throbber
articles
`
`expedited publication
`
`4 Copolymer 1 reduces
`relapse rate and improves
`disability in relapsing-remitting
`multiple sclerosis:
`Results of a phase III multicenter, double-blind,
`-
`placebo-controlled trial
`
`K.P. Johnson, MD; B.R. Brooks, MD; J.A. Cohen, MD; C.C. Ford, MD; J. Goldstein, MD; R.P. Lisak, MD;
`L.W. Myers, MD; H.S. Panitch, MD; J.W. Rose, MD; R.B. Schiffer, MD; T. Vollmer, MD; L.P. Weiner, MD;
`J.S. Wolinsky, MD; and the Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group*
`
`Article abstract—We studied copolymer 1 (Copaxone) in a multicenter (11-university) phase III trial of patients with re-
`lapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Two hundred fiflzy-one patients were randomized to receive copolymer 1 (n =
`125) or placebo (11 = 126) at a dosage of 20 mg by daily subcutaneous injection for 2 years. The primary end point was a
`difference in the MS relapse rate. The final 2-year relapse rate was 1.19 2: 0.13 for patients receiving copolymer 1 and
`1.68 :i: 0.13 for those receiving placebo, a 29% reduction in favor of copolymer 1 (p = 0.007) (annualized rates = 0.59 for
`copolymer 1 and 0.84 for placebo). Trends in the proportion of relapse-free patients and median time to first relapse fa-
`vored copolymer 1. Disability was measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), using a two-neurologist (ex-
`amining and treating) protocol. When the proportion of patients who improved, were unchanged, or worsened by _21 EDSS
`step from baseline to conclusion (2 years) was evaluated, significantly more patients receiving copolymer 1 were found to
`have improved and more receiving placebo worsened (p = 0.037). Patient withdrawals were 19 (15.2%) from the copolymer
`1 group and 17 (13.5%) from the placebo group at approximately the same intervals. The treatment was well tolerated.
`The most common adverse experience was an injection—site reaction. Rarely, a transient self-limited systemic reaction fol-
`lowed the injection in 15.2% of those receiving copolymer 1 and 3.2% of those receiving placebo. This reaction was charac-
`terized by flushing or chest tightness with palpitations, anxiety, or dyspnea and commonly lasted for 30 seconds to 30
`minutes. This rigorous study confirmed the findings of a previous pilot trial and demonstrated that copolymer 1 treat
`ment can significantly and beneficially alter the course of relapsing-remitting MS in a well-tolerated fashion.
`NEUROLOGY 1995;415:1268-1276
`
`Progress in identifying effective therapies for multi-
`ple sclerosis (MS) has accelerated during this decade
`as pathogenic factors active in the disease have been
`identified. We now report that treatment with
`
`copolymer 1 (Copaxone), given subcutaneously (s.c.)
`at a dosage of 20 mg per day in a rigorously con-
`trolled 2-year trial, significantly reduced the relapse
`rate inpatients with relapsing-remitting MS. Neuro-
`
`See also page 1245
`
`
`‘See pages 1275 and 1276 for the Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group participants.
`From the Department of Neurology (Dre. Johnson and Panitch), University of Maryland, Balfimore, MD, the Department of Neurology (Dr. Brooks), Uni-
`versity of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; the Department of Neurology (Dr. Cohen), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; the Department of Neurol-
`ogy (Dr. Ford), University of New Mexico. Albuquerque. NM; the Department of Neurology (Drs. Goldstsin and Vollmeri, Yale University, New Haven,
`CT; the Department of Neurology (Dr. Lisak), Wayne State University, Detroit, M1; the Department of Neurology (Dr. Myers), University of California,
`Ina Angeles, CA; the Department of Neurology (Dr. Rose), University of Utah and the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, the
`Department of Neurology (Dr. Schiifer), University of Rochester, Rochester. NY; the Department of Neuroloy (Dr. Weiner), University of Southern Cali-
`fornia, Ios Angeles, CA; and the Department of Neurology (Dr. Wolinsky), University of Texas, Houston, TX.
`Supported by the Federal Food and Drug Administration Orphan Drug Program no. FD-R000559-01. the National Multiple Sclerosis Society no. RG
`2202-A-6, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Petah Tiqva, Israel.
