throbber
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., et al.
`v.
`Galderma Laboratories, Inc.
`IPR2015-__
`Exhibit 1049
`
`

`
`
`
`Exh. 1049Exh. 1049
`
`Exh. 1049
`
`

`
`J Periodontal • September 2000
`
`Clay Walker,* John Thomas, t Sonia Nang6, * Jennifer Lennon,* Jeanne Wetzel, r
`and Christopher Pow alar
`
`Background: The purpose of this study was to determine
`whether treatment with subantimicrobial dose doxycycline
`(SOD), 20 mg bid, exerted an antimicrobial effect on the
`microflora associated with adult periodontitis.
`Methods: Following the approval of the protocol and informed
`consent forms by the respective IRBs at the University of Florida
`and West Virginia University, 76 subjects with adult periodonti-
`tis were entered and randomly assigned to receive SOD or
`placebo. A split-mouth design was utilized, with each subject
`receiving subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP) in two
`quadrants immediately following baseline data collection, while
`the remaining two quadrants were left unsealed (non-SRP).
`Microbial samples were collected prior to treatment, after 3, 6,
`and 9 months of treatment, and after 3 months of no treatment.
`The samples were examined by microscopy and by enumera-
`tion on selective and non-selective media.
`Results: All treatments resulted in statistically significant
`decreases in the proportions of spirochetes and motile rods
`(P <0.05) and in an increase in the proportion of coccoid forms
`(P <0.0001) relative to baseline. No between-treatment differ-
`ences were detected between the SOD and placebo treatments
`in either the SRP or non-SRP design, with the exception of the
`small and large spirochetal groups. The spirochetal proportions
`present in the SOD group were significantly lower (P<0.05) than
`the paired placebo group during the 9-month treatment and was
`preceded by a significant decrease (P <0.01) in the proportion
`of microbiologic sample sites that bled on probing. No between-
`treatment differences were detected in any of the other micro-
`bial parameters.
`Conclusion: The microbial differences observed were attrib-
`uted to the anticollagenase and anti-inflammatory properties of
`SOD and not to an antimicrobial effect. J Periodontal 2000;71:
`1465-1471.
`KEYWORDS
`Periodontitis/microbiology; doxycycline/therapeutic use;
`clinical trials, controlled.
`
`* Periodontal Disease Research Clinics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
`t College of Dentistry, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
`=t CollaGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Newtown, PA.
`
`ubantimicrobial dose doxycycline
`(SOD) consisting of 20 mg doxy-
`cycline hyclate§ bid has been
`approved as an adjunct to periodontal
`scaling and root planing (SRP) for the
`treatment of adult periodontitis. Doxy-
`cycline, like tetracycline and minocy-
`cline, in addition to being a broad-spec-
`trum antimicrobial agent, also has
`inhibitory activity on host-derived colla-
`genases and other matrix metallopro-
`teinases by mechanisms independent of
`its antimicrobial properties. Specifically,
`tetracyclines inhibit the activity of mam-
`malian neutrophil and osteoblast colla-
`genases that appear crucial in the
`destruction of Type I and II collagen
`found in the periodontal ligament. 1 •2
`Apart from their anticollagenase activ-
`ity, tetracyclines are also reported to
`have anti-inflammatory properties and
`to be potent inhibitors of osteoclast func-
`tion. 3 Doxycycline is the most potent
`anticollagenase inhibitor of the commer-
`cially .:-:vailable tetracyclines with IC50
`values of 16 to 20 1-1M for collagenases
`from PMNs, dental plaque, and gingival
`tissue.4·5 Several short-term clinical stud-
`ies have reported that SOD resulted in a
`decrease in collagenase activity which
`was accompanied by a beneficial and
`significant improvement in attachment
`
`§ Periostat, CollaGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Newtown,
`PA.
