throbber
Singer et al. BMC Neurology 2012, 12:154
`http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/12/154
`
`R ES EAR CH A R T I C LE
`Open Access
`Comparative injection-site pain and tolerability
`of subcutaneous serum-free formulation of
`interferonβ-1a versus subcutaneous interferonβ-
`1b: results of the randomized, multicenter,
`Phase IIIb REFORMS study
`Barry Singer1*, Daniel Bandari2, Mark Cascione3, Christopher LaGanke4, John Huddlestone5, Randy Bennett6
`and Fernando Dangond6on behalf of the REFORMS Study Group
`
`Abstract
`Background: In patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), subcutaneous (sc) interferon (IFN)β-1a
`and IFNβ-1b have been shown to reduce relapse rates. A formulation of IFNβ-1a has been produced without
`fetal bovine serum and without human serum albumin as an excipient (not currently approved for use in the US).
`The objectives of this study were to evaluate tolerability, injection-site redness, subject-reported satisfaction with
`therapy, and clinical safety and efficacy of the serum-free formulation of IFNβ-1a versus IFNβ-1b in
`IFNβ-treatment-naïve patients with RRMS. The objectives of the extension phase were to evaluate long-term safety
`and tolerability of IFNβ-1a.
`Methods: This randomized, parallel-group, open-label study was conducted at 27 clinical sites in the US. Eligible
`patients aged 18–60 years were randomized to receive either IFNβ-1a, titrated to 44 μg sc three times weekly
`(tiw) (n = 65), or IFNβ-1b, titrated to 250 μg sc every other day (n = 64) over 12 weeks. Following this, all patients
`received IFNβ-1a 44 μg tiw for 82–112 weeks. Primary endpoint was mean change in patient-reported pain, as
`assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) diary pain score (from 0 mm [no pain] to 100 mm [worst possible pain]) at
`the injection site, from pre-injection to 30 min post-injection over the first 21 full-dose injections. Secondary
`assessments included proportion of patients pain-free as recorded by VAS diary and the Short-Form McGill Pain
`questionnaire VAS.
`Results: A total of 129 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Mean (standard deviation) change in
`VAS diary pain score was not significantly different between groups, although numerically lower with IFNβ-1a
`versus IFNβ-1b from pre-injection to immediately post-injection (1.46 [2.93] vs. 4.63 [10.57] mm), 10 min
`post-injection (0.70 [1.89] vs. 1.89 [5.75] mm), and 30 min post-injection (0.67 [2.32] vs. 1.14 [4.94] mm). Proportion
`of patients pain-free at all time periods post-injection was also not significantly different between groups. Adverse
`events were consistent with the known safety profiles of these treatments.
`Conclusions: In IFNβ-treatment-naïve patients with RRMS, both the serum-free formulation of IFNβ-1a and IFNβ-1b
`treatments were generally accompanied by low-level injection-site pain and were well tolerated.
`(Continued on next page)
`
`* Correspondence: bnvsinger@earthlink.net
`1Missouri Baptist Medical Center, St. Louis, MO, USA
`Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
`
`© 2012 Singer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
`Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
`reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1094 PAGE 1
`
`

`
`Singer et al. BMC Neurology 2012, 12:154
`http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/12/154
`
`Page 2 of 11
`
`(Continued from previous page)
`Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00428584
`Keywords: Randomized controlled trial, Interferonβ-1a, Interferonβ-1b, Relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis,
`Subcutaneous injections, Injection-site pain, Pain measurement
`
`Background
`Clinical studies of subcutaneous (sc) interferon (IFN)β-1a
`and IFNβ-1b have shown that these disease-modifying
`drugs reduce relapse rates in patients with relapsing–
`remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) [1-4]. At the doses
`approved for the treatment of RRMS, both IFNβ-1a and
`IFNβ-1b have established long-term safety and tolerability
`profiles [5,6]. However,
`injections with these drugs are
`commonly associated with injection-site reactions (ISRs),
`injection-site pain, and flu-like symptoms (FLS), which can
`lead to poor adherence to treatment in some patients [7,8].
`A formulation of IFNβ-1a has been developed without
`fetal bovine serum and without human serum albumin
`as an excipient, although this formulation is not cur-
`rently approved for use within the US. In a 96-week
`study in patients with relapsing MS, the serum-free for-
`mulation of IFNβ-1a was associated with a lower preva-
`lence of ISRs than had been seen in two earlier studies
`with the original IFNβ-1a formulation [9-11]. No rando-
`mized clinical study has yet compared the injection-site
`pain and tolerability profile of the serum-free formulation
`IFNβ-1a with that of another disease-modifying drug.
