UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADElVlARK 017FICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LUPIN, LTD. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`V,
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-01105
`Patent 8,871,813 B2
`
`DECLARATION O,F DARYL S. PAULSON, PH.D., M.A., 1\!I.S., J\t.B.A.
`
`Page 1 of29
`
`SENJU EXHIBIT 2128
`LUPIN v. SENJU
`IPR2015-01105
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LUPIN, LTD. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`V,
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-01105
`Patent 8,871,813 B2
`
`DECLARATION O,F DARYL S. PAULSON, PH.D., M.A., 1\!I.S., J\t.B.A.
`
`Page 1 of29
`
`SENJU EXHIBIT 2128
`LUPIN v. SENJU
`IPR2015-01105
`
`
`
`I, Daryl S. Paulson, Ph.D., JvtA., M.S., tv-1.B.A., under penalty of perjury,
`
`declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I submit this declaration at the request of Finnegan, Henderson,
`
`Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP on behalf of Senju Pharmaceutical, Co., Ltd.
`
`("Senju'') in connection with IPR2015~01105 inter partes review ("IPR")
`
`proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (''PTO'') Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") as an expert in the field of the evaluation of
`
`drug products. My qualifications in these areas, as well as other areas, arc
`
`established below and by my curriculum vitae, which is EX2129.
`
`2.
`
`I am currently the President and CEO of BioScience Laboratories, Inc.
`
`in Bozeman. Montana, which I founded in 199L
`
`3.
`
`In the field of microbiology, 1 received a RS. degree in medical
`
`microbiology from College of Great Falls in 1979 and a M.S. degree in medical
`
`microbiology/biostatistics frorn University of lVIontana in 1981.
`
`I have also
`
`received a ,M.A. degree in psychology from Pacifica Graduate Institute - Santa
`
`Bar·bra, California, in 1988~ a Ph.D. degree in Psychology from Sierra University
`
`in 1989, and a Ph.D. degree in Human Science from SayBrook Research Institute
`
`and Graduate School. I have also received an M.B.A. degree from University of
`
`Montana in 2002, a Ph.D. degree in Asian a1t history from vVarnborough
`
`Page 2 of29
`
`2
`
`
`
`University, UK, and a Ph.D. degree m Psychology from the Institute of
`
`Transpersonal Psychology in 2008.
`
`4.
`
`I have an extensive experience in the fields of management science,
`
`research and development, clinical trials, biostatistics, and clinical microbiology
`
`and have authored publications and given presentations related to pharmaceutical
`
`drug products. Among my numerous publications, I have authored Topical
`
`Antimic-robial Testing and Evaluation, Taylor & Francis, 2014, and ] have also
`
`edited the Handbook clTopical Antimicrobials, Marcel Dekker, 2002.
`
`II.
`
`DOCU~IENTS AND INFORI\1ATION CONSIDERED IN FORMING
`OPINIONS
`
`5.
`
`Under my direction and control, BioScience Laboratories, Inc.
`
`conducted a Preservative Effectiveness 'Test ("PET") to evaluate and determine the
`
`antimicrobial preservatives effectiveness of several samples challenged with
`
`resistant microorganisms. In reviewing the PET results, I had available to me l:he
`
`documents cited herein as well as the publications listed on my curriculum vitae at
`
`EX2l29. The data tables for the PET were created using the raw data collected by
`
`the Study Director, Dan M. Dragotoiu, who conducted this comparative study and
`
`who holds a B.S. degree and has over ten years of professional and academic
`
`experience in the area of microbiology.
`
`I reserve the right to testify about
`
`BioScience Laboratories, Inc. test results and scientific expertise.
`
`Page 3 of29
`
`3
`
`
`
`III. STATEIV1ENT OF OPINIONS EXPRESSED AND BASES AND
`REASONS THEREI•'OR
`
`A.
`
`6.
`
`Background
`
`BioScience Laboratories, Inc. received from SSCI samples of Bausch
`
`& Lomb Incorporated's ( .. B+L's") Prolensa@ product for PET. Upon receipt of
`
`these samples, BioScience Laboratories, Inc. stored, handled, and maint:'lined
`
`according to BioScience Laboratories, Inc.'s current good manufacturing practice
`
`("GMl1
`
`") sample handling procedures as specit1caiiy outlined in their SOP L-0005.
`
`These samples were evaluated for preservative efficacy during the months of
`
`November 2015 and January 2016. BioScience Laboratories Study Director, Dan
`
`M. Dragotoiu, was personally present during the preservative efficacy testing of
`
`these samples.
`
`7.