`
`1465
`
`Exh. 1049
`
`

`
`levels and probing depths. 6•7 More recently, a long-
`term, multi-centered clinical study compared the effi-
`cacy of a 9-month regimen of SDD following SRP to
`a placebo control and found that the use of SDD/SRP
`showed statistically significant improvements in attach-
`ment level and probing depth relative to SRP with a
`placebo. 8
`Substantial evidence indicates that the adjunctive
`use of SDD provides a significant benefit to SRP due
`to its anticollagenase and anti-inflammatory activities
`rather than to its antimicrobial activity. However, seri-
`ous concern has been expressed that even suban-
`timicrobial levels of doxycycline may exert a detri-
`mental effect on the subgingival flora. Such an effect
`could result in the disruption or suppression of the nor-
`mal flora and lead to its colonization or overgrowth by
`periodontal or. opportunistic pathogens. The purpose
`of this study was to stringently evaluate the effects of
`a 9-month regimen of 20 mg doxycycline bid relative
`to a placebo control on the subgingival flora.
`
`MATERIAlS AND METHODS
`Study Design
`Clinical and microbial data were collected at the Uni-
`versity of Florida and West Virginia University from
`subjects with adult periodontitis during a 9-month treat-
`ment period followed by a 3-month no-treatment
`period. Microbiological samples of subgingival plaque
`were collected prior to the initiation of treatment (base-
`line), after 3, 6, and 9 months of treatment, and at 3
`months post-treatment. A total of 76 subjects (38 at
`each study site) with adult periodontitis who met the
`inclusion and exclusion criteria set forth in the exper-
`imental protocol were entered into the placebo-con-
`trolled, double-blind treatment phase.
`The design of the study was as follows: A split-
`mouth design was used where two quadrants in each
`subject received scaling and root planing (SRP) while
`the opposite two quadrants did not (non-SRP). The
`quadrants selected to receive SRP were required to
`have a minimum of two sites with· probing depth (PD)
`and loss of attachment level (AL) of ;:::::5 but ~9 mm and
`that bled on probing. The non-SRP quadrants may or
`may not have met this criteria. Each subject was then
`randomly assigned to receive either SDD or placebo
`treatment. Thus, in effect, there were four treatment
`groups: SRP-SDD, non-SRP-SDD, SRP-placebo, and
`non-SRP-placebo. SRP-placebo was considered as a
`positive control, while non-SRP placebo was a true
`negative control. Thus, the study was considered to
`consist of two parallel experiments. SRP-SDD and non-
`SRP-SDD were paired as were non-SRP-SDD and non-
`SRP-placebo so that the SDD was the variable tested.
`All subjects who completed the 9-month treatment
`phase were invited to continue in a 3-month no-treat-
`ment phase. Of the 67 subjects who completed the
`
`9-month treatment phase, 27 of 36 and 26 of 29 sub-
`jects at the University of Florida and West Virginia Uni-
`versity, respectively, returned for sampling at the end
`of the 3-month no-treatment period.
`A total of 4 sites, distributed in a minimum of 3
`quadrants ( 4 quadrants were selected where possible),
`with PD ;:::::5 mm but ~8 mm were selected in each sub-
`ject for microbial sampling; two sites were from the
`SRP quadrants and two from the non-SRP quadrants.
`These sample sites were retained throughout the study.
`Plaque samples were collected using sterile endodon-
`tic paper points as previously described. 9 The two
`microbial samples collected from the SRP sites were
`pooled by subject and then processed, as were the
`two samples from the non-SRP sites.
`Microbial Enumeration
`Immediately following collection, samples were trans-
`ported to the microbiology laboratories. The samples
`were gently sonicated to dispense adherent plaque and
`then processed. Each sample was examined by direct
`microscopy and by culture on selective and non-selec-
`tive media.
`Microscopy. A 1 0 Jll aliquot of the sample was
`removed under anaerobic conditions and placed on a
`clean slide for examination at 1 ,OOOx by dark-field
`microscopy. Eight distinct cellular morphotypes were
`distinguished and enumerated as previously de-
`scribed.10
`Selective and non-selective media. Following a
`series of 1 0-fold dilutions in pre-reduced, anaerobic-
`sterilized Ringers solution, performed under strict
`anaerobic conditions, 0.1 ml aliquots were dispensed
`onto agar plates and spread with sterile glass rods.
`The following taxa were enumerated on selective and
`non-selective media: total anaerobic counts, total fac-
`ultative counts, total Streptococcus, total Actinomyces,
`Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Eikenella cor-
`rodens, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella interme-
`dia, Bacteroides forsythus, enteric bacteria, Staphylo-
`coccus aureus, and Candida. Estimates of obligate
`anaerobic bacteria were determined by subtracting the
`total facultative count from the total anaerobic count.