`Presented at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, San Francisco, October 1994.
`Received April 27, 1995. Accepted in final form May 1, 1995.
`
`Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Kenneth P. Johnson, Department of Neurology, N4W46. University of Maryland Hospital, 22 South
`Greene Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.
`
`1268 NEUROLOGY 45 July 1995
`
`AMNEAL
`
`EXHIBIT NO. 1018 Page 1
`
` AMNEAL
`
`

`
`logic impairment, as measured by the Expanded
`Disability Status Scale (EDSS)) was also favorably
`affected, and patients tolerated treatment well, with
`a low frequency of side efi'ects. Thus, copolymer 1
`joins interferon beta-lb (IFNB-1b) (licensed in 1993)
`as a treatment shown to positively alter the natural
`course of relapsing-remitting MS.‘
`Copolymer 1 is the acetate salt of a mixture of
`synthetic polypeptides composed of four amino
`acids, L—a.lanine, L-glutamic acid, L-lysine, and L-ty-
`rosine, in a molar ratio of 4.2, 1.4, 3.4, and 1.0, re-
`spectively, and with an average molecular weight
`of 4,700 to 13,000 daltons. First synthesized in
`1967 by M. Sela, R. Arnon, D. Teitelbaum, and
`their colleagues at the Weizmann Institute of Sci-
`ence in Israel, copolymer 1 suppresses or modifies
`experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE)3 in
`several species of mammals including nonhuman
`primates.‘ Other studies‘ suggest that copolymer 1
`acts through cross-reactivity with myelin basic pro-
`tein (MBP) and inhibition of the cell-mediated im-
`mune response to this antigen.
`Extensive preclinical findings encouraged
`Abramsky et al‘ to treat a small number of patients
`who had advanced MS or acute disseminated en-
`cephalomyelitis with copolymer 1. They used a low
`dose and observed no toxicity. Bernstein et al7 then
`treated four MS patients in the relapsing-remitting
`and 12 in the chronic-progressive stages of disease
`with copolymer 1 and noted fewer relapses or neu-
`rologic improvement in five. They used various
`doses and routes of administration for up to 6
`months. This open trial was later extended and the
`dose increased from 5 mg i.m. to 20 mg s.c. daily for
`up to 3 years without significant side eifects or lab-
`oratory abnormalities.
`These early human studies indicated that
`copolymer 1 could be given safely and prompted a
`2-year, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot trial
`to evaluate its effects on the MS relapse rate, dis-
`ability, and patient tolerance.‘ Forty-eight patients
`with relapsing-remitting MS, a high mean annual
`relapse rate of 1.9, and a mean disability status
`scale (EDSS) score of 3.0 were entered. Twenty-five
`received 20 mg of copolymer 1 s.c. daily and 23 re-
`ceived s.c. placebo. During 2 years, there were 62
`relapses in the placebo group but only 16 in the
`copolymer 1 group, a highly significant difference.
`Fifty-six percent of the copolymer 1 group and 26%
`of those receiving placebo remained relapse-free.
`The effect was most pronounced in patients with
`the lowest EDSS ratings at entry, and there was a
`trend toward benefit of copolymer 1 over placebo in
`terms of progression of disability, especially in the
`patients with the lower EDSS scores at entry. Pa-
`tient tolerance was very good, and there were no
`laboratory abnormalities.‘
`Copolymer 1 was then studied in patients with
`chronic-progressive MS at two centers, the Albert
`Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, and the
`Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.” Patients
`with EDSS ratings from 2.0 to 6.5, inclusive, were
`
`Table 1. Participating universities and the number
`of patients randomized to each treatment group
`
`Center
`
`University of California,
`Los Angeles
`University of Maryland‘
`University of New Mexico
`University of Pennsylvania
`University of Rochester
`University of Southern
`California
`University of Texas, Houston
`University of Utah
`Wayne State University
`University of Wisconsin
`Yale University
`
`‘ National coordinating center.
`
`observed for at least 12 months before randomiza-
`tion to document progression of their disease. One
`hundred six patients (mean age 42 years, mean
`EDSS score 5.6) were treated in a double-blind
`trial. They received either placebo or 15 mg of
`copolymer 1 twice daily by s.c. self-injection, and
`tolerated the therapy well. The combined results
`showed a trend toward benefit with copolymer 1
`treatment, which was, however, not statistically
`significant.’