`The primary objective of this study was to compare
`the tolerability of the serum-free formulation of IFNβ-
`1a, 44 μg sc three times weekly (tiw), with IFNβ-1b,
`250 μg sc every other day (qod), as measured by the
`mean change in subject-reported injection-site pain
`from pre-injection to 30 min post-injection in IFNβ-
`treatment-naïve patients with RRMS during a 12-week
`period (comparative phase). During the extension phase,
`the primary objective was to evaluate long-term safety
`and tolerability of IFNβ-1a sc tiw.
`the mean
`included:
`Secondary efficacy endpoints
`difference in injection-site pain from pre-injection to
`immediately post-injection and to 10 min post-injection,
`the proportion of pain-free patients, number and severity
`of relapses, assessments of the treatment of side effects,
`patient-rated treatment satisfaction, and rater-blinded
`assessment of injection-site redness.
`Safety endpoints included analysis of adverse events
`(AEs), laboratory tests, physical examinations, vital signs,
`and concomitant medications.
`
`Methods
`Study design and patients
`The Rebif New Formulation Versus Betaseron Toler-
`ability Study (REFORMS) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:
`
`NCT00428584) was a randomized, multicenter, 2-arm,
`Phase IIIb study conducted at 27 clinical sites in the US.
`The study consisted of a 12-week randomized compara-
`tive phase, which was followed by a safety-extension
`phase of up to 112 weeks (range 82–112 weeks). The
`study was open-label, except for blinded assessments of
`ISRs. The initial central Institutional Review Board (IRB)
`submission was approved by Coast
`IRB, Colorado
`Springs, Colorado and, later, Schulman Associates IRB,
`Cincinnati, Ohio. For those sites that were not permitted
`to use a central IRB for study approval, submissions
`were made to the local IRB. This study was performed
`in accordance with the study protocol, the Declaration
`of Helsinki, the International Conference on Harmoni-
`zation (ICH) Harmonized Tripartite Guideline for Good
`Clinical Practice (GCP), and all applicable regulatory
`requirements. Patients provided written informed con-
`sent for participation in the study.
`Eligible patients were 18–60 years of age, had a pri-
`mary diagnosis of RRMS as defined by the Poser or 2005
`revised McDonald criteria [12,13], and had not previ-
`ously received IFNβ treatment. Patients were not eligible
`if they had used any other approved disease-modifying
`treatment for MS (e.g. glatiramer acetate) or any cyto-
`kine or anti-cytokine treatment within 3 months before
`study initiation, used any immunomodulatory or im-
`munosuppressive treatment within 12 months before
`study initiation, used any investigational drug or experi-
`mental procedure within 12 weeks before screening,
`received oral or systemic corticosteroids or adrenocorti-
`cotropic hormone within 30 days of study initiation, or
`used other injectable medications on a regular basis dur-
`ing the week before screening. Other exclusion criteria
`included having an alternative diagnosis to RRMS and
`being pregnant or breastfeeding. Women of childbearing
`potential were required to use appropriate contracep-
`tion. All patients provided written informed consent.
`
`Treatments
`Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either the
`serum-free formulation of IFNβ-1a 44 μg sc tiw or
`IFNβ-1b 250 μg sc qod for the 12 weeks of the compara-
`tive phase. Treatments were allocated using a computer-
`generated randomization code. The doses of IFNβ-1a
`and IFNβ-1b were up-titrated at the beginning of the
`study according to the US prescribing information for
`each drug (Figure 1) [14,15]. Following the 12-week
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1094 PAGE 2
`
`

`
`Singer et al. BMC Neurology 2012, 12:154
`http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/12/154
`
`Page 3 of 11
`
`Figure 1 Titration schedules for subcutaneous IFNβ-1a and IFNβ-1b. The first 21 injections of full-dose IFNβ-1a and IFNβ-1b treatment were
`termed the “full-dose period”. IFN, interferon; qod, every other day; tiw, three times weekly.
