throbber
Local Cyclosporine Therapy for Experimental
`
`Autoimmune Uveitis in Rats
`
`Robert B. Nussenblatt, MD; William J. Dinning, FRCS, MRCP; Leslie S. Fujikawa, MD;
`Chi-Chan Chan, MD; Alan G. Palestine, MD
`
`0 The use of locally applied cyclospo-
`rine was investigated in the retinal S-
`antigen-induced experimental
`autoim-
`mune uveitis (EAU) model in Lewis rats. A
`2% cyclosporine solution applied topical-
`ly four times a day for 14 days effectively
`prevented the expression of EAU. This
`treatment. however, produced circulating
`cyclosporine levels in the therapeutic
`range. Lower concentrations of cyclospo-
`rine applied topically did not produce
`therapeutic levels and were not capable
`ol reliably preventing disease. lntraocular
`levels of cyclosporine, measured by
`radioimmunoassay, were extremely low
`and outside the accepted therapeutic
`range.
`lntravitreal cyclosporine therapy
`appeared to protect eyes from EAU, with-
`out
`producing
`significant
`circulating
`cyCIosporine levels. These findings show
`that, In Its present form. cyclosporlne In
`oil is not an efficacious topical therapy.
`Therefore, a local cyclosporine prepara-
`tion with enhanced penetration into the
`globe may be a practical approach to
`therapy in the future.
`(Arch Ophthalmol
`1562)
`
`1985;103:1559-
`
`Experimental autoimmune uveitis
`(EAU) can be dependably induced
`by immunization of lower mammals
`and nonhuman primates with the ret-
`inal S antigen."2 This model has many
`characteristics
`similar
`to certain
`human uveitic conditions.2 The immu-
`nopathology, localized to the eye and,
`in some species, to the pineal gland,3
`appears
`to
`be T-cell mediated,‘
`although the susceptibility of various
`Accepted for publication June 10, 1986.
`From the Clinical Branch, National Eye Insti-
`tute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,
`Md.
`Reprint requests to National Eye Institute,
`National Institutes of Health, Bldg 10, Room
`10N222, Bethesda, MD 20205 (Dr Nussenblatt).
`
`inbred strains is related to the choroi-
`dal mast cell numbers.5 We have pre-
`viously reported the effective abroga—
`tion of the disease manifestations of
`this animal model with systemically
`administered cyclosporine,6 an agent
`with unique anti—T-cell characteris-
`tics.7 Further, we have also reported
`the beneficial effect of cyclosporine in
`the treatment of severe intermediate
`and posterior endogenous uveitis in
`patients who had failed to respond to
`corticosteroid
`and/or
`cytotoxic
`agents.8 The systemic administration
`of this agent is associated with well-
`recognized adverse reactions, with
`renal toxic eflects and hypertension
`being the most common serious com-
`plications noted in our patients.9 We
`present herein our experience in the
`topical and intracameral administra-
`tion of cyclosporine in Lewis rats, its
`effect on the development of experi-
`mental autoimmune uveitis, and its
`penetration into the eye.
`MATERIALS AND METHODS
`
`Female Lewis rats, each 6 weeks of age
`and weighing approximately 200 g, were
`used for this series of experiments. Ani-
`mals receiving topical and systemic medi-
`cations were immunized in both hind foot
`pads with a total of 50 ug of bovine S
`antigen, prepared as described elsewhere,”
`mixed with an equal portion of complete
`Freund's adjuvant augmented with H37
`Mycobacterium tuberculosis to a concen‘
`tration of 25 mg/mL. Animals receiving
`intracameral cyclosporine therapy were
`immunized with 30 pg of bovine S antigen
`prepared and mixed in the same fashion as
`above.
`
`Cyclosporine Therapy
`Topical Therapy.—A 2% cyclosporine
`solution in olive oil was the stock solution.
`Lower concentrations of the drug were
`obtained by diluting the stock solution
`
`with olive oil. Animals were treated topi-
`cally with 2%, 1%, 0.5%, and 0.2% cyclo-
`sporine. The frequency of administration
`and whether both eyes or only one eye were
`treated are mentioned in Table 1. For the
`determination of cyclosporine penetration
`into the eye, only one drop (50 uL) of the
`concentrations tested was placed onto the
`eye.
`lntracameral Administration—Using the
`stock 2% cyclosporine solution, 40 pL (800
`ng) was injected intravitreally 11 days
`after S—antigen immunization. Other rats
`received intravitreal olive oil. This was
`performed using the operating room
`microscope for visualization and a 30-
`gauge needle.
`re—
`Systemic Administration—Animals
`ceived 10 mg/kg/day of cyclosporine intra-
`muscularly for 14 days. Cyclosporine pene~
`tration into the eye was evaluated by freez-
`ing the tested eyes for immunofiuorescent
`staining or for dissection of
`the inner
`contents in order to obtain cyclosporine
`levels. Cryostat sections, 4 pm thick, of
`eyes were washed with phosphate-buffered
`saline and incubated in a moist chamber
`for 30 minutes at room temperature with
`sheep anticyclosporine antibody (1:2) fol-
`lowed by fluoresceinated rabbit anti-sheep
`IgG (1:10). Washed sections were mounted
`in polyvinyl alcohol resin and viewed with
`an epi—illumination fluorescence micro—
`scope (Leitz). Eyes were frozen after enu-
`cleation at the level of the pars plana. and
`the intraocular contents (lens, vitreous,
`retina, and choroid) were then extruded.
`These were homogenized in 1 mL of 95%
`alcohol, spun at 2,000 rpm for ten minutes
`at 4 °C. The soluble fraction was then
`assayed for its cyclosporine content using a
`radioimmunoassay.
