throbber
Uni~. of Minn.
`Bio-Medical .
`Library
`
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. Luitpold Ex. Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2015-01490
`
`Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ex. 2022, P. 1
`
`

`
`Advances in Peritoneal Dialysis, Vol. 12, 1996
`
`Efficacy ofBolus
`Intravenous Iron Dextran
`Treatment in Peritoneal
`Dialysis Patients Receiving
`Recombinant Human
`Erythropoietin
`
`Introduction
`The use of recombinant human erythropoietin
`(rHuEPO) to treat anemia in patients with end-stage
`renal disease (ESRD) is a major therapeutic advance
`(1 ,2). However, rHuEPO therapy frequently causes
`iron deficiency due to transfer of bone marrow iron
`stores to erythroid progenitor cells. Therefore, ef(cid:173)
`ficient use of rHuEPO requires long-term mainte(cid:173)
`nance therapy with iron and frequent monitoring for
`adequacy of iron stores (3). Iron therapy in dialy(cid:173)
`sis patients is most commonly administered orally.
`However, patient noncompliance, gastrointestinal
`side effects, and poor gastrointestinal absorption
`due to drug interaction are the limiting factors in
`the efficacy of oral iron therapy. To eliminate these
`factors, the intravenous route has become the pre(cid:173)
`ferred method of iron supplementation in chronic
`hemodialysis patients. Alternatively, in some situ(cid:173)
`ations, for example in peritoneal dialysis (PD) pa(cid:173)
`tients, the intramuscular route has been success(cid:173)
`fully used. In both of these parenteral methods, sev(cid:173)
`eral small doses (usually 100 mg) of iron dextran
`are administered on successive days or weeks. Nei(cid:173)
`ther of these methods, however, is an attractive al(cid:173)
`ternative in outpatient PD patients. The purpose of
`this study, therefore, was to evaluate prospectively
`the efficacy of bolus infusion of intravenous iron
`dextran in PD patients with iron deficiency anemia
`during rHuEPO treatment.
`
`Patients and methods
`Seven adult, stable ESRD patients (6 Caucasian and
`1 Hispanic) were prospectively followed for ape(cid:173)
`riod of six months. There were 5 females and 2
`males. Mean age was 33.4 years (range 21 - 54
`
`Nasimul Ahsan, James A. Groff, Mary A. Waybill
`
`The efficient use of recombinant human erythro(cid:173)
`poietin (rHuEPO) requires adequate body stores
`of iron. In peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, iron
`replacement is most commonly administered
`orally. In this study, we prospectively followed 7
`stable PD patients following bolus intravenous
`infusion of I g iron dextran in an outpatient set(cid:173)
`ting. At I2 weeks, significant (p < 0.05) incre(cid:173)
`ments in mean hematocrit from 29. I 3% to
`3 4. 85%, transferrin saturation from I 0. I 5% to
`29.33%, serum ironfrom 27.38 to 67.00 p,g/dL,
`and serum ferritin from I50.30 to 331.40 nglmL
`were observed. Post-treatment, there was less
`requirement ofrHuEPO, and at six months there
`was a 26% reduction in the mean weekly subcu(cid:173)
`taneous rHuEPO dose. At I 2 weeks, serum albu(cid:173)
`min increased significantly from 3. 50 to 3. 76
`gldL (p < 0. 05). There was no abnormality in any
`of the measured liver function tests. No patient
`developed an adverse or allergic reaction. We
`concluded that bolus intravenous infusion of iron
`dextran is an effective and well-tolerated method
`of repleting iron stores, and will allow a more
`efficient and economic use ofrHuEPO in PD pa(cid:173)
`tients.
`
`Key words
`Iron dextran, intravenous infusion, anemia, end(cid:173)
`stage renal disease
`
`From: Division ofNephrology and Hypertension, Depart(cid:173)
`ment ofMedicine, The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center,
`Pennsylvania State University-College of Medicine,
`Hershey, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
`
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. Luitpold Ex. Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2015-01490
`
`Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ex. 2022, P. 2
`
`

`
`162
`
`Ahsan eta/.
`
`years). Five patients were on continuous ambulatory
`peritoneal dialysis, and 2 were on continuous cy(cid:173)
`cling peritoneal dialysis. The average duration on
`PD was ten months (range 1 - 37 months). All pa(cid:173)
`tients received oral iron supplementation (average
`3.5 tablets of ferrous sulfate per patient per day)
`and self-administered rHuEPO subcutaneously.
