throbber
Rapamycin in Experimental Renal Allografts in Primates
`D. st. J. Collier, R.Y. Caine, S.G. Pollard, P.J: Friend, and S. Thiru
`
`WE have reported' that rapamycin, a lipophylic mac(cid:173)
`
`rolide antifungal antibiotic, produced by Strepto(cid:173)
`myces hydroscopiclIs, prolongs survival of rat cardiac
`allografts in a dose-dependent fashion. In the pig renal
`'allograft model, a state of operational tolerance was
`achieved in three of nine animals after dosing at 2 mg/kg
`for up to 64 days following transplantation, and the five
`remaining animals died of the effects of overimmunosup(cid:173)
`pression with functioning grafts. In dogs receiving rap a(cid:173)
`mycin, vomiting and bloody diarrhea associated with ul(cid:173)
`ceration of the gastrointestinal tract and thrombocytopenia
`occurred at doses from 5 to 0.25 mg/kg per day. Histolog(cid:173)
`ical examination of the ulcers showed an underlying ne(cid:173)
`crotising fibrinoid vasculitis of arterioles and small arteries
`similar to that seen in dogs receiving FK 506.
`
`MATERIALS AND METHODS
`
`Renal allografts were performed between nephrectomised young
`outbred baboons with a negative crossmatch selected into pairs on
`the basis of histoincompatibility, using mixed lymphocyte reac(cid:173)
`tions.
`
`Dosing Schedule
`
`Controls (n = 3). No drug administered.
`Group 1 (11 = 4). Rapamycin was given 2 mg/kg orally days -1
`through 9.
`Group 2 (11 = 3). Four hundred sixty-four received rapamycin
`orally 2 mg/kg days -1 to 6, then 2 mg/kg intramuscularly days 7
`to 13, I mg/kg days 14 to 15,0.5 mg/kg days 16 to 19; 739 received
`rapamycin orally 50 mg/kg days 0 to 5, 5 mg/kg days 6 to 7, then
`intravenously I mg/kg days 12 to 15, 17 to 12; 526 received
`rapamycin intravenously 2 mg/kg days 0 to 7, 1 mg/kg days 8 to 11,
`0.5 mg/kg days 12 to 17.
`Group 3 (n = 3). Rapamycin given intravenously 1 mg/kg days
`o to 1, then orally either 25 or 10 mg/kg on alternate days, with
`individualised dose modifications.
`
`RESULTS
`
`In all animals, loss of appetite for formulated diet was
`noted, together with intermittent episodes of vomiting and
`
`Table 1. Survival of and Histological Findings in Baboons
`Receiving Rapamycin Following Renal Allografting
`
`.....
`
`." l
`
`f."I
`Z
`.....
`Z
`(::
`~
`~
`U
`
`::;:l -:
`
`f."I
`Z
`Z
`(::
`~
`f."I
`~
`U
`
`~
`El
`f."I
`Z
`Z
`~
`~
`U
`
`4
`
`2
`
`2
`
`0
`
`-1
`
`2
`
`0
`
`GROUP]
`
`--<>-
`--+--
`
`571
`
`756
`
`-- 596
`
`-<>- 454
`
`·1
`
`0
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9 10
`
`DAY
`
`GROUP 2
`
`-<>--
`---a--
`--+--
`
`464
`739
`526
`
`19
`
`24
`
`29
`
`14
`DAY
`
`GROUP 3
`
`-<>--
`
`474
`
`-- 476
`- 736
`
`-1
`
`4
`
`9
`
`14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49
`DAY
`
`Fig 1. Serum creatinine of baboons given rapamycin after renal
`allografting.
`
`Group
`
`Controls
`1
`2
`3
`
`'Rejection.
`tVasculitis.
`"Granulomatous infection.
`
`2246
`
`Survival in Days
`
`8,9,11
`6*, 7,* 9,t 9t
`25*, 18,t" 25"
`32,*t 36,*t 40*t
`
`From the Departments of Surgery and Pathology, University of
`Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, England.
`Address reprint requests to D. Sl. J. Collier, Departments of
`Surgery and Pathology, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's
`Hospital, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ UK.
`© 1991 by Appleton & Lange
`0041-1345/91/$3.00/+0
`
`Transplantation Proce~dings, Vol 23, No 4 (August), 199j: pp 2246-2247
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2144
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`
`RAPAMYCIN IN RENAL ALLOGRAFTS
`
`2247
`
`diarrhea. The survival of animals is shown in Table 1 and
`the serum creatinine in Fig 1. In group 1, two animals
`developed severe rejection in a time similar to that found in
`controls. The remaining animal was -killed because of
`severe vomiting and collapse, had moderate focal rejection
`and fibrinoid vasculitis affecting the gut. In group 2, two
`animals were killed because they became lethargic and
`unwell, both had granulomatous infection but no rejection;
`however, one had a vasculitis affecting the gut. The third
`animal developed very painful injection sites, dosing was
`withdrawn, and death from rejection occurred. In group 3,
`all three animals showed evidence of toxicity with leth(cid:173)
`argy, vomiting, and diarrhea, and even a small dose
`reduction of 1 mg/kg lead to irreversible rejection; all
`showed evidence of vasculitis affecting the gut.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The results of the pig are encouraging-in three animals, a
`state of operational tolerance appeared to develop, further(cid:173)
`more, rapamycin seemed effective in the rat with few side
`effects. Rapamycin was immunosuppressive in the ba(cid:173)
`boon, but the development of vasculitis in the baboon
`similar to that seen in the dog, is of concern as thi~
`phenomenon can no longer be described as species spe(cid:173)
`cific. Further toxicology and the development of an assay
`must precede clinical trials.
`
`REFERENCE
`1. Caine RY, Collier DS, Lim S, et al: Lancet ii:227, 1989
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2144
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 2 of 2

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