`To further evaluate copolymer 1 treatment of pa-
`tients with relapsing-remitting MS, we conducted a
`large, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial and have
`observed patients in a blinded fashion for 2 years.
`
`Methods. The objectives of the current study were to
`compare the patient tolerance and therapeutic impact of
`daily s.c. injections of 20 mg of copolymer 1 or placebo
`over 24 months, using the number of MS relapses as the
`primary variable. The study wa designed and the pa-
`tients recruited to confirm the conclusions of the previ-
`ously published pilot trial.“
`Participants. Eleven universities with active MS cen- .
`ters and experience in conducting clinical neurologic re-
`search participated in the trial (table 1). The University
`of Maryland served as the administrative and clinical co-
`ordinating center. Aiter an intensive training session for
`neurologists and study coordinators, the trial began in
`October 1991.
`Study design. The primary end point, determined
`prospectively in this phase III study, was a comparison of
`the mean number of relapses experienced by copolymer
`1- or placebo-treated relapsing-remitting MS patients
`during 2 years of treatment. A relapse was defined as the
`appearance or reappearance of one or more neurologic
`abnormalities persisting for at least 48 hours and imme-
`diately preceded by a relatively stable or improving neu-
`rologic state of at least 30 days. A relapse was confirmed
`only when the patient’s symptoms were accompanied by
`objective changes on the neurologic examination consis-
`tent with an increase of at least a half a step on the
`EDSS, two points on one of the seven functional
`systems,‘ or one point on two or more of the functional
`
`AMNEAL
`
`July 1&5 NEUROLOGY 45 1889
`EXHIBIT NO. 1018 Page 2
`
` AMNEAL
`
`

`
`systems. Events associated with fever were excluded. A
`change in bowel/bladder or cognitive function could not
`be solely responsible for the changes in either the EDSS
`or the functional system scores. Several secondary end
`points were also predetermined: proportion of relapse-
`free patients, time to first relapse after initiation of ther-
`apy, proportion of patients with sustained disease pro-
`gression (defined as an increase of at least one full step
`on the EDSS that persisted for at least 3 months), and
`mean change in EDSS and ambulation index between
`the copolymer 1 and placebo groups from baseline to con-
`clusion. All patients had periodic, standardized neu-
`ropsychological tests, and a subset of patients underwent
`serial gadolinium-enhanced MRIs; results will be re-
`ported in separate publications.
`Conduct of the study. Patients were screened to deter-
`mine eligibility and then randomized within 21 days. A
`centralized randomization scheme was used. All patients
`met the criteria of clinically definite MS or laboratory-
`supported definite MS.‘° Male and female patients be-
`tween the ages of 18 and 45 years were eligible. They
`were all ambulatory with an EDSS score of 0 through
`5.0, a history of at least two clearly identified and docu-
`mented relapses in the 2 years prior to entry, onset of the
`first relapse at least 1 year before randomization, and a
`period of neurologic stability and freedom from cortico-
`steroid therapy of at least 30 days prior to entry. Pa-
`tients were excluded if they had ever received copolymer
`1 or previous immunosuppressive therapy with cytotoxic
`chemotherapy (azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, or cy-
`closporine) or lymphoid irradiation. Other exclusion cri-
`teria included pregnancy or lactation, insulin-dependent
`diabetes mellitus, positive HIV or HTLV-I serology, evi-
`dence of Lyme disease, or required use of aspirin or
`chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during the
`course of the trial. All women were required to use an ad-
`equate method of contraception.
`The study medication was supplied by Teva Pharma-
`ceutical Industries, Ltd, Petah Tiqva, Israel, under a
`manufacturing protocol approved by the US Food and
`Drug Administration. It was distributed to each of the
`11 cooperating university centers by an independent
`data management and coordination center, National
`Medical Research Corporation, Hartford, CT. Study
`medication was supplied in single-dose vials of
`lyophilized material along with ampules of sterile water
`diluent. Patients were given a 1-month supply each
`month and were intructed in reconstitution and s.c.
`self-administration of the study medication. At each
`monthly visit, patients received medication and reported
`adverse events and use of concomitant medications.