`None of the patients had recent bleeding episodes,
`hematologic disease other than anemia, hyperpara(cid:173)
`thyroidism, aluminum toxicity, and/or recent blood
`transfusion. Patients were admitted to the outpa(cid:173)
`tient infusion room of the Milton S. Hershey Medi(cid:173)
`cal Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, and received
`brief physical examinations. They were informed
`about the treatment procedure and anticipated side
`effects. After premedication with intravenous hy(cid:173)
`drocortisone (100 mg) and diphenhydramine (25
`mg), and oral acetaminophen (1000 mg), all patients
`received a test dose of intravenous iron dextran (25
`mg) given slowly over ten minutes by a nephrolo(cid:173)
`gist. The patients were closely observed for 15
`minutes for possible adverse or anaphylactic reac(cid:173)
`tions. Then, 975 mg of iron dextran mixed in 500
`mL of 0.45% sodium chloride solution were in(cid:173)
`fused at a rate of 100 mL per hour for five hours
`(delivering 3.25 mg of iron dextran per minute).
`During the infusion, pulse rate and blood pressure
`were recorded at 30-minute intervals. Postinfusion
`and prior to discharge, patients were observed an
`additional 30 minutes. Patients were then followed
`in the outpatient PD clinic at monthly intervals.
`Complete blood count, serum iron, ferritin, total
`iron binding capacity (TIBC), transferrin saturation
`
`(TSA T) (serum iron divided by TIBC multiplied by
`100), electrolytes, blood urea nitrogen, and serum
`creatinine were measured monthly. Liver function
`tests (alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, and as(cid:173)
`partate aminotransferase) and serum albumin were
`measured every three months.
`
`Statistical methods
`Analysis of variance of repeated measures was used
`for analysis of hematocrit and rHuEPO dose data.
`Two-tailed Student's t-tests were used for compar(cid:173)
`ing the baseline and subsequent data. All results are
`expressed as mean± standard error of mean. A prob(cid:173)
`ability value of <0.05 was considered significant.
`
`Results
`When compared with pre-infusion, at 12 weeks
`there were significant increases in hematocrit from
`29.13 ± 1.14% to 34.85 ± 0.77% (p < 0.005), TSAT
`from 10.15 ± 1.62% to 29.33 ± 3.79% (p < 0.005),
`serum iron from 27.38 ± 4.59 to 67.00 ± 9.24 J.tgldL
`(p < 0.005), and serum ferritin from 150.30 ± 47.86
`to 33I.40 ± II 0.69 ng/mL (p < 0.05). Serum albu(cid:173)
`min also increased significantly from 3.50 ± O.II to
`3.76 ± O.I3 g/dL (p < 0.05). There was no signifi(cid:173)
`cant abnormality in liver function tests (Table I, Fig(cid:173)
`ure I). At six months, the mean weekly dose of sub(cid:173)
`cutaneous rHuEPO was reduced from 8000 ± 2070
`to 5875 ± II7I units; statistical significance was not
`achieved due to the small number of our patient popu(cid:173)
`lation (Figure 2). None of the patients developed
`immediate or delayed hypersensitivity and/or ana(cid:173)
`phylactoid reaction. Clinical evidence of volume
`
`TABLE 1
`
`Laboratory variables (mean± SEM)
`
`Baseline
`
`6 weeks
`
`12 weeks
`
`6 months
`
`HCT (%)
`TSAT(%)
`Iron (J"g/dL)
`Ferritin (ng/mL)
`Albumin (g/dL)
`AST (U/L)
`ALP (U/L)
`T. bili (mg/dL)
`
`29.13±1.14
`10. 15±1.62
`27.38±4.59
`150.30±47.86
`3.50±0. I I
`38.00±8.47
`121.43±12.05
`0.50±0.05
`
`32.43±0.97b
`28.3 I ±5.70b
`59. 13±10.29'
`430.90±8J.32b
`
`32.85±0.9Jb
`20.93±2.52h
`41.33±4.7Jh
`I 31.60± 53.73
`
`34.8 5±0. 77'
`29.33±3 .79'
`67.00±9.24'
`33 I .40± I I 0.69b
`3. 76±0. I Jb .
`25.00±4.19
`I 12.43±17.97
`0.48 ±0.02
`
`• p < 0.005 .
`b p < 0.05 (compared with baseline).
`HCT =hematocrit; TSAT =transferrin saturation; AST =aspartate aminotransferase; ALP= alkaline phosphatase;
`T. bili =total bilirubin.
`
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. Luitpold Ex. Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2015-01490
`
`Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ex. 2022, P. 3
`
`

`
`Bolus Intravenous Iron Dextran in PD Patients
`
`overload during and/or following infusion was not
`observed.