`
`A summary report of the preservative eft1cacy testing conducted by
`
`BioScience Laboratories, Inc. on these samples is attached as Appendix A. The
`
`report describes the analytical methodology to evaluate preservative efficacy of
`
`stressed and unstressed samples of B+L's Pro1ensa® product The preservative
`
`efficacy results are reported in the document for all of the samples tested.
`
`8.
`
`BioScience Laboratories,
`
`Inc.
`
`is a Good Laboratory Practice
`
`("GLP")/GMP facility providing contract product development services to the
`
`pharmaceutical industry. BioScience Laboratories, Inc.'s service offerings include,
`
`but are not Iirnited to analytical testing (e.g., preservative efficacy), product
`
`Page 4 of29
`
`4
`
`
`
`development, and manufactures label claims. The preservative efficacy testing of
`
`the B+L's Prolensa® product samples was performed in BioScience Laboratories,
`
`Inc.'s GLP/GMP In-Vitro laboratory.
`
`9.
`
`The details of the analytical testing that was performed and the
`
`preservative efficacy test results obtained were provided to SSCI for incorporation
`
`in the SSCI report (Appendix A).
`
`B.
`
`Preservative Efficacy Testing ofB+L's Prolensa® product
`
`10. As discussed above, samples of B+L's Prolensa® product were
`
`analyzed for preservative efficacy. Consistent with the
`
`'813 patent,
`
`the
`
`preservative effectiveness tests were conducted based on the methods described in
`
`the European Pharmacopoeia, using the two bacterial species Pseudomonas
`
`aeruginosa (ATCC #9027) and Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC #6538), and the
`
`two fungal species Candida albicans (ATCC #10231) and Aspergillus brasiliensis
`
`(ATCC #16404).
`
`As indicated in the '813 patent, the preservative effectiveness of the vials were
`
`evaluated at the following times: 24 hours, 7 days, 14 days and 28 days following
`
`inoculation with the two bacterial species, and 14 days, 21 days and 28 days
`
`Page 5 of29
`
`5
`
`
`
`following inoculation with the two fungal species. t (EX2267 at 8.) At these time
`
`points, and after further incubation at the appropriate temperature using the
`
`appropriate agar medium for each species, the colonies on the plates were counted.
`
`(EX2267 at 8-9.)
`
`11.
`
`Some aspects of the method used in this study varied slightly from the
`
`European Pharmacopoeia to account for the low volume of available test products
`
`that Lupin and InnoPharma provided, which were tested at the same time with the
`
`B+L' s Prolensa'19 product Still, the test methods are consistent with the '813
`
`patent and scientillcally valid, and the results obtained are accurate, as further
`
`described below.
`
`12.
`
`For this study, the test products were transferred from the original
`
`containers to sterilized vials to ensure the accuracy of the volumes and to maintain
`
`sterility of the
`
`test products at the various
`
`time points.
`
`The European
`
`Pharmacopoeia docs not require using the containers of the test products.
`
`Recognizing tbat there may be times when the test products are not chal.lenged in
`
`their final containers. the European Pharmacopoeia states that "the test consists of
`
`challenging the preparation, wherever pos.vible in its final container, with a
`
`The additional data taken at 21 days conforms to the '813 patent (EX1003 at
`
`9:41-50), and further confirms the validity of the results of the preservative
`
`effectiveness testing.
`--·
`
`.
`
`Page 6 of29
`
`6
`
`
`
`prescribed
`
`inoculum of suitable miero-organisrns, storing
`
`the
`
`inoculated
`
`preparation at a prescribed temperature, withdrawing samples from the container at
`
`specified imerva1s of time and counting the organism in the samples so removed."
`
`(EX2295 at 505, emphasis added.) Indeed, in the previous paragraph, it also states
`
`that the antimicrobial activity "rnay" be demonstrated by the described test,
`
`making it clear that the exact conditions of the test can be modified, when
`
`appropriate, and still elucidate a formulation's preservative efficacy.
`
`(!d.) For
`
`example, the European Phannacopoeia allows for different challenge species to be
`
`used and provides a subjective evaluation for the sporulation obtained in the
`
`growth of cultures. Ud. at 506, left col., n. 1-23.) Therefore, the use of sterilized
`
`vials for the test products was acceptable for this study.
`
`C.