`
`comparative phase, all patients received the serum-free
`formulation of IFNβ-1a 44 μg sc tiw during the safety-
`extension phase. Patients who transitioned from IFNβ-
`1b to IFNβ-1a could be up-titrated to the full dose of
`IFNβ-1a at the discretion of the investigator. Patients
`who did not wish to transition from IFNβ-1b to IFNβ-1a
`were withdrawn from the study. The length of the exten-
`sion phase varied between 82 and 112 weeks, depending
`on the patient’s date of enrollment. The extension phase
`ended within 14 days of when the last enrolled patient
`completed the last visit at Week 94.
`All patients self-administered IFNβ using the Rebi-
`ject IIW autoinjector (EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA,
`USA) with a 29-gauge needle for IFNβ-1a or BetajectW
`(with a 27-gauge needle), Betaject LiteW (with a 30-
`gauge needle), or BetajectW 3 (with a 27-gauge needle)
`(Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Montville, NJ,
`USA). Acetaminophen was given prophylactically at the
`discretion of the treating physician and dosed as needed
`to ameliorate constitutional symptoms (e.g. fever, myal-
`gia, and FLS). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
`were given and dosed as needed at the discretion of the
`treating physician if acetaminophen failed to alleviate
`or prevent constitutional symptoms or if patients were
`allergic to, or unable to tolerate, acetaminophen.
`
`Assessments
`Patient-reported pain was evaluated in a visual analog
`scale (VAS) diary and the Short-Form McGill Pain
`Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) [16]. Patients used the VAS
`diary to record the level of pain on a scale from 0 mm
`(no pain) to 100 mm (worst possible pain), immediately
`before, immediately after, 10 min after, and 30 min after
`the injection. The SF-MPQ also included a VAS for
`patients to record the level of the maximum amount of
`pain experienced during the 60 min after injection, from
`0 mm (no pain) to 100 mm (worst possible pain). In
`addition, patients were requested to describe the types
`of pain that they experienced during the 60 min after
`
`injection. Patients completed the VAS diary and the SF-
`MPQ after every injection during the comparative phase
`and for the first 4 weeks of the safety-extension phase.
`The Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Satisfaction Ques-
`tionnaire (MSTSQ) adapted from Cramer et al. [17]
`included patient assessments of mood, treatment satis-
`faction, FLS, and ISRs. The MSTSQ was issued to
`patients at Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, and 48. Mean
`values are reported for each treatment phase.
`ISRs were assessed at each visit during the first
`48 weeks by a healthcare professional who was blinded
`to treatment assignment. ISR measures included the
`diameter of injection-site redness, injection-site swelling,
`bruising, and consideration of patient-reported itching,
`within 72 h of the most recent injection.
`Compliance was recorded throughout the study and
`was defined as the actual number of injections divided
`by the expected number of injections, expressed as a
`percentage. Safety assessments included AEs (coded
`to system organ class and preferred term using the
`MedDRA dictionary [Version 9.1] and summarized by
`severity and relationship), vital signs, hematology, and
`serum chemistry. Analgesic use among patients with
`and without AEs related to FLS was summarized by
`treatment group during the comparative phase and by
`treatment group and overall population during the
`extension phase.
`The primary endpoint was the mean change in the
`VAS diary pain score from pre-injection to 30 min post-
`injection over the first 21 injections of full-dose IFNβ-1a
`and IFNβ-1b treatment (“full-dose period”). Due to the
`different titration schedules and dose frequencies of each
`treatment, the first 21 full-dose injections were adminis-
`tered during Weeks 5–11 in the IFNβ-1a group and
`during Weeks 7–12 in the IFNβ-1b group (Figure 1).
`Secondary endpoints included mean changes in the VAS
`diary pain score from pre-injection to immediately post-
`injection and 10 min post-injection; MSTSQ assess-
`ments; rater-blinded assessment of the mean diameter of
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1094 PAGE 3
`
`

`
`Singer et al. BMC Neurology 2012, 12:154
`http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/12/154
`
`Page 4 of 11
`
`injection-site redness; and SF-MPQ assessments, includ-
`ing the proportion of patients pain-free as recorded on
`the SF-MPQ VAS. Types of pain and severity experi-
`enced by the patient were also recorded on the SF-MPQ.
`The number of relapses and severity were secondary effi-
`cacy endpoints. Relapses were patient-reported and not
`objectively assessed; the number and severity of relapses
`were observational clinical assessments.
`
`Statistical analysis
`The primary analysis population was the intent-to-treat
`population (all patients randomized to treatment). The
`safety population consisted of all patients who received
`at least one injection of study drug. The safety-extension
`population consisted of all patients who received at
`least one injection of study drug and had available exten-
`sion phase data. Baseline characteristics of the two treat-
`ment groups were compared using analysis of variance
`(ANOVA) with effects for treatment group and pooled
`site for continuous variables and the Cochran–Mantel–
`Haenszel general association test, adjusted for pooled
`site, for categorical variables.