`If the facultative count was greater than the anaerobic
`count, a zero value was entered for the obligate anaer-
`obes. Bacteria tentatively identified as P. intermedia
`are, in reality, P. intermedia sensu [acto since P. inter-
`media was not differentiated from P. nigrescens.
`Statistical Analyses
`The study was considered to consist of two parallel
`experiments, each of which was designed to test for dif-
`ferences between doxycycline treatment and a placebo
`control. One design sought for differences following
`conventional periodontal treatment consisting of
`mechanical scaling and root planing (SRP), and the
`second sought for differences without the initial peri-
`
`1466
`
`Exh. 1049
`
`

`
`odontal therapy of scaling and root planing (non-SRP).
`With this in mind, the resulting data sets were ana-
`lyzed with the subject as the statistical unit to detect
`if differences existed at any sample period between
`doxycycline-treated and placebo-treated subjects.
`The factoral ANOVA and Fisher's PLSD test were uti-
`lized to determine if statistically significant differences
`were present between the paired treatment groups at
`each sample period. The repeated measures ANOVA
`was used for longitudinal analyses to test for differ-
`ences within a treatment. If differences were detected
`longitudinally, the paired t test was used to detect the
`location of the differences. In cases where outliers were
`suspected, e.g., microbial culture counts that could
`influence parametric analyses, the Wilcoxon signed
`rank, a non-parametric version of the paired t test,
`was used to verify statistical significance. Since the
`paired t test and Wilcoxon signed rank require
`matched samples from the same subject and the 3-
`month post-treatment data were derived from fewer
`subjects than the 9-month data set, it was necessary
`to construct a new data set limited to those subjects
`who consented to participate in the 3-month no-treat-
`ment phase for analyses seeking differences in the
`latter.
`A total of 78 subjects were entered at the two study
`sites with the expectation that a minimum of 65 sub-
`jects would complete the 9-month treatment phase of
`the study. This sample size, if equally split, had a 90%
`power of detecting a difference of 1 log 10 in microbial
`counts between SDD and the paired treatment. All sta-
`tistical comparisons were based on P :::;0.05.
`
`RESULTS
`Microscopic Enumeration
`Differences between and within treatment groups were
`analyzed for each of the following morphological
`groups: small, intermediate, and large spirochetes;
`motile rods; coccoid forms; non-motile rods; fusiforms;
`and filamentous rods.
`Between-treatment differences. No between-treat-
`ment differences were detected for any morphological
`group other than the spirochetes. In the SRP design,
`the proportion of small spirochetes (Table 1) present
`at the 3- and 6-month sample periods and the pro-
`portion of large spirochetes (Table 2) present at the 6-
`month sample were significantly lower in the SDD
`group than in the placebo group (P<0.05). In the non-
`SRP design, the proportions of both the small and large
`spirochetal groups present at the 9-month sample were
`significantly lower in the SDD group than in the placebo
`group (P <0.05).
`Within-treatment differences. Differences within a
`treatment were analyzed using the paired t test to
`detect if the treatment had any significant effect on a
`particular morphologic group. Both the SDD and
`
`Table I.
`Mean Percentage of Small Spirochetes
`Relative to Total Microscopic Flora for SD D
`and .Placebo Treatment Groups in SRP and
`Non-SRP Design
`
`Treatment Phase
`
`Design
`
`Treatment
`Group
`
`9
`6
`3
`Baseline Months Months Months
`
`3 Months
`Post
`
`SRP
`
`SOD
`
`Placebo
`
`SOD
`
`Non-SRP
`
`Placebo
`
`10.35
`
`I 0.36
`
`9.98
`
`I 1.42
`
`4.32'*t 6.28*t
`
`4.95t
`
`9.59*
`
`I 0.40*
`
`6.26
`
`8.91
`
`7.36
`
`9.54
`
`5.89t
`
`6.58*
`
`9.79*
`
`6.98
`
`8:57
`
`8.53
`
`10.25
`
`*Statistically significant differences (P:S:0.05) between SOD and placebo
`treatment groups.
`t Statistically significant within-treatment differences (P :S:0.05) relative to
`baseline.