`
`Reported Preservative Efficacy Testing Results are Reliable
`
`1. Measurement at the Time J>oinl~ Required by the
`Patent were 1\tlade
`
`13. As discussed above, the preservative effectiveness of the vials were
`
`evaluated at the following times: 24 hours, 7 days, 14 days and 28 days :follo\ving
`
`inoculation with the two bacterial species, and 14 days, 21 days and 28 days
`
`following inoculation with the two fungal species. (EX2267 at 8.) The tests were
`
`conducted consistent with the '813 patent specification, which do not require data
`
`at the zero hour time point (See, EX I 003 at 9:43-50.) Nor is the zero hour time
`
`point a required time point for the EP~criteria B standard as specified in Table
`
`Page 7 of29
`
`7
`
`
`
`5.1.3.-l. (EX2295 at 506.) In any event, we determined the initial inoculum count,
`
`which was provided in the BSL Final Letter Repmt. (EX2267 at 25-29.) The Jack
`
`of data for the zero hour time point, therefore, would not have any effect on the
`
`accuracy of the results obtained for other data points.
`
`2.
`
`Neutralization Validation \:Vas Properly Conducted
`
`a.
`
`1\llicroorganisms "Verc Properly Added to the
`Test Product
`
`14. Consistent with the method described in the European Pharmacopoeia,
`
`a 1 m] aliquot of test product was added to 9 rnl of the diluent (neutralizer) prior to
`
`the addition of the organism. Thereafter
`
`Moreover, the microbial recoveries
`
`from these neutralized test products were within a factor of 2 of the recoveries
`
`from the controls, consistent with what is set forth in the European Pharmacopoeia.
`
`(EX2295 at 164-165.)
`
`Page 8 of29
`
`8
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Inoculum Count for A. niger
`
`15.
`
`The inoculum counts for some samples with A niger (also known as
`
`A. brasiliensis) for the test products used in the neut.ralization validation test were
`
`slightly outside the range of the CFUs recommended by the method described in
`
`the European Pharmacopoeia. In all instances. however, the counts recovered from
`
`the test product used in the neutralization validation test did not differ by more
`
`than a factor of 2 from the control, as pennitted by the European Pharmacopoeia.
`
`(EX2295 at 165, Section 4-5-3 and 4-6.) Thus the slight variation in CFUs from
`
`the data obtained :from the test products .in the neutralization validation test met the
`
`above criteria set forth i.n 4-5-2 of the European Pharmacopoeia. Furthermore, the
`
`recovered populations of A. niger from the test products were not more than 0.3
`
`logw higher than that of the range set forth in the European Pharmacopoeia, which
`
`is an insignificant difference.
`
`c.
`
`Incubation Time for Some Bacterial Samples
`
`16.
`
`The incubation period was longer than the time period set forth in the
`
`European Pharmacopoeia. A prolonged incubation does not decrease the number of
`
`colonies as the incubation continues. Moreover, the plate counts obtained do not
`
`exceed countable ranges per SOP L-2059. (EX2294.)
`
`Page 9 of29
`
`9
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Preservative Effectiveness Test was Properly
`Conducted
`
`a.
`
`Initial Inoculum Concentrations were Within
`the Range Allowed by the European
`Pharmacopoeia
`
`17. The European Pharmacopoeia sets forth the use of "an inoculum of
`
`105 to 106 micro-organisms per millilitre or per gram of the preparation." (EX2295
`
`at 506.)
`
`the inoculum concentrations for all of the
`
`microorganisms were within the required range of inoculum concentrations, as
`
`specified in the European Pharmacopoeia. (EX2267 at 41.) In any event, a high
`
`inoculum concentration just challenges the preservative effectiveness of the
`
`formulation to a greater extent. Eradicating that challenge at the data time
`
`intervals recited in the '813 patent further confirms the preservative effectiveness
`
`of the tested formulations.
`
`b.
`
`Incubation Times Were Aligned with the
`Protocol and/or With Validated Procedures
`
`18. The preliminary counts as well as the final counts were recorded on
`
`the Antimicrobial Effectiveness Testing Data Sheets. (See, e.g., EX2267 at 44.)
`
`which the counts changed from the preliminary to the final counting dates, those
`10
`
`Page 10 of29
`
`In instances in
`
`
`
`additional plate counts were
`
`which the counts changed from the preliminary to the final counting dates, those
`
`additional plate counts were recorded. In this example,
`
`4.
`
`Deviations from the Protocol or Standard Operating
`Procedures in the BSL Testing Did Not Impact the
`Results
`
`19.
`
`In my opinion, any deviations from
`
`the Protocol or Standard
`
`Operating Procedures would not have compromised the accuracy or validity of the
`
`results obtained.
`
`a.
`
`Temperature of Molten Agar Did Not Affect the
`Results
`
`20. Although the temperatures for molten agar were slightly higher than
`
`the recommended temperature of 45°C according to the European Pharmacopoeia
`
`(EX2295 at 165),
`
`ld not have had an adverse effect on any of the microbial species
`
`tested for this study.
`
`Page 11 of29
`
`11
`
`
`
`variation on these two identified days vvould not be expected to adversely affect the
`
`But in the end, this very slight temperature
`
`microbial species tested.