`Every 3 months, the patients underwent a complete
`evaluation that employed a two-neurologist protocol.
`Each patient was assigned a single examining neurolo-
`gist who evaluated only the objective neurologic condi-
`tion without discussing symptoms or side effects. A sec-
`ond treating neurologist evaluated symptoms and ad-
`verse events and was responsible for determining the
`need for steroid therapy at the time of a confirmed re-
`lapse. A nurse coordinator at each center distributed
`medication, noted concomitant treatments, and obtained
`blood and urine specimens for laboratory analysis. The
`nurse coordinator and both neurologists were blinded to
`study medication assignment throughout the trial. Pa-
`tients were allowed to use the conventional medications
`they were receiving at the time of randomization for
`spasticity, bladder control, fatigue, and other MS symp-
`toms. An approved protocol for steroid therapy was em-
`
`1270 NEUROLOGY 45 July 1995
`
`ployed by the treating neurologist at the time of con-
`firmed relapse. Use of immunosuppressive, cytotoxic, or
`experimental drugs or aspirin and chronic nonsteroidal
`anti-inflammatory drugs were proscribed.
`At the time of suspected relapse, patients were in-
`structed to call their center immediately to discuss symp-
`toms with the nurse coordinator or treating neurologist
`and to arrange for an examination at the center within 7
`days. In rare instances, weather conditions and other
`emergencies prohibited evaluation at the site within that
`time. Patients were followed as often as medically indi-
`cated after each confirmed relapse.
`All patients had a chest x-ray and ECG at the screen-
`ing visit and another ECG at the conclusion of the study.
`Urinalysis, hematologic studies, a serum chemistry
`panel, and anti-copolymer 1 antibodies were evaluated at
`3-month intervals; all blood testing was done at a cen-
`tralized laboratory and reported to the treating neurolo-
`gist and to the data management and coordination cen-
`ter. An independent safety monitoring committee, com-
`posed of two clinical neurologists, a clinical pharmacolo-
`gist, a statistician, and a representative of the National
`Multiple Sclerosis Society, met quarterly either in person
`or by conference call to review all safety information. At
`no time were representatives of the sponsor or the 11
`study centers present when safety data or issues were
`discussed. The safety committee remained blinded
`throughout the course of the trial.
`The protocol was approved by the institutional review
`boards of the participating clinical centers, and all pa-
`tients gave written informed consent.
`Statistical analysis. The final data set was evalu-
`ated using several cohort definitions. The intention-to-
`treat analysis of all randomized patients was consid-
`ered primary. Other evaluated cohorts excluded pa-
`tients who did not complete 6 months of treatment, pa-
`tients who failed to complete 2 years (730 days) of
`treatment, and patients who missed over 5% of consec-
`utive study medication doses or 10% of total doses dur-
`ing the study. There was strong internal consistency of
`statistically significant findings and trends among the
`various evaluated cohorts. Therefore, only the results
`of the most rigorous intention-to-treat analysis are pre-
`sented here.
`
`The proportions of withdrawals were compared using
`the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Time to withdrawal
`was analyzed using the log rank test. For demographic
`and medical history characteristics, two-sample t tests
`were used for continuous variables and exact probability
`tests for discrete variables.
`Mean relapse rate was analyzed using ANCOVA, with
`tests for study-drug-by-center interaction and including
`a priori-defined covariates: sex, duration of disease
`(years), prior 2-year relapse rate, and baseline Kurtzke
`EDSS. Proportions of relapse-free patients were tested
`using logistic regression incorporating the same covari-
`ate effects. Time to first relapse was evaluated using
`Weibull regression. The proportion of progression-free
`patients was analyzed using logistic regression.
`Changes from baseline for the Kurtzke EDSS and
`the ambulation index were assessed using repeated-
`measures ANCOVA. Analyses of the change from base-
`line to 24 months were also conducted. Categorical re-
`peated-measures and 24-month end-point analyses
`were performed on Kurtzke EDSS score changes from
`baseline, clasified as “improved” (reduction of at least
`one step) “worsened,” (increase of at least one step), or
`“no change.”