`
`Discussion
`This study in patients clearly demonstrates that bo(cid:173)
`lus intravenous iron dextran infusion can be used
`effectively in the treatment of iron deficiency
`
`163
`
`anemia in PD patients during rHuEPO therapy.
`When compared with the baseline, at 12 weeks there
`were significant increments in mean hematocrit,
`TSA T, serum iron, and serum ferritin. Also, the
`therapy with rHuEPO became more effective due
`to better iron stores, demonstrated by the mean
`rHuEPO dose at six months, which was 26% less
`
`Hematocrit (%)
`
`TSAT(%)
`
`ISO
`
`40
`
`36
`
`30
`
`20
`
`115
`
`10
`
`6
`
`0~--------.----------.--------·
`Baseline
`6 months
`&weeks
`12weeks
`
`0~---------.----------,---------~
`Buellne
`&months
`
`Iron (mcg/dl)
`
`120
`
`Ferritin (ng/ml)
`
`1500 ..,
`
`1500
`
`400
`
`300
`
`200
`
`100
`
`0~--------.---------,---------,
`&months
`Baseline
`
`0~---------r--------~--------~
`&months
`&weeks
`12 weeks
`Baseline
`
`FIGURE 1 Changes in individual patients' hematocrit, transferrin saturation (TSAT), serum iron, and ferritin levels before and after
`intravenous iron dextran infusion.
`
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. Luitpold Ex. Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2015-01490
`
`Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ex. 2022, P. 4
`
`

`
`164
`
`7000
`
`6000
`Jsooo
`_!4000
`.f3ooo
`'E
`2000
`
`1000
`
`0
`
`s .. enne 6 weeks 12 weeks 6 months
`
`FIGURE 2 Mean changes in weekly subcutaneous rHuEPO doses
`before and after intravenous iron dextran infusion.
`
`than that of the baseline. Overall, the bolus iron
`dextran infusion appeared to be safe and was well
`tolerated.
`. With the advent of rHuEPO therapy, nonspe(cid:173)
`Cific therapies for managing the anemia of renal
`failure are of historic interest. Since its release for
`use in dialysis patients in July, I 989, rHuEPO
`therapy has resulted in an improved quality of life
`for the majority of patients with ESRD (l-3). The
`economic cost of rHuEPO therapy is substantial
`when the expense of treatment of almost 90% of
`patients with end-stage renal disease is a federal
`obligation. With continued pressure to reduce costs,
`judicious use of rHuEPO is imperative. Although
`use of the subcutaneous route has helped in decreas(cid:173)
`ing the dosage requirement of rHuEPO by 25% -
`50%, undertreatment remains a common problem
`(4,5).
`The most common cause ofrHuEPO resistance
`is iron deficiency anemia resulting from enhanced
`iron utilization due to erythropoietin-enhanced red
`blood cell formation, and almost all patients on
`rHuEPO therapy are treated with oral iron supple(cid:173)
`mentation. Although the most convenient and easi(cid:173)
`est means of iron supplementation, there are many
`disadvantages inherent in the use of oral iron
`therapy. Many patients are noncompliant due to side
`effects such as nausea, stomach irritation, and con(cid:173)
`stipation, especially when subjected to the maxi(cid:173)
`mum therapeutic dose (6). In addition, poor
`
`Ahsan eta/.
`
`gastrointestinal absorption and decreased bioavail(cid:173)
`ability -
`due to drug interaction with antacids,
`phosphate binders, and gastric acid reduction drugs,
`for example, histamine 2 antagonist and proton
`further reduce the efficacy of
`pump inhibitors -
`oral iron (7). Finally, side effects and efficacy pro(cid:173)
`files also depend on the type of preparation in(cid:173)
`gested. Wingard et al. (8) reported that patients
`treated with a fumarate-containing oral iron prepa(cid:173)
`ration (Tabron) had the highest iron indices when
`compared with other preparations.
`In hemodialysis patients with iron deficiency
`anemia, iron dextran given in small doses weekly
`or biweekly has practically eliminated most of the
`problems associated with oral iron preparation.
`Compliance is guaranteed, and the number of pills
`the patient must take is reduced. Fish bane et al. (9)
`compared the safety and efficacy of biweekly in(cid:173)
`travenous iron dextran (I 00 mg/session) with oral
`iron therapy in chronic hemodialysis patients. In this
`study, patients receiving intravenous iron dextran
`had significantly higher hematocrit and iron indi(cid:173)
`ces and required significantly less rHuEPO (9).