`
`Table 2.
`Mean Percentage of Large Spirochetes
`Relative to Total Microscopic Flora for SDD
`and Placebo Treatment Groups in SRP and
`Non-SRP Design
`
`Treatment Phase
`
`Design
`
`Treatment
`Group
`
`3
`9
`6
`Baseline Months Months Months
`
`3 Months
`Post
`
`SRP
`
`SOD
`
`Placebo
`
`SOD
`
`Non-SRP
`
`Placebo
`
`3.34
`
`4.29
`
`3.22
`
`3.13
`
`0.72t
`
`0.13*t o.s8t
`
`1.99t
`
`1.13*t 1.74t
`
`O.BJt
`
`0.56t
`
`0.56*t
`
`0.8Jt
`
`J.06t
`
`0.47t
`
`2.28
`
`1.25t
`
`1.79*t
`
`1.76
`
`*Statistically significant differences (P:s:0.05) between SOD and placebo
`treatment groups.
`t Statistically significant within-treatment differences (P:S:0.05) relative to
`baseline.
`
`placebo treatments, regardless of SRP or non-SRP
`design, produced statistically significant reductions in
`both the intermediate and large spirochetal groups
`(Tables 2 and 3). In the SRP design, the SDD treatment
`yielded significant reductions in small spirochetes, rel-
`ative to baseline, for all 9 months of treatment, while
`the placebo treatment demonstrated only significant
`reductions at the 9-month sample period (Table 1 ).
`Significant reductions in the proportion of motile rods
`were detected for all treatments at all sample periods
`relative to baseline (Table 4). Significant increases
`(P <0.0001) were found in the proportion of coccoid
`forms, relative to baseline, for all sample periods (Table
`5). No significant changes were noted during any treat-
`
`1467
`
`Exh. 1049
`
`

`
`Effect of Subantimicrobial Dose Doxycycline on Subgingival Microflora
`
`Volume 71 • Number 9
`
`Table 3.
`Mean Percentage of Intermediate Spirochetes
`Relative to Total Microscopic Flora for SOD
`and Placebo Treatment Groups in SRP and
`Non-SRP Design
`
`Treatment Phase
`
`Design
`
`SRP
`
`Non-SRP
`
`Treatment
`Group
`SOD
`Placebo
`
`SOD
`Placebo.
`
`15.57
`13.43
`
`13.56
`13.94
`
`9
`6
`3
`Baseline Months Months Months
`3.86*
`1.62*
`1.88*
`3.77*
`5.63*
`2.85*
`5.86*
`6.33*
`
`5.05*
`3.80*
`5.38*
`
`4.00*
`
`3 Months
`Post
`
`2.40*
`4.70*
`2.87*
`4.32*
`
`*Statistically significant within-treatment differences (P:::;O.OOl) relative to
`baseline.
`
`Table 4.
`Mean Per~entage of Motile Rods Relative
`to Total Microscopic Flora for SOD and
`Placebo Treatment Groups in SRP and
`Non-SRP Design
`
`Treatment Phase
`
`Design
`
`SRP
`
`Non-SRP
`
`Treatment
`Group
`SOD
`Placebo
`SOD
`Placebo
`
`3
`6
`Baseline Months Months Months
`6.93
`1.86*
`2.29*
`1.55*
`1.29*
`1.23*
`1.93*
`1.91 *
`1.79*
`2.64*
`3.89*
`1.66*
`3.46
`
`6.63
`8.64
`6.53
`
`3 Months
`Post
`
`3.21*
`2.75*
`2.81*
`2.88*
`
`* Statistically significant within-treatment differences (P:::;0.05) relative to
`baseline.
`
`ment in the proportion of non-motile rods, fusiforms,
`or filamentous rods present at any sample period.
`Culture Enumeration
`As with the microscopic parameters, data analyses
`were conducted to detect statistically significant dif-
`ferences both between and within the treatment groups.