`
`b.
`
`There was Adequate Monitoring of Incubation
`Temperature for the Test Period
`
`21. The incubation was documented to be within the required ranges,
`
`despite that the electronic temperature monitoring system was not in operation
`
`from 11/19/15 to 11129/15.
`
`Furthermore, the electronic temperature monitoring system was
`
`back in operation beginning 11129/15. In any event, the incubators did not have
`
`any technical issues and were functioning during the time period at issue, and the
`
`temperatures would have remained within the required range of 30-35°C.
`
`c.
`
`Use of Different Medium During Neutralization
`Validation Docs Not Invalidate the Obtained
`Test Results for Both Fungi
`
`22. The media used for each test date for the various microorganisms are
`
`documented in the Media/Diluent Tracking Forms, which confirms compliance
`
`Page 12 of29
`
`12
`
`
`
`with the testing protocol. (EX2267 at 11; EX2275.) The same media was used for
`
`the neutralization validation test and the preservative effectiveness test for the test
`
`products.
`
`23. With respect to C. albicans and A. niger. Media/Diluent Tracking
`
`Forms document the media used on 11/30/15 in which the neutralization was
`
`conducted.
`
`states the use of the TSA+ media for the neutralization validation,
`
`Therefore, although section 12.8
`
`Page 13 of29
`
`13
`
`
`
`immediately apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art and does not impact
`
`This typographic error would have been
`
`the validity of the results obtained.
`
`24.
`
`can be observed by the tester--"or until good sporulation is obtained." Moreover,
`
`the EP 7.0 at 506 confinns
`
`According
`
`to Table 2.6.12.-l
`
`Pharmacopoeia, either SDA media or PDA media could be used for the cultivation
`
`of A. niger. (EX2295 at 164.)
`
`Phannacopoeia.
`
`(EX2295 at 164.)
`
`Page 14 of29
`
`14
`
`
`
`IV. COMPENSATION
`
`26.
`
`If called to testify to the facts stated herein, I will be compensated for
`
`my time preparing for and testifying in this matter at rate of $500.00 per hour. No
`
`part of my compensation is contingent upon the outcome of this matter or any issue
`
`in it.
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR EXPERT TESTIMONY
`
`27. During the past four years, I have not testified as an expert in any
`
`cases.
`
`Date
`
`Daryl s: Paulson, Ph.D., M.A., M.S., M.B.A.
`
`Page 15 of29
`
`15
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`APPENDIX A
`
`Page 16 of29
`Page 16 of 29
`
`
`
`A Division of Albany Molecular Research Jnc.
`
`3065 Kent Avenue
`West Lafayette, IN 4 7906-1 076
`Phone: (765) 463-0112
`Fax: (765) 463-4722
`E-mail: info@ssci-inc.com
`Web: www.ssci-inc.com
`
`Stability Evaluation of
`Bromfenac Sodium Drug
`Product Samples for Potency
`and Preservative Efficacy
`
`Project ID: EL20151326
`Report Date: 01/08/2016
`
`Page 17 of29
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
`I.
`II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 3
`III. DATA TABLES ................................................................................................................................................... 5
`Table 1. Summary ofHPLC Data, Sequence 741881.. ............................................................................................... 5
`Table 2. Summary ofHPLC Data, Sequence 742199 ................................................................................................. 6
`IV. EXPERIMENTAL ................................................................................................................................................ ?
`A. HPLC Method ..................................................................................................................................................... ?
`V. APPENDIX A: PRESERVATIVE EFFICACY DATA ...................................................................................... 8
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Drug Product Samples for Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01/08/2016
`page 2 of 13
`Page 18 of29
`
`
`
`I. SUMMARY
`
`Bromfenac sodium ophthalmic solution dmg products were sourced from Senju. A portion of
`the samples was used for unstressed (as received) analysis, and the remaining samples were
`stressed in an oven for four (4) weeks at 60°C. Samples from both the unstressed and stressed
`conditions were evaluated for potency and preservative efficacy.
`
`Potency was determined by HPLC with UV detection as detailed in Section IV.A. Percent
`recovery (percent initial) was calculated based on the potency after stress conditions relative to
`that of the unstressed sample. See Table 1 for the unstressed (as received) HPLC data and Table
`2 for the stressed sample HPLC data.
`
`Preservative efficacy was evaluated by BioScience Laboratories, Inc. Samples were evaluated
`for preservative efficacy as guided in the EP Preservative Effectiveness Test Method against the
`following organisms: Candida albicans (AATCC# 10231), Aspergillus niger (AATCC# 16404,
`also referred to as Aspergillus brasiliensis), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (AATCC# 9027) and
`Staphylococcus aureus (AATCC# 6538).