`While the intravenous route is preferred for
`hemodialysis patients, it is less desirable in PD
`patients due to poor peripheral access. Suh and
`Wadhwa (I 0) reported that weekly intramuscular
`injections of iron dextran are effective in correct(cid:173)
`ing anemia and restoring all iron indices in PD pa(cid:173)
`tients. However, for logistical reasons, both
`parenteral methods of iron replacement in PD pa(cid:173)
`tients are unacceptable alternatives. Moreover, be(cid:173)
`sides the pain and trauma associated with both in(cid:173)
`travenous and intramuscular methods, the inconven(cid:173)
`ience and economic loss involving repeated clinic
`visits can be substantial. Our study has demonstrated
`the efficacy ofbolus infusion of iron dextran in PD
`patients who developed iron deficiency anemia while
`receiving rHuEPO therapy.
`In this study, improvement in hematocrit fol(cid:173)
`lowing bolus iron dextran persisted for six months.
`This change in erythropoiesis was most likely due
`to improvement in iron stores. The maximum in(cid:173)
`crement in mean hematocrit was observed at I 2
`weeks; mean serum iron and TSA T were also
`maximally increased at 12 weeks. Beyond this point,
`along with the fall in serum iron and TSA T,
`hematocrit began to decrease. Nonetheless, at six
`months all these parameters, except for serum fer-
`
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. Luitpold Ex. Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2015-01490
`
`Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ex. 2022, P. 5
`
`

`
`Bolus Intravenous Iron Dextran in PD Patients
`
`ritin, remained significantly above the pretreatment
`levels.
`One major finding following bolus iron dextran
`in this study was the gradual reduction in mean
`rHuEPO dose. At six months there was a 26% re(cid:173)
`duction in the mean weekly dose of subcutaneous
`rHuEPO when compared with the baseline. Given
`the high cost ofrHuEPO, a 26% lowering of doses
`could have a substantial fmancial impact. Any cost
`savings resulting from lower rHuEPO doses, how(cid:173)
`ever, must be weighed against the cost of adminis(cid:173)
`tering bolus intravenous iron dextran. The average
`total cost of a bolus infusion of iron dextran ( 1000
`mg iron dextran, premedications, charge of infu(cid:173)
`sion room, and nursing care) for our PD patients
`was (US)$485.84. Taking into account the cost of
`the iron dextran infusion, the cumulative difference
`between the baseline cost and follow-up costs of
`rHuEPO for six months in this study leads to an
`average saving of $99.08 per patient. On the other
`hand, if given in our medical facility, ten intrave(cid:173)
`nous or intramuscular injections of 100 mg of iron
`dextran would cost each patient (US)$1002.10
`($1 00.21 per treatment, which includes charges for
`iron dextran and an administration fee). When one
`adds the expense of commuting for ten treatments
`and hours lost from work, serial intravenous or in(cid:173)
`tramuscular iron dextran therapy becomes the most
`expensive method of iron supplementation.
`A major concern with the use of intravenous or
`intramuscular iron dextran preparations is the risk
`of anaphylaxis, with reported incidence ranging
`from 0.6% to 1% (11,12). There are also reports
`of sarcoma and rhabdomyolysis associated with
`intramuscular injection (13-15). Others have re(cid:173)
`ported delayed reactions like myalgia, arthralgia,
`fever, headache, or lymphadenopathy (11, 16). Most
`of these reactions are unpredictable and may not
`be related to the total administered dose. Because
`of these potential side effects, it is generally rec(cid:173)
`ommended not to exceed the dose of the intrave(cid:173)
`nous iron dextran above 50 mg/min, and the rec(cid:173)
`ommended single maximum dose of both intrave(cid:173)
`nous and intramuscular iron dextran is l 00 mg ( 17).
`In this study we did not encounter any adverse and/
`or anaphylactic reactions. In our opinion, this was
`primarily due to: premedication, very slow infusion
`rate, and infusion of diluted preparation.
`
`165
`
`In certain animals, some abnormalities in liver
`function tests have been reported following a large
`dose of iron dextran (18). None of our patients,
`however, showed any abnormality in their liver func(cid:173)
`tion tests when followed for at least six months.
`Finally, administering a large amount of intravenous
`fluid is always a concern in ESRD patients as many
`of these patients, in addition to being fluid noncom(cid:173)
`pliant, have poor cardiac reserve . All of our patients
`underwent preinfusion physical examination and
`were observed very closely during and immediately
`after infusion. We did not encounter any clinical
`evidence of volume overload.