`Between-treatment differences. With one single
`exception, no statistically significant differences ( P
`>0.300) were detected between SOD and placebo treat-
`ments in either the SRP or non-SRP design at any sam-
`ple period for the total cultivable bacterial mass (total
`anaerobic counts, total facultative counts, or obligate
`anaerobes), normal flora (total streptococci, total actin-
`omyces), putative periodontal pathogens (P. gingiva lis,
`P. intermedia, B. forsythus, A. actinomycetemcomitans,
`or E. corrodens), or opportunistic pathogens (Candida,
`
`1468
`
`enteric bacteria, or S. aureus). The only exception was
`that the total facultative counts were significantly higher
`(P = 0.0146) in the placebo treatment compared to
`the SDD treatment group in the SRP design at the 6-
`month sample period. No differences were detected
`between treatments at any other sample period (P
`>0.3000).
`Within-treatment differences. The means of the
`colony forming units ( CFUs) for total anaerobic counts,
`facultative counts, and obligate anaerobes obtained at
`each sample period for each treatment are given in Fig-
`ures 1 through 3. Statistically significant increases were
`detected with the paired t test in both the total anaer-
`obic counts and the obligate anaerobes present at 3
`months relative to baseline for the SOD and placebo
`treatments in both designs. Significant increases were
`also detected at 6 months, relative to baseline, for both
`the SDD and placebo treatments in the non-SRP design.
`However, when these data were reanalyzed using the
`Wilcoxon signed rank test to minimize the effects of
`extreme outliers, statistically significant increases were
`detected only in the placebo treatment in the non-SRP
`design for the total anaerobic counts and the obligate
`anaerobes at 3 and 6 months relative to baseline (P
`<0.02). Significant increases were noted in the number
`of facultative counts present at 6 months relative to
`baseline for the placebo treatment in both the SRP and
`non-SRP designs, but these increases were not statis-
`tically significant when reanalyzed using the Wilcoxon
`signed rank test. No statistically significant differences
`were detected within the SDD or placebo treatment
`groups in the SRP and non -SRP design by either the
`paired t test or Wilcoxon signed rank test in any of the
`following microbial groups: streptococci, Actinomyces,
`P. gingivalis, P. intermedia, B. forsythus, A. actino-
`mycetemcomitans, E. corrodens, Candida, enterics, or
`S. aureus.
`
`Clinical Parameters Associated With Microbial
`Sample Sites
`Since statistically significant microbial decreases, either
`between or within treatments, during the 9-month treat-
`ment period were associated with motile groups (spiro-
`chetes and motile rods) that have been used as indi-
`caters of disease activity, the clinical indices obtained
`for the microbiology sample· sites at each sample
`period were analyzed.
`Between-treatment differences. No statistically sig-
`nificant differences were detected between the SDD
`and placebo treatments in the SRP design for either AL
`or PD at any sample period. However, in the SRP
`design, the percentage of BOP sites (Fig. 4) in the
`SDD group was significantly lower (P <0.01) than the
`placebo group at all sample periods following baseline.
`In the non-SRP design, significant gains (P <0.01) in
`AL were present in the SDD group at 3, 6, and 9
`
`Exh. 1049
`
`

`
`Table 5.
`Mean Percentage of Coccoid Forms Relative
`to Total Microscopic Flora for SOD and
`Placebo Treatment Groups in SRP and
`Non-SRP Design
`
`Treatment Phase
`
`SRP
`
`Design
`
`3 Months
`9
`6
`3
`Treatment
`Baseline Months Months Months
`Post
`Group
`33.53* 37.04* 41.36* 34.45*
`14.87
`SOD
`13.11
`26. I 8* · 3 I .3 I * 37.20* 33.59*
`Placebo
`34.76* 39.05* 39.32* 39.33*
`14.23
`SOD
`24.04* 30.54* 30.92* 31.53*
`13.20
`Non-SRP Placebo
`*Statistically significant within-treatment differences (P<O.OOOl) relative to
`baseline.
`
`BL
`
`3 months
`
`6 months
`Sample period
`
`9 months 3 months post
`
`0 SOD/SAP
`
`I3J Placebo/SAP
`
`•
`
`SOD
`
`E;j Placebo
`
`Figure I.
`Total cultivable anaerobic counts (means) obtained for each treatment
`at each sample period.
`
`months and fewer sites bled on probing (P <0.005) at
`6 and 9 months. No differences were detected in PD
`at any sample period.