`
`AMNEAL
`
`EXHIBIT NO. 1018 Page 3
`
` AMNEAL
`
`

`
`Results. Baseline characteristics of subjects. Be-
`tween October 1991 and May 1992, 284 patients
`were screened and 251 randomized to the two treat-
`
`ment groups. The demographics of the randomized
`cohort are shown in table 2. The two groups were
`well matched for age, sex, race, duration of disease,
`mean relapse rate in the prior 2 years, EDSS, and
`ambulation index. As expected, the majority of ran-
`domized patients were women (73%) and white
`(94%). Among the patients randomized to receive
`copolymer 1,51 wereinthe0to2,57inthe2to4,
`and 17 in the >4 EDSS range. Of those randomized
`to receive placebo, 68 were in the 0 to 2, 46 in the 2
`to 4, and 12 in the >4 EDSS range.
`Patient exposure and withdrawals. The total pa-
`tient exposure and duration of treatment is shown
`in table 3. The total patient exposure to copolymer
`1 was 227 years and to placebo 232 years. Nineteen
`patients (15%) withdrew from the copolymer 1-
`treated group and 17 (13.5%) from the placebo
`
`group. The proportion of patients who withdrew
`and the time to withdrawal as shown in table 3
`
`were statistically similar over the duration of the
`study. Three patients in the copolymer 1 group
`withdrew when they became pregnant, and one
`stopped medication because of disease progression.
`Two patients in the placebo group failed to comply
`with the protocol. Two copolymer 1 patients with-
`drew for serious adverse events: one, afier 50 days
`on treatment, developed immediate flushing, chest
`tightness, dyspnea, nausea, and vomiting (see
`below), which lasted for more than 90 minutes
`after the injection, and one, after 131 days on treat-
`ment, developed generalized lymph node enlarge-
`ment. Lymph node biopsy from that patient re-
`vealed only chronic inflammatory change. Three
`other patients receiving copolymer 1 and one pa-
`tient receiving placebo withdrew because of tran-
`sient self-limited systemic reactions that were brief
`and not considered serious.
`
`Table 2. Demographics and MS characteristics at
`baseline (number screened = 284)
`
`Copolymer 1
`(n = 125)
`
`Placebo
`(n = 126)
`
`34.6 1 6.0
`
`34.3 1 6.5
`
`88 (70.4%)
`37 (29.6%)
`
`118 (94.4%)
`7 (5.6%)
`2.9 1 1.3
`
`96 (76.2%)
`30 (23.8%)
`
`118 (93.6%)
`8 (6.3%)
`2.9 1 1.1
`
`2.8 1 1.2
`1.2 1 1.0
`
`2.4 1 1.3
`1.1 1 0.9
`
`7.3 1 4.9
`
`6.6 1 5.1
`
`Age(y:r;mean1SD)
`Sex
`
`Other
`Prior 2-year relapse rate
`(mean 1 SD)
`EDSS (mean 1 SD)
`Ambulation index
`(mean 1 SD)
`Duration of MS
`(yr; mean 1 SD)
`
`EDSS Expanded Disability Status Scale.
`
`Table 3. Patient exposure and duration of treatment
`
`MS relapse rates. During the 2-year trial, the
`copolymer 1-treated patients had 161 confirmed
`relapses and the placebo group had 210 confirmed
`relapses (table 4). The mean relapse rate (2 years)
`was 1.19 in the copolymer 1 group and 1.68 in the
`placebo group, a 29% reduction, which was statis-
`tically significant at the p = 0.007 level. Annual-
`ized relape rate were 0.59 for the copolymer 1
`group and 0.84 for those receiving placebo. The
`median time to first relapse from baseline for the
`copolymer 1 group was 287 days and for the pla-
`cebo group it was 198 days, a difference that ap-
`proached statistical significance (p = 0.097).