`The null hypothesis was that there would be no differ-
`ence in mean change in VAS pain score at 30 min post-
`injection from pre-injection across the treatments at
`full dose. The primary endpoint was evaluated with a
`two-way ANOVA model on signed ranked data, includ-
`ing treatment group and pooled site as main effects. The
`same method was also used to analyze treatment com-
`parisons of the mean changes in the VAS diary pain
`score from pre-injection to immediately post-injection
`and 10 min post-injection, as well as mean SF-MPQ
`pain score at 60 min post-injection. An ANOVA model
`was used for between-group comparisons; for MSTQ
`scores,
`treatment group and pooled site were main
`effects; for injection-site redness, treatment group and
`site were main effects. The proportion of patients pain-
`free on SF-MPQ VAS was analyzed using the Cochran–
`Mantel–Haenszel general association test, adjusted for
`site, or Fisher’s exact test, if appropriate. Injection-site
`swelling, bruising, and itching were compared between
`groups using a Cochran–Armitage trend test. In the
`comparative phase, all statistical tests were two-sided
`and used a significance level of α = 0.05. No adjustment
`was made for multiple comparisons.
`comparative
`Patient-reported relapses during the
`phase were compared using a Poisson regression model
`with the total number of relapses as the dependent vari-
`able and treatment group and pooled site as independ-
`ent variables.
`
`Determination of sample size
`A total of 100 patients (50 per arm) was calculated to
`provide at least 90% power to detect the difference
`
`between treatment groups for the primary objective,
`when the expected treatment effect size (the difference
`between the treatment groups divided by the standard
`deviation [SD]) was at least 0.735. The effect size was
`based on a difference between the treatment groups of
`0.025 mm and an SD value of 0.034 mm. The difference
`between the treatment groups was based on a mean
`change of 0.1 mm in the IFNβ-1a group and 0.125 mm
`in the IFNβ-1b group, and assumed that the mean VAS
`diary pain scores at pre-injection in the two treatment
`groups were similar. The calculation also assumed a
`two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test, a common SD of
`the change of ≤0.034 mm, and a Type I error rate of 5%.
`
`Results
`Patient disposition and baseline characteristics
`Between May 2006 and July 2009, a total of 129 patients
`were enrolled: 65 were randomized to IFNβ-1a and
`64 to IFNβ-1b (Figure 2). Patient baseline characteristics
`(Table 1) did not differ significantly between groups.
`Fifty-six patients in the IFNβ-1a group completed the
`comparative phase and entered the safety-extension
`phase, and these were termed the “Always IFNβ-1a”
`group (Figure 2). Of the 63 patients in the IFNβ-1b
`group who completed the comparative phase, 60 entered
`the extension phase and were termed the “Delayed
`IFNβ-1a” group. During the extension phase, the mean
`(SD) duration of treatment with IFNβ-1a was longer in
`the Always IFNβ-1a group (436 [251] days) than in the
`Delayed IFNβ-1a group (338 [260] days).
`
`Tolerability
`Comparative phase
`During the full-dose period, the VAS diary pain score
`was very low across both treatments. Mean changes in
`pain scores from pre-injection to immediately, 10 min,
`and 30 min after injection were all <5 mm with both
`treatments (Figure 3). The mean (SD) pre-injection VAS
`diary pain score was 0.43 (2.06) mm in the IFNβ-1a
`group and 0.40 (1.64) mm in the IFNβ-1b group. The
`primary endpoint of mean change in the VAS diary
`pain score from pre-injection to 30 min post-injection
`during the full-dose period was not statistically different
`between IFNβ-1a and IFNβ-1b (mean [SD] 0.67 [2.32]
`mm vs. 1.14 [4.94] mm, respectively, p = 0.524; Figure 3)
`but was numerically lower with IFNβ-1a than with
`IFNβ-1b. Mean changes in the VAS diary pain score
`from pre-injection to immediately and 10 min post-
`injection during the full-dose period were also not statis-
`tically different across groups (Figure 3).
