throbber
S296
`
`Late Breaking News
`
`5 (p=0.004) years, patients in the early treatment group performed
`better in the PASAT. Conclusions: The 5-year results of the BENEFIT
`study provide further evidence supporting early initiation of
`treatment with IFNB-lb in patients with a first event suggestive of MS.
`Supported by: Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany.
`
`P902
`
`Randomized, prospective, rater-blinded, four-year, pilot study to
`compare the effect of daily versus every-other-day glatiramer
`acetate 20 mg subcutaneous infections in relapsing-remitting
`multiple sclerosis
`Omar Khan, Christina Caort, lmad Zak, Zahid Latif, Ramya Penmesta,
`Fen Bao, Samia Ragheb, Alan Hudson, Alex Tseiis
`
`Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA
`Background: The recommended dose of GA in RRMS is 20 mg subcu-
`taneous (SC) daily (QD) although the optimal dose remains unknown.
`There is considerable interest in alternate dosing regimens of GA in
`RRMS. Daily SC iniectable therapy can be challenging for long-term
`patient compliance. Objective: We conducted a pilot trial to compare
`the effect of GA 20 mg SC daily versus every other day (QOD) in
`RRMS. The primary endpoint was based on a composite of clinical,
`MRI, and immunologic outcomes. Methods: Treatment naive RRMS
`patients were randomized to GA 20 mg SC QD or QOD and followed
`prospectively for 2 years. After 2 years, patients in each group were
`given the option to continue or switch to the other group, and fol-
`lowed for an additional 2 years. EDSS was recorded every 6 months by
`a rater blinded to dosing allocation. Brain MRI scans were obtained at
`baseline, and years 2 and 4. Blood for immunologic testing was
`obtained at baseline and multiple time points after randomization.
`Results: 30 patients were randomized to GA 20 mg SC given QD or
`QOD. Both groups were well-matched for age, disease duration, EDSS,
`relapse rate,
`'l'2W and gadolinium (Gd) enhancing lsions. After
`2 years, there were no differences in the relapse rate, disease progres-
`sion, Change in 'I‘2W lesion volume, or Gd enhancing lesions
`between the two groups. in vitro proliferation of GA-responsive T-cells
`and Thlf'l‘h2 cytokine expression did not differ between the two
`groups at any time point after randomization. After 2 years, all
`patients in the QD group opted to switch to QOD. After a total of
`4 years of prospective follow-up, there was no difference between the
`QD-QOD cross over group and the always QOD group. Additional
`data on imaging and immunologic outcomes will be presented.
`Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that GA 20 mg SC adminis-
`tered QD or QOD may be equally effective in RRMS. This may have
`implications for the long-term use of GA. However, large multi-center
`studies are warranted to confirm our findings and to identify the opti-
`mal dose of GA in RRMS.
`
`Epidemiology/Genetics
`
`P903
`
`The expanding genetic overlap between multiple sclerosis and
`type 1 diabetes
`Maria Ban,
`for
`Consortium
`
`the International Multiple Sclerosis Genetics
`
`Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United
`Kingdom
`Background: A familial clustering of autoimmune disease is well
`recognised and suggests that some susceptibility genes may predis-
`pose to autoimmunity in general whereas other genes lead to specific
`disease. Objective: To investigate if variants of established relevance
`in type 1 diabetes might also be relevant
`in multiple sclerosis.
`Methods: We tested seven single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)
`that are known to be associated with type 1 diabetes in a large multi-
`ple sclerosis dataset consisting of 2,369 trio families, 5,737 cases and
`10,296 unrelated controls. Samples were recruited from across
`six countries: Australia, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
`(UK) and the United States of America QJSA) that are within the
`
`IMSGC. Results: Two of these seven SNI’s also demonstrated evidence
`for association with multiple sclerosis; rs12708716 from the C-type
`lectin domain family 16, member A (CLl1C16A) gene (p=1.6xl0"‘)
`and rs763361 from the CD226 gene (p=S.4x10"). In each case the
`allele associated with increased risk for multiple sclerosis was identi-
`cal to that showing evidence for association with type 1 diabetes.
`Conclusions: Thse findings thereby suggest two additional multiple
`sclerosis susceptibility genes and lend support
`to the notion of
`autoimmune susceptibility genes.
`Supported by: The National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA)
`(AP 3758-A-16, RG 2899, PG-1718-A1), grants from the NINDS
`(NS049477, NS032830, NS26799), Al067152,
`the NTAID (P01
`AlO3967l), a National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Collaborative
`Research Award (CA 1001-A-14), and the Penates Foundation. We
`acknowledge use of DNA from the British 1958 Birth Cohort collec-
`tion, funded by the Medical Research Council grant G0000934 and
`the Wellcome Trust grant 068545/2/02.
`
`P904
`
`Infections and vaccinations and the risk of multiple sclerosis:
`a population-based study
`Sreeram Ramagopalan‘, William Valdar', David Dyment', Gabriele
`DeLuca',
`Irene Yee‘, Gavin Giovannoni‘, George l3.bers', Dessa
`Sadovnickz
`
`‘University of Oxford, Oxfizrd, United Kingdom; ‘University of British
`Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, United Kingdom
`Background: Genetic and environmental factors have important
`roles in multiple sclerosis (MS) susceptibility. Several studies have
`attempted to correlate exposure to viral illness with the subsequent
`development of MS. Objective: Here in a population based Canadian
`cohort, we investigate the relationship between prior clinical
`infection or vaccination and the risk of MS. Methods: Using the ion-
`gitudinal Canadian database, 14362 MS index cases and 7671 spouse
`controls wae asked about history of measles, mumps,
`rubella,
`varicella and infectious mononucleosis as well as details about vacci-
`nation with measles, mumps,rubella, hepatitis B and influenza vac-
`cines. Oomparisons were made between cases and spouse controls.
`Results: Spouse controls and stratification by sex appear to correct for
`ascertainment bias because with a single exception we found no sig-
`nificant differmces between cases and controls for all viral exposures
`and vaccinations. However 699 cases and 165 controls reported a
`history of infectious mononucleosis (chi 2 = 97.9,
`1 d.f., p<0.00l)
`(corrected odds ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.71-2.48).
`Conclusions: Historically reported measles, mumps, mbella, varicella
`and vaccination for hepatitis B, influenza, measles, mumps and rubel-
`la are not associated with increased risk of MS later in life. A clinical
`history of infectious mononucleosis is conspicuously associated with
`increased MS susceptibility. These findings
`support
`studies
`implicating Epstein Barr virus in MS disease susceptibility but a
`co-association between MS susceptibility and clinically apparent
`infectious mononudeosis cannot be excluded.
`Supported by: Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada Scientific
`Research Foundation.
`
`Imaging
`
`P905
`
`Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging for future clinical
`outcome
`Bouke Boden,
`Barkhof
`
`lvo van den Eiskamp, Bernard Uitdehaag, Frederik
`
`Vriie Universiteit Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
`Background: Although only weak correlations between MRI and
`clinical findings have been found, MRI variables are widely used as
`secondary outcome measures in Ms-related clinical
`trials. Better
`knowledge of these possible relationships is clinically important and
`could help patient selection in future trials in MS. Objective: To
`
`Multiple Sclerosis 2008; 14: $295-$298
`
`http://msj.sagepub.com
`
`AMNEAL
`Downloaded tram m:i.sagepub.eom by guest at Air! 9. 2013
`
`EXHIBIT NO. 1010 Page 1
`
` AMNEAL

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