`Forty-two patients receiving copolymer 1 (33.6%)
`and 34 placebo patients (27.0%) were relapse-free
`throughout the trial (p = 0.098). This result also
`approached statistical significance. When the re-
`lapse data were summarized in relation to base-
`line EDSS scores, it was found that patients with
`greater disability at entry had more relapses dur-
`ing the trial (figure 1). However, the therapeutic
`effect appeared to be most pronounced in patients
`with the lowest EDSS scores at entry (0 to 2), in
`
`
` Total
`
`Cogolymer 1 (n u 125)
`
`Placebo (n - 126)
`
`in
`
`8
`3
`2
`6
`2
`2
`1
`1
`106
`
`%
`
`2.4
`2.4
`1.6
`4
`1.6
`1.6
`0.8
`0.8
`84.8
`
`patient
`months
`
`5.6
`13.6
`13.9
`49.4
`27.0
`33.1
`18.9
`21.3
`2,376.0
`
`2,726.3
`
`in
`
`4
`3
`0
`3
`3
`2
`1
`1
`109
`
`%
`
`3.2
`2.4
`0.0
`2.4
`2.4
`1.6
`0.8
`0.8
`86.5
`
`AMNEAL
`
`Jul 1995 NEUROLOGY45127l
`EXHIB NO. 1018 Page 4
`
` AMNEAL
`
`

`
`Table 4. Relapse experience of copolymer 1 and placebo groups
`
`Primary end points
`Relapse rate over 24 mo
`(covariate adjusted mean)
`Annualized relapse rate
`Observed relapses over 24 mo
`Secondary end points
`Proportion of relapse-free patients
`Median time to first relapse (days)
`Number of relapses per patient
`0
`1-2
`23
`
`Copolymer 1
`(n I 126)
`
`1.19
`
`0.59
`161
`
`33.6%
`287
`
`42
`60
`23
`
`I Copolymer 1
`
`III Placebo 2 25
`
`Table 5. Disability experience measured by EDSS
`and ambulation index of copolymer 1 and placebo
`QTOIIDS
`
`1 .85
`
`1 _76
`
`Copolymer 1
`
`N.”can
`
`.5 0|
`
`
`
`rate(2year) 90-* oinb
`Relapse
`
`
`0-2
`
`2-4
`Baseline EDSS
`
`>4
`
`Figure 1. Changes in relapse rate observed over 2 years,
`by baseline EDSS score. The numbers above each bar
`represent the mean 2-year relapse rate for each group.
`
`whom there was a 33% difference in the relapse
`rate in favor of copolymer 1.
`Neurologic disability. The effect of copolymer 1
`therapy on neurologic disability was evaluated in a
`series of secondary end points (table 5) baed on
`the EDSS and ambulation index, and determined
`every 3 months by the examining neurologist. Fig-
`ure 2 shows that more patients receiving copolymer
`1 were improved whereas more patients on placebo
`were worse by one or more EDSS steps when com-
`pared between baseline and 24 months. This find-
`ing was statistically significant in favor of copoly-
`met 1 for both the categorical repeated-measures
`analysis (p = 0.037) and the analysis from baseline
`to 24 months (p = 0.024). The repeated-measures
`analysis of mean change in EDSS also significantly
`favored copolymer 1 (p = 0.023). When progression
`to sustained disability was defined as an increase
`of one or more EDSS steps maintained for more
`than 90 days—that is, for two consecutive sched-
`uled viits—litt1e difference was noted between
`
`groups. Of those patients treated with copolymer 1,
`78.4% were free of progression, while of those re-
`
`1272 NEUROLOGY 45 July ms
`
`Proportion of patients
`with a change in
`disability between
`baseline and conclusion
`Improved
`(EDSS decrease 21)
`No change
`Worse
`(EDSS increase 21)
`EDSS change from
`baseline (mean 2 SD)
`Proportion of
`progression-free
`patients
`Ambulation index
`(mean t SD)
`
`24.8%
`
`54.4%
`20.8%
`
`15.2%
`
`56.0%
`28.8%
`
`0.037‘
`
`-0.05 1 1.13
`
`0.21 2 0.99
`
`0.0231’
`
`78.4%
`
`75.4%
`
`0.27 it 0.94
`
`0.23 :2 0.93
`
`NS
`
`NS
`
`EDSS Expanded Disability Status Scale.
`NS Not significantly different.
`’ Categorical repeated measures.
`1‘ Repeated-measures analysis of covariance.
`
`ceiving placebo, 75.4% showed no progression (NS).
`The mean ambulation index scores were also simi-
`
`lar between groups, 0.27 for copolymer 1-treated
`patients and 0.28 for those on placebo (NS).