`See Section V for the detailed experimental
`information.
`
`Section II contains results for both potency and preservative efficacy.
`
`II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
`
`Material was purchased from one (1) lot, which was used for all experiments and time points.
`Average results are summarized below, with the percent recovery calculated as the amount of
`active relative to the unstressed sample.
`
`Lot Number
`
`240031
`
`Unstressed
`Concentration
`(mg/ml)
`Average= 0.7457
`High= 0.7466
`Low= 0.7451
`
`Stressed
`Concentration
`(mg/ml)
`Average= 0.7445
`High= 0.7473
`Low= 0.7418
`
`%Recovery
`
`Average= 99.8
`High= 100.2
`Low= 99.5
`
`Stressed and unstressed samples were evaluated for preservative efficacy, with the following
`results.
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Drug Product Samples for Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01/08/2016
`page3of13
`Page 19 of29
`
`
`
`Organism
`
`Condition
`
`S. aureus
`
`P.
`aeruginosa
`c.
`albicans
`
`A. niger
`
`Unstressed
`
`Stressed
`
`Unstressed
`
`Stressed
`
`Unstressed
`
`Stressed
`
`Unstressed
`
`Stressed
`
`Inoculum
`Count
`
`1.97667 X 106
`
`1.7070 X 106
`
`3.3953 X 105
`
`8.8837 X 105
`
`21
`
`---
`
`---
`
`Cell Count (CFU/ml)
`Days After Inoculation
`28
`14
`1
`7
`<1.00 X 101
`<1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101
`<1.00 X 101
`<1.00 X 101
`<1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101
`<1.00 X 101
`<1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101
`---
`---
`<1.00 X 101
`<1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101
`< 1.00 X 101 < 1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101
`< 1.00 X 102 < 1.00 X 102 <1.00 X 102
`<1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101
`<1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101 <1.00 X 101
`
`---
`
`---
`---
`---
`
`---
`---
`---
`---
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Drug Product Samples for Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01108/2016
`page 4 of 13
`Page 20 of29
`
`
`
`III. DATA TABLES
`
`Table 1. Summary of HPLC Data, Sequence 741881
`
`lnj#
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`Sample
`Description
`Blank
`Blank
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`STD B
`Blank
`STDA
`240031
`240031
`240031
`STDA
`
`LIMS
`
`LC Filename
`
`RT
`
`Area(mAU*s)
`
`408677
`408677
`408705
`408705
`408705
`408705
`408705
`408706
`408677
`408705
`403486
`403489
`403490
`408705
`
`741882
`741883
`741884
`741885
`741886
`741887
`741888
`741889
`741890
`741897
`741898
`741899
`741900
`741901
`
`---
`---
`8.667
`8.668
`8.666
`8.666
`8.666
`8.665
`---
`8.666
`8.646
`8.648
`8.647
`8.663
`
`---
`---
`4012.66
`4015.13
`4016.96
`4016.04
`4018.79
`4038.45
`---
`4019.73
`4556.16
`4548.27
`4547.03
`4016.40
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Drug Product Samples for Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01/08/2016
`page 5 of 13
`Page 21 of29
`
`
`
`Table 2. Summary of HPLC Data, Sequence 742199
`
`Sample
`Description
`Blank
`Blank
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`STD B
`Blank
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`STDA
`240031
`240031
`240031
`240031
`240031
`240031
`STDA
`240031
`240031
`240031
`240031
`STDA
`
`LIMS
`
`LC Filename
`
`408677
`408677
`408705
`408705
`408705
`408705
`408705
`408706
`408677
`408705
`408705
`408705
`408705
`408705
`408705
`408705
`408705
`403478
`403479
`403480
`403481
`403482
`403483
`408705
`403484
`403485
`403487
`403488
`408705
`
`742200
`742201
`742202
`742203
`742204
`742205
`742206
`742207
`742208
`742215
`742222
`742229
`742235
`742242
`742249
`742256
`742262
`742263
`742264
`742265
`742266
`742267
`742268
`742269
`742272
`742273
`742274
`742275
`742276
`
`RT
`
`---
`---
`8.669
`8.670
`8.670
`8.670
`8.669
`8.669
`---
`8.673
`8.676
`8.677
`8.681
`8.682
`8.684
`8.690
`8.691
`8.670
`8.670
`8.670
`8.673
`8.671
`8.672
`8.694
`8.676
`8.676
`8.678
`8.680
`8.701
`
`Area(mAU*s)
`
`---
`---
`4011.82
`4013.03
`4010.89
`4010.87
`4015.36
`4055.66
`---
`4015.87
`4019.08
`4018.56
`4017.59
`4019.84
`4017.62
`4017.27
`4023.48
`4537.86
`4545.41
`4541.65
`4522.94
`4555.21
`4556.05
`4024.68
`4541.95
`4541.17
`4524.65
`4523.19
`4024.02
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Drug Product Samples for Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01/08/2016
`page 6 of 13
`Page 22 of29
`
`
`
`IV. EXPERIMENTAL
`
`A. HPLC Method
`
`HPLC analyses were performed using an Agilent 1100 series liquid chromatograph equipped
`with a diode array detector, degasser, quaternary pump, and autosamp1er. The chromatographic
`column was a Shiseido Capcell Pak C18, 2.1 x 100.0 mm column with 5.0 J.lm packing. The
`column temperature was set to 25°C, and the detector wavelength was 266 nm. The injection
`volume was 5.0 J.lL. The mobile phase was prepared by dissolving 7.9231 g of ammonium
`dihydrogen phosphate into 3000 mL of water, adding phosphoric acid to adjust the pH to 7.30,
`and then mixing in 1000 mL of acetonitrile. The flow rate used was 1.5 mL!minute, with a run
`time of 13 minutes per injection. Method performance was monitored for the following criteria,
`with the listed range of results.
