsteroidal
`anti-inflammatory drugs were proscribed.
`At the time of suspected relapse, patients were in-
`structed to call their center immediately to discuss symp-
`toms with the nurse coordinator or treating neurologist
`and to arrange for an examination at the center within 7
`days. In rare instances, weather conditions and other
`emergencies prohibited evaluation at the site within that
`time. Patients were followed as often as medically indi-
`cated after each confirmed relapse.
`All patients had a chest x-ray and ECG at the screen-
`ing visit and another ECG at the conclusion of the study.
`Urinalysis, hematologic studies, a serum chemistry
`panel, and anti-copolymer 1 antibodies were evaluated at
`3-month intervals; all blood testing was done at a cen- 1
`tralized laboratory and reported to the treating neurolo-
`gist and to the data management and coordination cen-
`ter. An independent safety monitoring committee, com-
`posed of two clinical neurologists, a clinical pharmacolo-
`gist, a statistician, and a representative of the National
`Multiple Sclerosis Society, met quarterly either in person
`or by conference call to review all safety information. At
`no time were representatives of the sponsor or the 11
`study centers present when safety data or issues were
`discussed. The safety committee remained blinded
`throughout the course of the trial.
`The protocol was approved by the institutional review
`boards of the participating clinical centers, and all pa-
`tients gave written informed consent.
`Statistical analysis. The final data set was evalu-
`ated using several cohort definitions. The intention-to-
`treat analysis of all randomized patients was consid-
`ered primary. Other evaluated cohorts excluded pa-
`tients who did not complete 6 months of treatment, pa-
`tients who failed to complete 2 years (730 days) of
`treatment, and patients who missed over 5% of consec-
`utive study medication doses or 10% of total doses dur-
`ing the study. There was strong internal consistency of
`statistically significant findings and trends among the
`various evaluated cohorts. Therefore, only the results
`of the most rigorous intention-to-treat analysis are pre-
`sented here.
`The proportions of withdrawals were compared using
`the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Time to withdrawal
`was analyzed using the log rank test. For demographic
`and medical history characteristics, two-sample t tests
`were used for continuous variables and exact probability
`tests for discrete variables.
`- Mean relapse rate was analyzed using ANCOVA, with
`tests for study-drug-by-center interaction and including
`a priori-defined covariates: sex, duration of disease
`(years), prior 2-year relapse rate, and baseline Kurtzke
`EDSS. Proportions of relapse-free patients were tested
`using logistic regression incorporating the same covari-
`ate effects. Time to first relapse was evaluated using
`Weibull regression. The proportion of progression-free
`patients was analyzed using logistic regression.
`Changes from baseline for the Kurtzke EDSS and
`the ambulation index were assessed using repeated-
`measures ANCOVA. Analyses of the change from base-
`line to 24 months were also conducted. Categorical re-
`peated-measures and 24-month end-point analyses
`were performed on Kurtzke EDSS score changes from
`baseline, classified as "improved" (reduction of at least
`one step) "worsened," (increase of at least one step), or
`"no change."
`
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. Exhibit 1043 Page 5
`
`

`
`aesults. Baseline characteristics of subjects. Be-
`tween October 1991 and May 1992, 284 patients
`were screened and 251 randomized to the two treat-
`ment groups. The demographics of the randomized
`cohort are shown in table 2. The two groups were
`well matched for age, sex, race, duration of disease,
`mean relapse rate in the prior 2 years, EDSS, and
`rnbulation index. As expected, the majority of ran-
`domized patients were women (73%) and white
`(94%). Among the patients randomized to receive
`copolymer 1, 51 were in the 0 to 2, 57 in the 2 to 4,
`and 17 in the >4 EDSS range. Of those randomized
`to receive placebo, 68 were in the 0 to 2, 46 in the 2
`to 4, and 12 in the >4 EDSS range.