`Adverse events. N0 clinically significant differences
`in vital signs were noted during the trial. The most
`commonly recognized adverse event was a localized
`injection-site reaction consisting of mild erythema
`and induration, which sometimes persisted for sev-
`eral days (table 6). It was observed at least once dur-
`ing 730 days of treatment in 90% of the copolymer 1-
`treated patients and in 59% of the patients receiving
`placebo. The other adverse event clearly related to
`therapy was a transient self-limited systemic reac-
`tion (table 7), which also was recognized in earlier
`copolymer 1 studies.” This reaction was sporadic
`and unpredictable, occurred within minutes of an in-
`jection, and was characterized by a variable combina-
`
`AMNEAL
`
`EXHIBIT NO. 1018 Page 5
`
` AMNEAL
`
`

`
`Table 7. Incidence of transient self-limited
`systemic reactions
`
`Copolymer 1
`(ll - 135)
`n
`%
`
`Placebo
`(11 I 123)
`n
`%
`
`16
`
`Systemic reaction
`Primary symptoms
`Fluhing without chest pain
`Chest pain without flushing
`Both chest pain and flushing
`Secondary symptoms
`Palpitation
`Anxiety
`Dyspnea
`
`19
`
`15.2
`
`3
`6
`7
`
`6
`2
`
`3.2
`
`4
`
`2
`2
`0
`
`Table 8. Number of episodes of transient self-
`limited systemic reactions experienced per patient
`over 2 years
`
`Placebo
`(n I 123)
`%
`
`n
`
`3.2
`
`No. episodes’
`
`Copolymer 1
`(11 3 125)
`%
`
`8.0
`3.2
`2.4
`0.8
`0.8
`
`* Over an average of 680 injections.
`
`Discussion. This large multicenter trial success-
`fully confirmed the findings of an earlier pilot trial‘
`showing that daily s.c. injections of 20 mg of copoly-
`mer 1 significantly reduced the relapse rate in re-
`lapsing-remitting MS patients. In addition, re-
`peated-measures analysis of the mean EDSS scores
`showed significant differences in disability between
`the treatment groups in favor of those receiving
`copolymer 1. Finally, the benign patient tolerance
`profile of earlier trials was maintained.
`The difierence in mean relapse rate was the pri-
`mary end point in this 2-year study. Very few re-
`lapses were not confirmed by the examining neu-
`rologist within 7 days of onset of symptoms (as
`mandated in the protocol), so we believe this is a
`true picture of the clinical course experienced by
`these two well-matched groups. The difference in
`mean relapse rate was highly significant (p =
`0.007). This clinical effect persisted through each 6-
`month interval of the study. The observations on
`the median number of days to first relapse and the
`proportion of relapse-free patients, although not
`statistically significant, did show strong trends in
`favor of copolymer 1 therapy.
`Figure 1 shows that patients with low EDSS
`scores at baseline were more likely to have had
`fewer relapses during the trial. A similar finding
`was evident in the copolymer 1 pilot study.‘ Of in-
`
`AMNEAL
`
`EXH11i‘i"i‘li‘1’(")'”."“i’i)‘i°z‘;' “iiiige 6
`
`- CopoIymer1 I: Placebo
`
`54.4 56-0
`
`0O
`
`8 -
`
`AO
`
`0)O
`
`N0
`
`j
`
`oo
`
`§'
`
`2 § ic
`
`
`(Baselinevsconclusion)
`
`Improved Nochange Worse
`
`Change in EDSS 21
`
`Figure 2. Percent ofpatients who improved, were
`unchanged, or were worse by one or more EDSS steps
`between baseline and the last (24-month) measurement
`(repeated-measures ANCOVAJ. The numbers above the
`bars represent the percent ofpatients in the respective
`copolymer 1 or placebo group.
`
`Table 6. Observations on injection-site changes
`
`
`
`tion of flushing and chest tightness, accompanied at
`times by dyspnea, palpitations, or anxiety. It lasted
`between 30 seconds and 30 minutes, resolved sponta-
`neously without sequelae, and rarely was witnessed
`by medical personnel. It was reported at least once in
`16% of the copolymer 1-treated patients and in 3% of
`those receiving placebo, and was experienced seven
`times at most in any patient treated with copolymer
`1 and once in any patient receiving placebo (table 8).
`This reaction resulted in discontinuation of therapy
`by four patients in the copolymer 1 group and one in
`the placebo group. Other adverse events occurred ap-
`proximately equally in the copolymer 1- and placebo-
`treated groups.