`
`Criterion
`Precision (n=5 %RSD)
`Global %RSD
`Tailing Factor (1st standard injection)
`Plates (1st standard injection)
`Percent Agreement
`
`Results
`0.05%- 0.06%
`0.06%-0.11%
`1.8
`5251-5297
`100.6%- 101.1%
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Drug Product Samples for Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01/08/2016
`page 7 of 13
`Page 23 of29
`
`
`
`V. APPENDIX A: PRESERVATIVE EFFICACY DATA
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Drug Product Samples for Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01108/2016
`page 8 of 13
`Page 24 of29
`
`
`
`#151142-203.01 Letter Final Rep01t
`Page 25 of65
`
`Protocol 11151142-203
`January 07, 2016
`
`. TABLU:7
`Jest Product 113: Prolensa fM hrom lcnnc ophthalmic solution 0.07%.
`Bromfenac Sodium (unstressed)
`Lot Numbers 240031
`
`T!<.~.tJ'x!l<J.ue!Ji_:l: Prolensa TM brornfenac ophthalmic solution 0.07% (w/v)
`Bromtimac Sodium (4 weeks@ 60"C))
`Lot Number 240031
`
`Challenge
`Microorganism
`(ATCC#)
`
`Initial
`Population
`(CFU/mL
`of Product)
`
`Day(s)
`Following
`Inoculation
`
`Product
`#
`
`Population
`Recovered
`(CFU/mL)
`
`Log10
`Reduction
`
`Acceptance
`Criteria
`Met?
`(Yes/No)O
`
`Percent
`Reduction
`
`< 1.00 X 101
`
`4.9386
`
`YES
`
`99.9988%
`
`Aspergillus brasiliensis
`(ATCC #16404)
`
`8.6818xl05
`
`14
`
`21
`
`28
`
`3
`
`4
`
`3
`
`< l.OOx 10 1
`
`4.9386
`
`< l.OOx 10 1
`
`< 1.00 x 10 1
`4
`············-·· -··
`< 1.00 x 10 1
`3
`---·-
`4
`
`< l.OOx 101
`
`4.9386
`
`4.9386
`
`4.9386
`
`4.9386
`
`YES
`
`99.9988%
`
`YES E
`
`99.9988%
`YES
`···-- "~-<--·---- ~---
`YES
`99.9988%
`
`YES
`
`99.9988%
`
`OEuropean Pharmacopoeta 7.0. 5.1.3. EFFACACY OF ANTIMICROBIAL PRESERVATION. 0112011:50103. Acceptance Cntena,
`Table 5.1.3.1 1 Parenteral preparations, eye preparations, intrauterine preparations and intramammary preparali'ons: The criteria for
`fungi i$ a 2 log10 reduction following 7 days of exposure to the test product with no recovered Colony Forming Units (CFU) recovered
`after 28 days of exposure to the product.
`
`Protoco I 1115\ 142-203
`Page 6 of 15
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Drug Product Samples for Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01/08/2016
`page 9 of 13
`Page 25 of29
`
`
`
`#151142~203.01 Letter Final R~po11
`Page 26 or 65
`
`Protocol/115.1 142-203
`January 07,2016
`
`-~
`J~§U'.r.o<l.t.!~LII}.: Prolensa"' bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.07%.
