`
`1
`
`H2 blockers increase risk of
`docetaxel-induced skin toxicity
`
`[histamine
`Premedication with H2 blockers
`H2 receptor antagonists] in patients with breast cancer
`who receive docetaxel appears to be associated with an
`increased
`risk of erythrodysaesthesia and
`facial
`erythema, according to results of a study presented at
`the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical
`Oncology.
`from
`data
`collected
`researchers
`Japanese
`22 institutions regarding the occurrence of grade 2 or
`higher erythrodysaesthesia and facial erythema among
`patients treated with docetaxel for breast cancer;
`patients were treated between April 2007 and March
`2008.
`Overall, the researchers identified 989 patients, most
`of whom had received docetaxel 75 mg/m2. Of these,
`852 patients had received docetaxel monotherapy and
`137 patients had received docetaxel in combination with
`capecitabine or other chemotherapeutic agents. A total
`of 204 patients received H2 blockers and these patients
`incidences
`of
`higher
`significantly
`had
`erythrodysaesthesia
`(19.6% vs 8.8%) and
`facial
`erythema (14.2% vs 3.7%), compared with those who
`did not receive H2 blockers. Patients who received
`docetaxel combination therapy had higher, but not
`significant, incidences of erythrodysaesthesia (30.2%
`vs 17.3%) and facial erythema (20.3% vs 12.0%),
`compared with docetaxel monotherapy recipients.
`
`Kawaguchi K, et al. Correlation between docetaxel-induced skin toxicity and the
`use of steroids and H2 blockers: a multi-institution survey. 45th Annual Meeting of
`the American Society of Clinical Oncology : 492s abstr. 9536, 31 May 2009.
`Available from: URL: http://www.abstract.asco.org
`801144289
`
`0114-9954/10/1257-0001/$14.95 2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved
`
`Reactions 20 Jun 2009 No. 1257
`
`AVENTIS EXHIBIT 2227
`Mylan v. Aventis IPR2016-00712
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