`Within-treatment differences. Statistically signifi-
`cant (P<0.0001) increases in ALand decreases in PD
`were detected at 3, 6, and 9 months, relative to base-
`line, regardless of treatment or design. No significant
`differences were detected between either the 3-, 6-, or
`9-month measurements relative to each other. Signif-
`icant decreases in proportion of BOP sites (Fig. 1)
`were noted at 3, 6, and 9 months, relative to baseline,
`for the SDD group in the SRP design (P<0.0005) and
`in the non-SRP design (P<O.Ol ). Significant decreases
`
`BL
`
`3 months
`
`6 months
`Sample period
`
`9 months 3 months post
`
`0 SOD/SAP
`
`[8;l Placebo/SAP
`
`Ill SOD
`
`Q Placebo
`
`Figure l.
`Total cultivable facultative counts (means) obtained for each treatment
`at each sample period (*statistical significance between treatments,
`p <0.02).
`
`3 months
`
`D SOD/SAP
`
`6 months
`Sample period
`l2l Placebo/SAP
`
`•
`
`9 months 3 months post
`
`SOD
`
`[:sJ Placebo
`
`Figure 3.
`Obligate anaerobic counts (means) obtained for each treatment at
`each sample period (*statistical significance relative to baseline,
`p <0.02).
`
`in BOP sites were noted in the placebo group in the
`SRP design at 3 and 6 months (P <0.001) relative to
`baseline but not at 9 months, and in the placebo group
`in the non-SRP design at 3 months (P<0.005) but not
`at 6 or 9 months.
`
`DISCUSSION
`The principal objective of this investigation was to
`determine whether SDD exerted any detectable effect
`on the subgingival flora that could be attributed to
`
`1469
`
`Exh. 1049
`
`

`
`100
`
`CJ) 80
`2 '(ij
`a..
`0 60
`0)
`0
`c:
`0 t: 40
`0 c. e a..
`
`20
`
`0
`
`BL
`
`6 months
`3 months
`Sample period
`0 SDD/SRP ~ Placebo/SAP
`Ill SOD
`
`9 months 3 months post
`
`[SJ Placebo
`
`Figure 4.
`Percentage of microbial sample sites bleeding on probing for each
`treatment at each sample period (*statistical significance between
`treatments, P <0.0 I; tre/ative to baseline, P <O.OOOS:*relative to
`baseline, P <0.0 I; §relative to baseline, P <0.005).
`
`antimicrobial activity. Doxycycline is normally given
`at a daily dose of 100 mg, following a loading dose of
`200 mg, which yields biologically active levels of 8
`to 16 J.Lg/ml in the gingival crevicular fluid and
`around 4 J.Lg/ml in the blood. 11 Studies in human vol-
`unteers have demonstrated that 20 mg doxycycline
`bid yields steady-state serum concentrations of 0.6 to
`0.8 J.Lg/ml (unpublished data). This level is consider-
`ably below the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC)
`determined in vitro for the vast majority of the bacte-
`ria isolated from the subgingival flora. 12· 13 Since sub-
`gingival plaque exists as a biofilm rather than in a
`planktonic state, 14 even higher drug concentrations
`are probably necessary for in vivo inhibition. Even so,
`the possibility exists that levels obtained with SDD
`might be inhibitory for certain bacteria that are exquis-
`itely sensitive to the tetracyclines. Therefore, in this
`study, a comprehensive microbial examination of the
`subgingival flora was conducted by microscopy and
`culture enumeration in an attempt to detect differences
`between and within treatments that could be con-
`tributed to an antimicrobial effect.