`Bromfcnac Sodium (unstressed)
`Lot Number 240031
`
`Test Product #4: Prolcnsa'"' bromfcnac ophthalmic solution 0.07% (w/v)
`Bromfenac Sodium (4 weeks@ 60'C)
`Lot Number 240031
`
`Challenge
`Microorganism
`(ATCC#)
`
`Initial
`Population
`(CFU/mL
`of Product)
`
`Day(s)
`Following
`Inoculation
`
`Product
`#
`
`Population
`Recovered
`(CFU/mL)
`
`Log10
`Reduction
`
`Acceptance
`Criteria
`Met?
`(Yes/NoO
`
`Candida albicans
`(ATCC #10231)
`
`3.3182x to'
`CFUil.OmL
`
`14
`
`21
`
`28
`
`4.5209
`
`4.5209
`
`4.5209
`
`4.5209
`
`4.5209
`
`< 1.00 X 102
`··---""'•"--··
`< J.OOx 10 1
`
`< 1.00 x 102
`
`4.5209
`
`4
`
`4
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`Percent
`Reduction
`
`99.9970%
`
`99.9970%
`
`99.9970%
`
`99.9970%
`
`99.9970%
`
`99.9970%
`
`OEuropcan Phannacopoeia 7.0. 5.1.3. EFFACACY OF ANTIMICROBIAL PRESERVATION. OJizOJ1:50103. Acceptance
`Criteria, Table 5.1.3.1, Parenteral preparations, eye preparations, intrauterine preparations and intramammmy preparations:
`The criteria for fungi is a 2 Jog 10 reduction following 7 days of exposure to the test product with no recovered Colony Fanning
`Units (CFU) recovered atler 28 days of exposure to the product.
`
`Protocol #151142-203
`Page 7 of 15
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Drug Product Samplesfor Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01/08/2016
`page 10 of13
`
`Page 26 of29
`
`
`
`lilS \142-203.01 Letter Final Rep011
`Page 27 of 65
`
`Protocollll5!142-203
`January 07,2016
`
`. TABLE9
`Test Product 113: Pro!ensa"' brolllltmoc ophthalmic solution 0.07%.
`Bromfenac Sodium (unstressed)
`Lot Number 24003!
`
`Test Pr.migct #4: ProlensaTM bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.07% (w/v)
`Bromfenac Sodium (4 weeks@ 60"C)
`Lot Number 24003 I
`
`Challenge
`Microorganism
`(ATCC#)
`
`Initial
`Population
`(CFIJ/mL
`of Product)
`
`Day(s)
`Following
`Inoculation
`
`Product
`#
`
`Population
`Recovered
`(CFU/mL)
`
`Log10
`Reduction
`
`1
`
`<1.00 x 10 1
`3
`5.2322
`f----· .... ---· .. -· . .-... -·--·- ........ ~·· .. ~·- ...... ·---·--
`<l.OOx 10 1
`1
`5.2322
`
`Pseudomonas aeruginosa
`(ATCC #9027)
`
`7
`1.7070 x 106 !--------
`
`14
`
`28
`
`Acceptance
`Criteria
`Met?
`(Yes/No)O
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`OEuropean Pharmacopoeia 7.0. 5.1.3. FFFACACY OF ANTIMICROBIAL PRESERVATION. Ol/2011.50103. Acceptance Cntena,
`Table 5.1.3.1 1 Parenteral preparations, eye preparations, intrauterine preparations and intramammary preparations: Criteria A for
`bacteria is a 3 1og 10 reduction following 24 hours of exposure to the test product with no recovered Colony Forming Units (CFU)
`recovered after 28 days of exposure to the product.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`3
`~-
`
`4
`
`3
`
`4
`
`<1.00 x 10 1
`<1.00 X 10 1
`
`<1.00 x 10 1
`<1.00 x 10 1
`<1.00 x 10 1
`
`<1.00 x 10 1
`
`5.2322
`
`5.2322
`
`5.2322
`
`5.2322
`
`5.2322
`
`5.2322
`
`Percent
`Reduction
`
`99.9994%
`
`99.9994%
`
`99.9994%
`
`99.9994%
`
`99.9994%
`
`99.9994%
`
`99.9994%
`
`99.9994%
`
`Pro loco I 11151142-203
`Page 8 of 15
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Dmg Product Samples for Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01108/2016
`page II of 13
`
`Page 27 of29
`
`
`
`1
`<1.00 X 10 1
`4
`5.2959
`-·------- --·--··--- ---········-·-··-·-···- ....... ·-······-----·--
`<1.00 x 101
`3
`5.2959
`7
`
`<1.00 x 101
`
`5.2959
`
`<J.OQ X 10 1
`
`5.2959
`
`<1.00 X 10 1
`
`5.2959
`
`3
`
`4
`
`3
`
`4
`
`3
`
`Acceptance
`Criteria
`Met'/
`(Yes/ No)O
`
`Percent
`Reduction
`
`YES
`
`99.9995%
`
`YES
`··-· ···~~- ·-
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`99.9995%
`
`99.9995%
`
`99.9995%
`
`99.9995%
`
`99.9995%
`
`99.9995%
`
`99.9995%
`
`#1-51142~203.01 Letter Final Rep011
`Page 28 of 65
`
`Protocol #151 142-203
`January 07,2016
`
`TAilLEIO
`Tc.~.t.l'.r<l\luct 11.}: Prolcnsa"' bromfcnac ophthalmic solution 0.07%.