`Patient exposure and withdrawals. The total pa-
`tient exposure and duration of treatment is shown
`in table 3. The total patient exposure to copolymer
`? was 227 years and to placebo 232 years. Nineteen
`patients (15%) withdrew from the copolymer 1-
`treated group and 17 (13.5%) from the placebo
`
`Table 2. Demographics and MS characteristics at
`baseline (number screened = 284)
`
`Copolymer 1
`(n = 125)
`
`Placebo
`(n = 126)
`
`34.6 + 6.0
`
`88 (70.4%)
`37 (29.6%)
`
`118 (94.4%)
`7 (5.6%)
`2.9 + 1.3
`
`2.8 k 1.2
`1.2 c 1.0
`
`7.3 r 4.9
`
`34.3 c 6.5
`
`96 (76.2%)
`30 (23.8%)
`
`118 (93.6%)
`8 (6.3%)
`2.9 + 1.1
`
`2.4 +. 1.3
`1.1 + 0.9
`6.6 + 5.1
`
`J
`
`Age (yr; mean + SD)
`Sex
`Women
`Men
`Race
`White
`Other
`Prior 2-year relapse rate
`(mean + SD)
`EDSS (mean + SD)
`Ambulation index
`(mean + SD)
`Duration of MS
`(yr; mean + SD)
`
`EDSS Expanded Disability Status Scale.
`
`Table 3. Patient exposure and duration of treatment
`
`group. The proportion of patients who withdrew
`and the time to withdrawal as shown in table 3
`were statistically similar over the duration of the
`study. Three patients in the copolymer 1 group
`withdrew when they became pregnant, and one
`stopped medication because of disease progression.
`Two patients in the placebo group failed to comply
`with the protocol. Two copolymer 1 patients with-
`drew for serious adverse events: one, after 50 days
`on treatment, developed immediate flushing, chest
`tightness, dyspnea, nausea, and vomiting (see
`below), which lasted for more than 90 minutes
`after the injection, and one, after 131 days on treat-
`ment, developed generalized lymph node enlarge-
`ment. Lymph node biopsy from that patient re-
`vealed only chronic inflammatory change. Three
`other patients receiving copolymer 1 and one pa-
`tient receiving placebo withdrew because of tran-
`sient self-limited systemic reactions that were brief
`and not considered serious.
`MS relapse rates. During the 2-year trial, the
`copolymer 1-treated patients had 161 confirmed
`relapses and the placebo group had 210 confirmed
`relapses (table 4). The mean relapse rate (2 years)
`was 1.19 in the copolymer 1 group and 1.68 in the
`placebo group, a 29% reduction, which was statis-
`tically significant a t the p = 0.007 level. Annual-
`ized relapse rates were 0.59 for the copolymer 1
`group and 0.84 for those receiving placebo. The
`median time to first relapse from baseline for the
`copolymer 1 group was 287 days and for the pla-
`cebo group it was 198 days, a difference that ap-
`proached statistical significance (p = 0.097).
`Forty-two patients receiving copolymer 1 (33.6%)
`and 34 placebo patients (27.0%) were relapse-free
`throughout the trial (p = 0.098). This result also
`approached statistical significance. When the re-
`lapse data were summarized in relation to base-
`line EDSS scores, it was found that patients with
`greater disability a t entry had more relapses dur-
`ing the trial (figure 1). However, the therapeutic
`effect appeared to be most pronounced in patients
`with the lowest EDSS scores at entry (0 to 2), in
`
`Copolymer 1 (n = 125)
`
`n
`
`%
`
`Total
`patient
`months
`
`Placebo (n = 126)
`
`n
`
`Yo
`
`Total
`patient
`months
`
`Duration of
`treatment
`(mo)
`
`<3
`>3-6
`>6-9
`>9-12
`>12-15
`>15-18
`>18-21
`221-24
`224
`
`Total
`
`July 1995 NEUROLOGY 45 1271
`
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. Exhibit 1043 Page 6
`
`

`
`Table 4. Relapse experience of copolymer 1 and placebo groups
`r
`
`I
`
`I
`
`Copolymer 1
`(n = 125)
`
`Placebo
`(n = 126)
`
`Reduction
`vs placebo
`
`Primary end points
`Relapse rate over 24 mo
`(covariate adjusted mean)
`Annualized relapse rate
`Observed relapses over 24 mo
`Secondary end points
`Proportion of relapse-free patients
`Median time to first relapse (days)
`Number of relapses per patient
`0
`1-2
`23
`
`Table 5. Disability experience measured by EDSS
`and ambulation index of copolymer 1 and placebo
`groups
`
`Copolymer 1 Placebo
`
`p Value
`
`Proportion of patients
`with a change in
`disability betwee;
`baseline and conclusion
`Improved
`(EDSS decrease 21)
`No change
`Worse "
`(EDSS increase 21)
`EDSS change from
`baseline (mean k SD)
`Proportion of
`progression-free
`patients
`Ambulation index
`(mean -c SD)
`
`24.8%
`
`54.4%
`20.8%
`
`-0.05 k 1.13
`
`78.4%
`
`0.27 t 0.94
`
`EDSS Expanded Disability Status Scale.