`No statistical or microbiological differences in any
`of the microbial parameters enumerated were detected
`between SDD and placebo treatments in either the SRP
`or non-SRP design, with the exception of the spiro-
`chetes. In both designs, the small and large spirochetal
`groups were found to be significantly lower at certain
`periods in the SDD treatment than in the correspond-
`ing placebo group. There are several possible expla-
`nations for the suppression of the spirochetes in the
`SDD groups. One is that the levels of doxycycline
`obtained in the periodontal pocket are inhibitory for
`
`1470
`
`these organisms. Although the large spiroch'etes have
`not been cultivated and their sensitivity to the tetra-
`cyclines is unknown, it is generally thought that the
`small spirochetes are relatively sensitive to the tetra-
`cyclines, although resistance has been reported.15
`Therefore, it might be argued that the suppression of
`the spirochetes was due to the antimicrobial activity
`of doxycycline. However, other bacterial groups are
`equally sensitive, if not more so. Almost all isolates of
`P. gingivalis are inhibited in vitro by ::;0.25 J.Lg/ml of the
`tetracyclines. 12· 13· 16 Neither we nor a number of other
`investigators have been successful in isolating wild-
`type strains of this organism with naturally occurring
`resistance to the tetracyclines. In the study reported
`here, there were no differences between treatments at
`either West Virginia University or the University of
`Florida in the numbers of P. gingivalis recovered at
`any sample period. This tends to argue against the
`possibility that the decrease in the relative proportion
`of the spirochetes was due to antimicrobial activity,
`since corresponding decreases in the numbers or pro-
`portions of P. gingivalis were not found.
`Another possibility that has been advanced is that
`the decrease in spirochetes was due to the periodon-
`tal pocket becoming more aerobic. Since the spiro-
`chetes are thought to have a relatively low redox (Eh)
`requirement for growth, 17 an increase in the Eh of the
`pocket might favor the growth of more oxygen-sensi-
`tive species at the expense of the spirochetes. How-
`ever, this would most likely occur following mechani-
`cal disruption of the structure of the plaque biofilm. If
`this were the case, one would not expect to find treat-
`ment differences between SDD and placebo treatments
`in the SRP design, since both groups received peri-
`odontal scaling prior to the adjunctive treatment reg-
`imen.
`The most likely explanation for the observed spiro-
`chetal differences between treatments is probably
`related to an improvement in the health of the peri-
`odontal pocket. There was significantly less inflam-
`mation as determined by the proportion of sites bleed-
`ing on probing in both SDD groups relative to placebo.
`The proportion of bleeding sites was significantly lower
`in the SDD/SRP group than the placebo group at 3, 6,
`and 9 months (P <0.005) and in the SDD/non-SRP
`group at 6 and 9 months (P<(0.005). Within-treatment
`analyses revealed statistically significant improvements
`for all treatments in AL, PD, and BOP. Concurrently
`with these improvements in clinical indices, within-
`treatment analyses detected statistically significant
`decreases in spirochetes and motile rods with corre-
`sponding increases in coccoid forms. Since micro-
`scopic motility and bleeding on probing are often use-
`ful as indicators of disease activity, it seems reasonable
`to expect some relationship between the two. There-
`fore, we think the most logical explanation for the
`
`Exh. 1049
`
`

`
`J Periodontal • September 2000
`
`Walker, Thomas, Nang6, Lennon, Wetzel, Powala
`
`human adult periodontitis gingiva. J Clin Periodontal
`1995;22: 100-109.
`6. Golub LM, Lee HM, Greenwald RA, et al. A matrix met-
`alloproteinase inhibitor reduces bone-type collagen
`degradation fragments and specific collagenases in gin-
`gival crevicular fluid during adult periodontitis. lnflamm
`Res 1997;46:310-319.
`7. Crout RJ, Lee HM, Schroeder K, et al. The "cyclic" reg-
`imen of low-dose doxycycline for adult periodontitis: A
`preliminary study. J Periodontol1996;67:506-514.
`8. Caton JG, Ciancio SG, Blieden T, et al. Treatment with
`subantimicrobial dose doxycycline improves the efficacy
`of scaling and root planing in patients with adult peri-
`odontitis. J Periodontol2000;71:521-532.
`9. Walker C, Gordon J. The effect of clindamycin on. the
`microbiota associated with refractory periodontitis. J
`Periodontal 1990;61 :692-698.
`10. Walker C, Borden L, Zambon J, Bonta CY, DeYizio W,
`Volpe AR. The effects of a 0.3% triclosan-containing
`dentifrice on the microbial composition of supragingival
`plaque. J Clin Periodontol1994;21:334-341.
`11. Pascale D, Gordon J, Lamster I, Mann P, Seiger M, Arndt
`W. Concentrations of doxycycline in human gingival
`fluid. J Clin Periodontal 1986; 13:841-844.
`12. Walker CB, Pappas JD, Tyler KZ, Cohen S, Gordon JM.