`The proportions of patients who were pain-free on the
`VAS diary during the full-dose period (score of 0 mm
`for all full-dose injections) immediately, 10 min, and
`30 min after injection were not statistically different
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1094 PAGE 4
`
`

`
`Singer et al. BMC Neurology 2012, 12:154
`http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/12/154
`
`Page 5 of 11
`
`145 patients were assessed for eligibility
`
`16 were excluded
`11 did not meet eligibility criteria
`5 other reasons (withdrew consent, lost
`to follow-up, laboratory findings)
`
`129 underwent randomization
`
`sc IFNβ-1a group
`65 randomized to serum-free formulation
`IFNβ-1a 44 μg sc tiw
`
`IFNβ-1b group
`64 randomized to IFNβ-
`
`65 included in ITT and safety populations
`
`64 included in ITT and safety populations
`
`9 discontinued treatment
`6 adverse events
`2 lost to follow-up
`1 other reason
`
`1 lost to follow-up
`
`56 completed 12-week comparative phase
`
`63 completed 12-week comparative phase
`
`3 did not enter safety extension
`phase
`3 other reasons (wanted to take
`pain medication, MS symptoms,
`did not want to discontinue
`Betaseron)
`
`Always sc IFNβ-1a group
`56 continued treatment with serum-free
`formulation IFNβ-1a 44 μg sc tiw
`
`Delayed sc IFNβ-1a group
`60 transitioned to serum-free formulation
`IFNβ-1a 44 μg sc tiw
`
`56 included in safety extension population
`
`60 included in safety extension population
`
`21 discontinued treatment
`8 adverse events
`1 lost to follow-up
`1 protocol violation
`4 disease progression
`7 other reasons
`
`26 discontinued treatment
`9 adverse events
`6 lost to follow-up
`1 protocol violation
`3 disease progression
`7 other reasons
`
`Comparative phase
`
`Safety extension phase
`
`35 completed safety extension phase
`
`34 completed safety extension phase
`
`Figure 2 Patient enrollment and disposition. IFN, interferon; ITT, intent-to-treat; qod, every other day; sc, subcutaneous; tiw, three
`times weekly.
`
`across groups, but scores were numerically higher with
`IFNβ-1a than with IFNβ-1b (Figure 4). The mean SF-
`MPQ VAS pain scores were similar between the two
`groups, as were the proportions of patients who were
`pain-free on the SF-MPQ VAS (Table 2). During the
`full-dose period, the most common types of pain experi-
`enced during the 60 min after injection (incidence of
`≥20% in either group) were hot-burning (reported by
`40.0% of patients in the IFNβ-1a group vs. 53.1% of
`patients in the IFNβ-1b group), aching (29.2% vs. 45.3%),
`sharp (35.4% vs. 42.2%), tender (33.8% vs. 35.9%), shoot-
`ing (26.2% vs. 34.4%), stabbing (29.2% vs. 32.8%), throb-
`bing (27.7% vs. 32.8%), and heavy (9.2% vs. 23.4%).
`
`The proportion of patients who reported any occur-
`rence of FLS during the entire 12-week comparative
`phase on the MSTSQ was 84.6% with IFNβ-1a and
`93.8% for IFNβ-1b; for the titration period, the occur-
`rence of FLS was 75.4% and 87.5% with IFNβ-1a and
`IFNβ-1b, respectively. For the full-dose period, the FLS
`score was 84.6% and 76.6% with IFNβ-1a versus IFNβ-
`1b, respectively. The difference in frequency of FLS be-
`tween IFNβ-1a (mean 3.55; SD 1.45) and IFNβ-1b (mean
`2.78; SD 1.4) was significant (p = 0.003). The ratio of the
`percentage of patients reporting ISRs on the MSTQ dur-
`ing the full-dose period was similar to that of the FLS
`score. The difference in frequency of
`ISRs between
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1094 PAGE 5
`
`

`
`Singer et al. BMC Neurology 2012, 12:154
`http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/12/154
`
`Page 6 of 11
`
`Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients (intent-to-treat population) randomized to receive subcutaneous IFNβ-1a or
`IFNβ-1b
`Baseline characteristic
`Age, years
`
`IFNβ-1a (N = 65)
`
`IFNβ-1b (N = 64)
`
`Mean (SD)
`
`Median (range)
`
`Female, n (%)
`
`Race, n (%)
`
`White
`
`Black
`
`Asian
`
`Other
`BMI, kg/m2, mean (SD)
`
`Classification of MS, n (%)
`
`Poser criteria
`
`McDonald criteria
`
`Time since first signs and/or symptoms of MS (onset), years, mean (SD)
`
`Time since MS diagnosis, years, mean (SD)
`
`Patients with no relapse during the 12 months before informed consent, n (%)
`Relapses per patient,a mean (SD)
`Time since last relapse,a months, mean (SD)
`Number of steroid courses required for relapses per patient,a mean (SD)
`Patients who required ≥1 course of steroids,a n (%)
`aBased on total number of patients with relapses during the 12 months before informed consent.