`In summary, we have shown that when appropri(cid:173)
`ate precautions are taken our method of bolus infu(cid:173)
`sion of iron dextran is safe and effective in treating
`iron deficiency anemia in PD patients. We also
`found that the dose ofrHuEPO can be substantially
`reduced. Moreover, this method is convenient and
`cost-effective when compared with repeated intra(cid:173)
`venous and/or intramuscular injections of iron dex(cid:173)
`tran. Prior to infusion, all patients should be care(cid:173)
`fully examined by a physician, and in those with
`borderline cardiac reserve we further recommend
`that the total dose of iron dextran be administered
`in two or more successive sessions.
`
`Acknowledgment
`The author is thankful to Dr. Robert E. Cronin, of
`the Department of Internal Medicine, the Univer(cid:173)
`sity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dal(cid:173)
`las, Texas, in preparation of this manuscript, and
`greatly appreciates the excellent assistance of the
`dialysis nurses (Linda K. Diviney and Gail A.
`Burkholder).
`
`References
`1 Esbach JW, Egrie JC, Downing MR, eta/.
`Correction of anemia of end-stage renal disease with
`recombinant human erythropoietin: results of a
`combined phase I and II clinical trial. N Engl J Med
`1987; 316:73-8.
`2 Levin NMN, Lazarus JM, Nissenson AR. National
`cooperative rHu erythropoietin study in patients with
`chronic renal failure-an interim report. Am J Kidney
`Dis 1993; 22(1):3- 12.
`3 VanWyck DB, Stivelman JC, Ruiz J, et al. Iron
`status in patients receiving erythropoietin for dialysis(cid:173)
`associated anemia. Kidney Int 1989; 35:712-16.
`
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. Luitpold Ex. Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2015-01490
`
`Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ex. 2022, P. 6
`
`

`
`166
`
`4 Besarab A. Optimizing epoetin therapy in end-stage
`renal disease. The case for subcutaneous
`administration. Am J Kidney Dis 1993; 22:13-22.
`5 Ashai NI, Paganini EP, Wilson JM. Intravenous
`versus subcutaneous dosing of epoetin: a review of
`the literature. Am J Kidney Dis 1993; 22:23- 31.
`6 Bonnar J, Goldberg A, Smith JA. Do pregnant
`women take their iron? Lancet 1969; I :457-8.
`7 Forth W, Rummel W. Iron absorption. Physiol Rev
`1973; 53:724-92.
`8 Wingard RL, Parker RA, Ismail N, eta!. Efficacy of
`oral iron therapy in patients receiving recombinant
`human erythropoietin. Am J Kidney Dis 1995;
`25:433- 9.
`9 Fish bane S, Frei GL, Maesaka J. Reduction in
`recombinant human erythropoietin doses by the use
`of chronic intravenous iron supplementation. Am J
`Kidney Dis 1995; 26:41-Q.
`10 Suh H, Wadhwa NK. Iron dextran treatment in
`peritoneal dialysis patients on erythropoietin. In:
`Khanna R, Nolph KD, Prowant BF, Twardowski ZJ,
`Oreopoulos DG, eds. Advances in peritoneal dialysis.
`Toronto: Peritoneal Dialysis Bulletin Inc., 1992;
`8:464-Q.
`11 Cox JSG, King RE, Reynolds GF. Valency
`investigations of iron dextran (lmferon). Nature
`
`Ahsan eta/.
`
`1965; 207:1202- 3.
`12 Michelson E. Anaphylactoid reaction to dextran.
`N Engl J Med 1968; 278:552.
`13 MacKinnon AE, Bancewicz J. Sarcoma after
`injection of intramuscular iron. Br Med J 1973;
`2:277- 9.
`14 Grasso P. Sarcoma after intramuscular iron injection.
`BrMedJ 1973; 2:667.
`15 Foulkes WD, Sewry C, Calam J, et al.
`Rhabdomyolysis after intramuscular iron-dextran in
`malabsorption. Ann Rheum Dis 1991; 50:184-Q.
`16 Crosby WH. Iron-dextran induced muscle pain.
`Hosp Prac 1991 ; 3:49- 50.
`17 Physicians' Desk Reference. Montvale, New
`Jersey: Medical Economics, 1995:2242-4.
`18 Carthew P, Edwards RE, Smith AG, eta/. Rapid
`induction in hepatic fibrosis in the gerbil after the
`parenteral administration of iron-dextran complex.
`Hepatology 1991 ; 13:534-9.
`
`Corresponding author:
`Nasimul Ahsan, MD, Division of Nephrology and Hyper(cid:173)
`tension, Department of Medicine, The Milton S. Hershey
`Medical Center, 500 University Drive, Hershey, Pennsyl(cid:173)
`vania, U.S.A.
`
`Pharmacosmos A/S v. Luitpold Ex. Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2015-01490
`
`Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ex. 2022, P. 7

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