`NS Not significantly different.
`* Categorical repeated measures.
`t Repeated-measures analysis of covariance.
`
`'
`
`ceiving placebo, 75.4% showed no progression (NS).
`The mean ambulation index scores were also simi-
`lar between groups, 0.27 for copolymer 1-treated
`patients and 0.28 for those on placebo (NS).
`Adverse events. No clinically significant differences
`in vital signs were noted during the trial. The most
`commonly recognized adverse event was a localized
`injection-site reaction consisting of mild erythema
`and induration, which sometimes persisted for sev-
`era1 days (table 6). It was observed at least once dur-
`ing 730 days of treatment in 90% of the copolymer 1-
`treated patients and in 59% of the patients receiving
`placebo. The other adverse event clearly related to
`therapy was a transient self-limited systemic reac-
`tion (table 7), which also was recognized in earlier
`copolymer 1
`This reaction was sporadic
`and unpredictable, occurred within minutes of a n in-
`jection, and was characterized by a variable combina-
`
`Figure 1. Changes i n relapse rate observed over 2 years,
`by baseline EDSS score. The numbers above each bar
`represent the mean 2-year relapse rate for each group.
`
`whom there was a 33% difference in the relapse
`rate in favor of copolymer 1.
`Neurologic disability. The effect of copolymer 1
`therapy on neurologic disability was evaluated in a
`series of secondary end points (table 5) based on
`the EDSS and ambulation index, and determined
`every 3 months by the examining neurologist. Fig-
`ure 2 shows that more patients receiving copolymer
`1 were improved whereas more patients on placebo
`were worse by one or more EDSS steps when com-
`pared between baseline and 24 months. This find-
`ing was statistically significant in favor of copoly-
`mer 1 for both the categorical repeated-measures
`analysis (p = 0.037) and the analysis from baseline
`to 24 months (p = 0.024). The repeated-measures
`analysis of mean change in EDSS also significantly
`favored copolymer 1 ( p = 0.023). When progression
`to sustained disability was defined as an increase
`of one or more EDSS steps maintained for more
`than 90 days-that
`is, for two consecutive sched-
`uled visits-little difference was noted between
`groups. Of those patients treated with copolymer 1,
`78.4% were free of progression, while of those re-
`
`1272 NEUROLOGY 45 July 1995
`
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. Exhibit 1043 Page 7
`
`

`
`I Copolymer 1 n Placebo
`54 4 56.0
`
`Table 7. Incidence of transient self-limited
`systemic reactions
`
`Copolymer 1 Placebo
`
`I
`
`V
`
`Improved Nochange Worse
`
`I
`I
`Change in EDSS 21
`-
`Figure 2. Percent of patients who improved, were
`unchanged, or were worse by one or more EDSS steps
`between baseline and the last (24-month) measurement
`(repeated-measures ANCOVA). The numbers above the
`bars represent the percent of patients i n the respective
`copolymer 1 or placebo group.
`
`Table 6. Observations on injection-site changes
`
`No. episodes"
`
`Copolymer 1
`'30
`n
`
`Placebo
`%
`n
`
`80
`71
`48
`34
`33
`27
`24
`
`64.00
`56.80
`38.40
`27.20
`26.40
`21.60
`19.20
`
`46
`16
`5
`8
`10
`45
`1
`
`36.51
`12.70
`3.97
`6.35
`7.94
`35.71
`0.79
`
`Pain
`Erythema
`Pruritus
`Inflammation
`Mass
`Ecchymosis
`Induration
`
`tion of flushing and chest tightness, accompanied at
`times by dyspnea, palpitations, or anxiety. It lasted
`between 30 seconds and 30 minutes, resolved sponta-
`neously without sequelae, and rarely was witnessed
`by medical personnel. It was reported at least once in
`15% of the cop

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