`BMI, body mass index; IFN, interferon; MS, multiple sclerosis; SD, standard deviation.
`
`40.26 (9.80)
`40.0 (20–60)
`46 (70.8)
`
`55 (84.6)
`
`6 (9.2)
`
`2 (3.1)
`
`2 (3.1)
`
`29.66 (6.76)
`
`19 (29.2)
`
`46 (70.8)
`
`4.51 (6.70)
`
`1.01 (2.35)
`
`10 (15.4)
`
`1.36 (0.52)
`
`3.52 (2.94)
`
`0.53 (0.60)
`
`26 (47.3)
`
`40.78 (9.56)
`40.0 (19–59)
`44 (68.8)
`
`58 (90.6)
`
`5 (7.8)
`
`0
`
`1 (1.6)
`
`30.23 (8.35)
`
`17 (26.6)
`
`47 (73.4)
`
`5.74 (6.66)
`
`1.93 (4.02)
`
`14 (21.9)
`
`1.30 (0.46)
`
`4.01 (2.93)
`
`0.46 (0.50)
`
`23 (46.0)
`
`IFNβ-1a (mean 3.72; SD 1.56) and IFNβ-1b (mean 2.92;
`SD 1.45) was significant (p = 0.005). The mean MSTSQ
`scores for overall satisfaction,
`injection system, and
`background information were similar between the two
`groups during the full-dose period (Table 2).
`Blinded assessment of ISRs during the full-dose period
`found that the diameter of injection-site redness was simi-
`lar between the two groups (Table 2). The proportions of
`
`patients with injection-site swelling and itching were
`similar between the two groups, but the incidence of
`injection-site swelling was
`significantly greater with
`IFNβ-1b than with IFNβ-1a during the uptitration period
`(28.1% vs. 18.5%, respectively; p = 0.042). Injection-site
`bruising was significantly more common with IFNβ-1a
`
`Figure 3 Mean change in VAS diary pain score during full-dose
`treatment in the comparative phase (intent-to-treat
`population). The VAS ranged from 0 mm (no pain) to 100 mm
`(worst possible pain). The mean change was calculated from the
`mean of 21 full-dose injections for each patient. IFN, interferon; SD,
`standard deviation; VAS, visual analog scale.
`
`Figure 4 Patients who reported as pain-free on the VAS diary
`in the comparative phase (intent-to-treat population). Pain-free
`was defined as a VAS diary pain score of 0 mm (on a scale from
`0 [no pain] to 100 mm [worst possible pain]) for all 21 full-dose
`injections. IFN, interferon; VAS, visual analog scale.
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1094 PAGE 6
`
`

`
`Singer et al. BMC Neurology 2012, 12:154
`http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/12/154
`
`Page 7 of 11
`
`Table 2 MSTSQ, ISR, and SF-MPQ endpoints during the full-dose period of the comparative phase (intent-to-treat
`population)
`
`IFNβ-1a (N = 65)
`
`IFNβ-1b (N = 64)
`
`p-value
`
`MSTSQ assessments
`MSTSQ overall satisfaction score,a mean (SD)
`MSTSQ injection system score,a mean (SD)
`MSTSQ score for background information,a mean (SD)
`Blinded assessment of ISRs
`
`1.51 (0.56)
`
`1.68 (0.41)
`
`2.28 (0.91)
`
`1.53 (0.63)
`
`1.80 (0.45)
`
`2.28 (0.86)
`
`Diameter of injection-site redness, mm, mean (SD)
`
`11.32 (14.88)
`
`11.75 (15.53)
`
`Patients, n (%), with:
`
`Injection-site swelling
`
`Injection-site bruising
`
`Injection-site itching
`
`19 (29.2)
`
`21 (32.3)
`
`7 (10.8)
`
`16 (25.0)
`
`7 (10.9)
`
`6 (9.4)
`
`0.616
`
`0.156
`
`0.734
`
`0.986
`
`0.848
`
`0.019
`
`0.366
`
`SF-MPQ assessments
`SF-MPQ VAS pain score,b mm, mean (SD)
`Patients pain-free on SF-MPQ VAS,b,c n (%)
`0.852
`17 (26.6)
`17 (26.2)
`aOn the MSTSQ, a lower score indicates a more favorable response to treatment. bThe SF-MPQ VAS recorded the maximum amount of pain experienced during
`the 60 min after injection, from 0 mm (no pain) to 100 mm (worst possible pain). cPain-free was defined as an SF-MPQ VAS score of 0 mm.