`Although not an adverse event, pregnancy oc-
`curned in three women during the course of the trial,
`all in the copolymer 1~treated group. One elected to
`have a therapeutic abortion and continue, while two
`withdrew from the trial and delivered normal infants.
`Studies of blood and urine for common metabolic
`changes or hematologic abnormalities showed no dif-
`ferences between groups either at baseline or during
`the trial. ECGs at baseline and at the conclusion of
`the study were unchanged in both groups.
`
` AMNEAL
`
`

`
`terest, there appeared to be a correlation between
`EDSS at baseline and the subsequent relapse expe-
`rience (figure 1). Patients with higher EDSS scores
`at entry may have had more active or virulent MS,
`showing not only more disability at baseline but
`also continued higher relapse activity during the
`course of the trial. This suggests that any large MS
`cohort is rather hetemgeneous and that improved
`methods of patient classification must be found to
`aid in the design of future MS therapy trials.
`The difference in the mean relapse rate between
`groups in this study, although highly significant,
`was less pronounced than in the earlier copolymer
`1 pilot study.‘ The reason for this is unknown, but
`one possible reason may be the obvious difference
`in the patient populations studied. In this investi-
`gation, patients had a lower pre-study fiequency of
`relapses and there were proportionally fewer pa-
`tients at the low end of the EDSS scale. One could
`
`argue that the cohort for this trial was more repre-
`sentative of the majority of relapsing-remitting MS
`populations.
`Now that both copolymer 1 and IFNB-lb’ have
`been shown to positively influence the relapse rate
`in relapsing-remitting MS, it is tempting to com-
`pare the magnitude of effect. The difference be-
`tween the high-dose IFNB-1b group and a placebo
`group was highly significant at the 0.0001 level.
`However, the annual relapse rate for IFNB-lb was
`0.84 whereas in this copolymer 1 study it was 0.59.
`The IFNB-1b high-dose group and the copolymer 1
`groups were of similar size (IFNB-1b = 115 and
`copolymer 1 = 124), yet during 2 years of observa-
`tions, those receiving IFNB-lb experienced 173 re-
`lapses whereas the copolymer 1-treated group ex-
`perienced only 161 relapses. Are such difierences
`due to a different therapeutic effect or to inequali-
`ties in the populations selected for study? Probably
`only improved information on the natural history of
`MS, improved protocol design, and comparison of
`other measures of effect in future studies will an-
`
`swer this question.
`A positive influence on neurologic disability was
`suggested in earlier copolymer 1 clinical studies
`where there were encouraging trends but no signif-
`icant difl'erences.3-9 In the current investigation,
`several methods of analysis, based on the EDSS,
`showed that copolymer 1 had a significant effect on
`neurologic disability even though the patient popu-
`lation was not selected primarily to measure such
`differences. Figure 2 shows evidence of neurologic
`improvement for patients receiving copolymer 1
`whereas patients receiving placebo were more
`likely to be worse (disability defined as a change of
`one or more full steps on the EDSS determined re-
`peatedly between baseline and 24 months; p =
`0.037). In another analysis of repeated measures,
`the mean EDSS, determined at 3-month intervals
`(table 5), was also significantly improved in favor of
`copolymer 1 (p = 0.023). The ability in this trial to
`demonstrate significant therapeutic benefits both
`on the relapse rate and on neurologic disability
`
`1274 NEUROLOGY 45 July 1996
`
`suggests that these two fundamental measures of
`MS activity are linked.
`Two predetermined measures of neurologic dis-
`ability failed to demonstrate significant differences
`between the treatment groups. The proportion of
`patient without sustained progression for 90 or
`more days (EDSS 2 1 step) was similar, 78.4% in
`the copolymer 1 group and 75.4% in the placebo
`group after 2 years (table 5). This is not dissimilar
`to the findings in the IFNB-lb study’ of similar
`size, where 80% of patient receiving the high dose
`and 72% of those receiving placebo were progres-
`sion-free after 3 years when the same definition of
`progression was used. The effect of copolymer 1
`treatment on the ambulation index was also not
`
`significant (table 5). These findings are not surpris-
`ing, in that patients relatively early in the course of
`their MS were selected for both stu

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