`Antibiotic susceptibilities of periodontal bacteria. In vitro
`susceptibilities to eight antimicrobial agents. J Peri-
`odontal 1985;56(Suppl.) :67-7 4.
`13. Walker CB. The acquisition of antibiotic resistq,nce in
`the periodontal microflora. Periodontol2000 1996; 10:79-
`88.
`14. Listgarten MA. The structure of dental plaque. Peri-
`odontal 2000 1994;5:52-65.
`15. Roberts MC, Chung W, Roe DE. Characterization of tetra-
`cycline and erythromycin determinants in Treponema
`denticola. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1996;40: 1690-
`1694.
`16. Andres MT, Chung WO, Roberts MC, Fierro JF. Antimi-
`crobial susceptibilities of Porphyromonas gingivalis, Pre-
`votella intermedia, and Prevotella nigrescens spp. isolated
`in Spain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998;42:3022-
`3023.
`17. Mikx FH. Environmental effects on the growth and pro-
`teolysis of Treponema denticola ATCC 33520. Oral Micro-
`bioi /mmunol1997;12:249-253.
`
`Send reprint requests to: Dr. Clay Walker, University of
`Florida, Box 100424, Health Science Center, Gainesville, FL
`32610. Fax: 352/392-2361; e-mail: walkerc1@ufl.edu
`
`Accepted for publication February 11, 2000.
`
`between-treatment differences in spirochetes is that
`the microbial sample sites improved in health due to
`the anti-inflammatory properties of the drug so that
`fewer nutrients were available to support the growth of
`spirochetes. It could be argued that the decrease in
`the spirochetal population was responsible for the
`improvement in health, with the decrease being due to
`the antimicrobial activity of the drug. We do not think
`that this is likely due to the fact that between-treatment
`differences were not detected in any of the other micro-
`bial parameters. If the decrease in the number of sites
`bleeding on probing was due to an antimicrobial effect,
`between-treatment differences ·in microbial parame-
`ters should occur prior to the detection of improve-
`ments in clinical indices. In this study, the proportion
`of sites bleeding on probing had decreased prior to
`the detection of significant between-treatment differ-
`ences in the proportions of small and large spirochetes.
`Since the clinical effect was observed before the micro-
`bial effect, we think this supports the hypothesis that
`the between-treatment differences were due to the
`,drug's anti-inflammatory effect rather than to its antimi-
`crobial effect.
`In conclusion, no antimicrobial effect could be
`detected during or following a 9-month treatment reg-
`imen with 20 mg doxycycline bid, relative to placebo
`control, on total bacterial counts, the normal flora, or
`in either periodontal or opportunistic pathogens. Doxy-
`cycline had no detectable antimicrobial effect on 21 dif-
`ferent microbial parameters commonly used to eval-
`uate changes in the subgingival microflora.
`
`ACKNOWlEDGMENTS
`Mr. Powala is Director of Drug Development and Reg-
`ulatory Affairs and Ms. Wetzel is a study monitor at Col-
`laGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This study was sup-
`ported by a grant from CollaGenex Pharmaceuticals,
`Inc., Newtown, Pennsylvania.
`
`REFERENCES
`1. Sorsa T, Ding Y, Lauhio A, et al. Effects of tetracyclines
`on neutrophil, gingival, and salivary collagenases. A
`functional and western-blot assessment with special ref-
`erence to their cellular sources in periodontal diseases.
`Ann !'I Y Acad Sci 1994;732:112-131.
`2. Ingman T, Sorsa T, Suomalainen K, et al. Tetracycline
`inhibition and cellular source of collagenase in gingival
`crevicular fluid in different periodontal diseases. A review
`article. J Periodontal 1993;64:82-88.
`3. Vernillo AT, Ramamurthy NS, Golub LM, Rifkin BR. The
`nonantimicrobial properties of tetracycline for the treat-
`ment of periodontal disease. Curr Opin Periodontol1994;
`111-118.
`4. Sorsa T, Ding YL, Ongmam T, et al. Cellular source,
`activation and inhibition of dental plaque collagenase. J
`Clin Periodontol1995;22:709-717.
`5. Golub LM, Sorsa T, Lee HM, et al. Doxycycline inhibits
`neutrophil (PMN)-type matrix metalloproteinases in
`
`1471
`
`Exh. 1049

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