`IFN, interferon; ISR, injection-site reaction; MSTSQ, Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire; SD, standard deviation; SF-MPQ, Short-Form McGill Pain
`Questionnaire; VAS, visual analog scale.
`
`2.54 (7.98)
`
`3.24 (8.78)
`
`0.612
`
`than with IFNβ-1b during the full-dose period of the
`comparative phase (32.3% vs. 10.9%, respectively; p =
`0.019) (Table 2). However, most incidents were mild
`in severity.
`
`Safety-extension phase
`During the first 4 weeks of the safety-extension phase,
`the mean changes in VAS diary pain scores from before
`injection to all timepoints after injection were all <3 mm
`in both the Always and Delayed IFNβ-1a groups. More
`than half of all patients were pain-free on the VAS diary
`10 min after injection. MSTSQ assessments for FLS,
`overall satisfaction, injection system background infor-
`mation, and ISRs were similar in the Always and
`Delayed groups, although blinded assessment of ISRs
`were numerically lower (7.46 mm) for the Delayed group
`than the Always group (10.79 mm). The mean MSTSQ,
`ISRs, and SF-MPQ during the safety-extension phase are
`summarized in Additional file 1: Table S1.
`
`Compliance and analgesic use
`Treatment compliance during the comparative phase
`was high: 64/65 (98.5%) patients receiving IFNβ-1a and
`62/64 (96.9%) patients receiving IFNβ-1b adhered to
`their medication schedule ≥90% of the time. Similarly, of
`the patients enrolled in the safety-extension phase, 102/
`116 (87.9%) were ≥90% compliant. Throughout
`the
`study, analgesics were used by the majority of patients.
`The percentage of patients using analgesics did not differ
`greatly between groups in either phase of the study; dur-
`ing the full-dose period of the safety population, anal-
`gesic use in the IFNβ-1a and IFNβ-1b was 61.5% and
`
`57.8%, respectively, and mean total (SD) dose was 16,652
`(16,941) mg and 12,862 (10,159) mg, respectively. Post-
`injection analgesic use for the treatment of an ISR was
`recorded by 1/64 patients in the IFNβ-1b group. During
`the full dose period, concomitant analgesic use for treat-
`ment of an ISR was recorded by 4/65 patients in the
`IFNβ-1a group and by 1/64 patients in the IFNβ-1b
`group. During the extension phase, analgesic use in the
`Always IFNβ-1a group and Delayed IFNβ-1b group was
`80.4% and 78.3%, respectively.
`The most commonly used (>3 individuals) analgesics
`during both study phases included ibuprofen, paraceta-
`mol, naproxen, and acetylsalicylic acid.
`
`Safety
`AEs during the comparative phase
`AEs reported in ≥5% of patients in either group during
`the comparative phase are shown in Table 3. AEs that
`were more common in the IFNβ-1a group than in the
`IFNβ-1b group included ISRs, nausea, increased alanine
`aminotransferase (ALT),
`increased serum ferritin, and
`abnormal liver-function test. AEs that were more com-
`mon in the IFNβ-1b group than in the IFNβ-1a group
`included depression, fatigue, and dizziness. Most AEs
`occurring during the comparative phase were mild to
`moderate in severity. Severe AEs that occurred in at
`least one patient in the IFNβ-1a group were influenza-
`like illness (n = 2), back pain (n = 2), and headache
`(n = 2). Severe AEs that occurred in at least one patient
`in the IFNβ-1b group were back pain (n = 2) and head-
`ache (n = 2). During the comparative phase, six patients
`(all in the IFNβ-1a group) discontinued due to an AE.