`Bromfenm: Sodium (unstressed)
`Lot Number 240031
`
`J£,~.\..PLodu'-Lt/.9.: Prolcnsa TM bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.07% (w/v)
`Bromfenac Sodium ( 4 weeks @ 60°C)
`Lot Number 240031
`
`Challenge
`Microorganism
`(ATCC#)
`
`Initial
`Population
`(CFU/mL
`of Product)
`
`Day(s)
`Following
`Inoculation
`
`Product
`#
`
`Population
`Recovered
`(CFU/mL)
`
`Log to
`Reduction
`
`Staphylococcus mu-eus
`(ATCC #6538)
`
`1.9767 X J06
`
`14
`
`28
`
`<1.00 X 101
`YES
`5.2959
`--- --·--··-···~- -······--··--· -- ---··-·-·-·
`<1.00 x 10 1
`5.2959
`YES
`<1.00 X J0 1
`
`5.2959
`
`YES
`
`~~-~---
`
`4
`
`'
`OEuropean Pharmacopoera 7.0. 5.1.3. EFFACAC Y Of ANTJMJCROBI AL PRESERV A r!ON. 01/2011:50 I 03. Acceptat1ce Cntcna.
`Table 5.1.3.1, Parenteral preparations, eye preparations, intrauterine preparations and intramammary preparations: Critetia A for
`bacteria is a 3 log 10 reduction following 24 hours of exposure to the test product with no recovered Colony Forming Units (CFU)
`recovered after 28 days of exposure to the product.
`
`Protocol #151142-203
`!'age 9 of 15
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Drug Product Samples for Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01/08/2016
`page 12 of 13
`Page 28 of29
`
`
`
`#151142·203.0 1 Letter l~inal R~p011
`P<1g~ 29 of 65
`
`Protocolli151142-203
`January 07,2016
`
`TABLE 11
`Neutralization Evaluation- Results
`I~:5J.Ji9,~hl~t #J..: ProlensaTM bromfenac ophthalmic solt~tion 0.07%.
`Bromfcnac Sodium (unstressed)
`Lot Numbers 240031
`
`Challenge Microorganism
`
`ATCC # Neutralization Phase
`
`Microbial Recovery
`(Average CFIJ/Plnte)
`
`Aspergillus brasiliensis
`
`16404
`
`Candida a/bicans
`
`10231
`
`Pseudomonas aeruginosa
`
`9027
`
`······-·-···-----·---+----
`
`Staphylococcus aureus
`
`6538
`
`CONTROL
`
`TEST
`
`CONTROL
`
`TEST
`
`113.00
`
`188.00
`
`30.00
`
`30.00
`
`30.50
`
`Pass
`
`Pass
`
`OThe counts (Average CFU/Piatc) observed for the TEST sample do not vary by more than a !actor of
`5 fi·mn those recovered from the respective CONTROL sample; hence, the neutralizing media are considered to he
`effective.
`
`TABU~ 12
`Neutralization Evaluation- Results
`Test Product !!4: Prolensa"" bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.07% (w/v)
`Bromfenac Sodium (4 weeks@ 60°C)
`Lot Number 240031
`
`Challenge 1\1icroorganism A'rC:C#I INe,utralization l)hase
`
`Aspergillus brasiliensis
`
`16404
`
`Candida a/bicans
`
`Pseudomonas aeruginosa
`
`Staphylococcus nureus
`
`6538
`
`CONTROL
`
`TEST
`
`CONTROL
`
`TEST
`
`CONTROL
`
`TEST
`
`CONTROL
`
`TEST
`20.00
`0 The counts (Average CFUfPiate) observed for"!he"'TEs;r'7ample do not vary by more than a factor of
`5 from those recovered from the respectjve CONTROL sample; hence, the neutralizing media are considered
`to be effective.
`
`30.50
`
`______ ;;:~~ --~-~1
`
`Pass
`
`Pass
`
`Protocol 11151142-203
`Page 10 of!S
`
`SSCI Report: Stability Evaluation of Compound 578 Drug Product Samples for Potency and Preservative Efficacy, 01/08/2016
`page 13 of 13
`Page 29 of29
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