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1094 PAGE 7
`
`

`
`Singer et al. BMC Neurology 2012, 12:154
`http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/12/154
`
`Page 8 of 11
`
`Table 3 TEAEs reported by ≥5% of patients in either
`group during the comparative phase (safety population)
`Adverse event
`Number of patients (%)
`IFNβ-1a
`IFNβ-1b
`(N = 65)
`(N = 64)
`20 (30.8)
`18 (28.1)
`
`Influenza-like illness
`
`Headache
`
`Injection-site reaction
`
`Injection-site erythema
`
`Depression
`
`Fatigue
`
`Urinary tract infection
`
`Extremity pain
`
`Nausea
`
`Insomnia
`
`Injection-site pain
`
`Alanine aminotransferase increased
`
`Back pain
`
`Dizziness
`
`Muscle spasms
`
`Pain
`
`Diarrhea
`
`Chills
`
`Influenza
`
`Injection-site bruising
`
`Serum ferritin increased
`
`Liver-function test abnormal
`
`17 (26.2)
`
`18 (27.7)
`
`8 (12.3)
`
`4 (6.2)
`
`3 (4.6)
`
`7 (10.8)
`
`6 (9.2)
`
`7 (10.8)
`
`5 (7.7)
`
`4 (6.2)
`
`8 (12.3)
`
`4 (6.2)
`
`2 (3.1)
`
`5 (7.7)
`
`4 (6.2)
`
`2 (3.1)
`
`5 (7.7)
`
`5 (7.7)
`
`5 (7.7)
`
`6 (9.2)
`
`5 (7.7)
`
`16 (25.0)
`
`9 (14.1)
`
`8 (12.5)
`
`8 (12.5)
`
`9 (14.1)
`
`5 (7.8)
`
`6 (9.4)
`
`3 (4.7)
`
`5 (7.8)
`
`5 (7.8)
`
`1 (1.6)
`
`4 (6.3)
`
`6 (9.4)
`
`3 (4.7)
`
`3 (4.7)
`
`5 (7.8)
`
`2 (3.1)
`
`2 (3.1)
`
`2 (3.1)
`
`0
`
`0
`
`IFN, interferon; TEAE, treatment-emergent adverse event.
`
`The AEs resulting in discontinuation were elevated liver
`function tests (n = 2) and elevated liver function tests
`plus the following: muscle cramps and spasms, chills,
`and headache (n = 1); elevated ferritin (n = 1);
`leukopenia and neutropenia plus ISR (n = 1); and preg-
`nancy (n = 1).
`Serious AEs were reported in two patients. One pa-
`tient receiving IFNβ-1a had high ferritin levels and was
`subsequently diagnosed with grade 3, stage 2, chronic
`hepatitis; the investigator considered this event probably
`related to the study medication. One patient receiving
`IFNβ-1b had cholelithiasis, which required cholecys-
`tectomy; this event was considered unrelated to the
`study medication.
`
`AEs during the safety-extension phase
`Most AEs occurring during the extension phase were
`mild to moderate in severity. AEs occurring in >5%
`of patients are listed in Additional file 2: Table S2. Se-
`vere AEs that occurred in the Always IFNβ-1a group
`were non-study-related post-surgery pain (n = 1), tooth
`
`extraction pain (n = 1) and headache (n = 2). Severe AEs
`that occurred in at least one patient in the Delayed
`IFNβ-1a group were influenza-like illness (n = 2), and
`headache (n = 2). During the extension phase, 17
`patients (eight patients in the Always IFNβ-1a group
`and nine patients in the Delayed IFNβ-1a group) dis-
`continued due to an AE.
`Serious AEs were reported in three patients in the
`Always IFNβ-1a group: one patient had an accidental
`overdose of IFNβ-1a, one patient developed cholecystitis
`(the same patient who had high ferritin and chronic
`hepatitis in the comparative phase), and one patient
`experienced vertigo. Serious AEs were reported in four
`patients in the Delayed IFNβ-1a group: one patient
`experienced intestinal obstruction, one patient experi-
`enced diverticulitis, one patient had an accidental over-
`dose of study drug, and one patient had a hip fracture.
`Both cases of accidental overdose were due to misunder-
`standing of the dosing regimen. The case of cholecystitis
`was considered unlikely to be related to the study medi-
`cation, and the other four serious AEs that occurred dur-
`ing the extension phase were considered to be unrelated
`to the study medication.
`
`Other safety assessments
`The mean values of hemoglobin, hematocrit, red blood
`cell counts, platelet counts, white blood cell counts, and
`alkaline phosphatase were within normal limits in each
`arm throughout the entire study. In the IFNβ-1a group,
`mean aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and ALT values
`become elevated above normal limits during the com-
`parative phase. Mean AST (normal range 0–35 U/L)
`p

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