`
`Grading of Ocular
`Inflammatory Disease
`This was performed in a masked fashion
`using a modification of the grading system
`described by Wacker and associates,”
`which was for guinea pigs. In this system
`for the evaluation of posterior segment
`disease in the rat, the grading is as follows:
`
`Arch Ophthalmol—Vol 103. Oct 1985
`
`Cyclosporine for Uveitis—Nussenblali et al
`
`1559
`
`Downloaded From: http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?urI=/data/journaIs/ophth/l7965/ by a Infotrieve Inc User on 06/19/2017
`1
`
`ALL 2077
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`|PR2016-01128
`
`1
`
`ALL 2077
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01128
`
`

`

`Initiation and
`Duration of Treatment
`After S-Antigen
`Immunization
`
`Treatment Schedule
`and % of Cyclosporlne
`Solution
`
`" Tablé‘iLtV.—C‘yclossporineTherapy
`
`EAU‘
`
`‘
`
`Statistical
`Significancet
`
`e ililo .Traatmont
`0 I 8 (2 .95)§
`i can: em frosted‘iflthm Injection
`8/8 (0)
`‘ 7.6mm) #00 Treated-With Drops
`
`7/3 (1)
`
`4/6 (1.6)
`
`4/8 (2.75)
`4/8 (1.75)
`0/6 (2.9)
`
`olive oil
`
`None (control)
`
`V
`
`‘
`
`(Untreated
`
`L
`
`i
`
`_.
`'
`._‘Qr§up B: at} Only Treated Witnsbrops _
`
`.
`.
`t
`4/5 (1)
`4/5 (1‘)
`
`3/4 (2)
`3/4 (2)
`
`1/4 (2.7)
`1/4 (3.3)
`Days 7-14
`0/4 (3.0)
`0/4 (3.4)
`2/4 (2)
`2/4 (2)
`.
`.
`,
`arm 6: Intravitvoal Injection in' on Only '
`,
`.
`.
`4/4 (3.5)
`6/8 (0.75)
`3/3 (2.5)
`
`1 / 8 (2.6)
`
`Vitreous puncture wulh
`
`‘ Abbreviations are as follows: EAU, experimentat autoimmune uveitis; NS. not significant; IM, intramuscular; qd, every day; qid. four times a day; bid, twice a day; OD,
`right eye: 05. left eye; 0U. both eyes.
`fValues given are number of normal eyes/total number of eyes.
`#One-tailed Fisher's exact test performed. For systemic therapy and group A, treatment groups compared with untreated group. For groups B and C. comparisons are
`made between right and left eyes.
`§lnflarnn1atory index (see text).
`
`0, no evidence of inflammatory disease;
`trace (0.5+), architecture of retina grossly
`intact. Areas of focal destruction were 1+,
`focal areas of destruction with marked
`dropout of photoreceptors; 2+, small exu-
`dative retinal detachment with larger
`destruction, mild to moderate number of
`cells in vitreous; 3+, retinal architecture
`beginning to be lost, larger cxudative reti—
`nal detachment, moderate to large number
`of cells in vitreous; and 4+, total destruc—
`tion of retinal architecture.
`RESULTS
`
`The results of topical cyclosporine
`therapy can be seen in Table 1. All
`animals were killed 14 days after
`immunization. Good protection from
`the manifestation of EAU could be
`obtained by treating both eyes of rats
`four times a day for 14 days with a.
`topical solution containing 20 mg/mL
`of cyclosporine beginning on the day
`of immunization. Serum samples tak-
`en from these rats four hours after
`topical cyclosporine instillation, how-
`ever, dcmonstrated high circulating
`cyclosporine levels,
`the mean being
`285 ng/mL. A lower concentration of
`the
`topical
`cyclosporine
`solution
`(0.5%) was capable of protecting
`many eyes treated, if begun on the day
`of immunization, while the 2 mg/mL
`(0.2%) solution was less effective and
`a higher
`inflammatory index was
`noted. To further evaluate the poten-
`
`local effect of cyclosporine on
`tial
`EAU, some rats were treated topically
`only in the right eye. Animals receiv-
`ing drops to one eye appeared to have
`only partial protection. The animals
`receiving a 2% solution twice a day
`for 14 days only to the right eye had a
`mean cyclosporine plasma level of 108
`ng/mL. At lower concentrations pro-
`tection was not consistently ob-
`served.
`The efficacy of topical cyclosporine
`therapy appeared to be considerably
`less when begun seven days after S-
`antigen
`immunization
`if
`topical
`cyclosporine
`concentrations were
`those that did not result in consistent-
`ly detectable circulating levels. Intra-
`vitreal injection of 800 pg of cyclospo-
`rine 11 days after S-antigen immuni-
`zation appeared to alter the expres-
`sion of EAU (Table 1)
`in the eye
`receiving the cyclosporine. In a series
`of experiments in which cyclosporine
`was placed only in one eye, the treated
`eye manifested no disease or only
`minimum inflammatory changes with
`retention of the retinal architecture
`(Fig 1,
`left),
`in contrast with the
`untreated eye, where inflammation
`was seen (Fig 1, right). Mean circulat-
`ing plasma cyclosporine levels three
`hours after injection into the vitreous
`were 60 ng/mL, while at four hours
`the levels were low (26 i 8 ng/mL).
`
`Serum cyclosporine levels were not
`detectable at the time of death three
`days after instillation, however, sug-
`gesting that a local therapeutic effect
`had taken place.
`The intraocular contents of cyclo-
`sporine—treated eyes were evaluated
`for the presence of cyclosporine using
`two routes of administration (Table
`2). The topical application of one drop
`of cyclosporine at two concentrations
`led to levels in the intraocular con-
`tents of those eyes that were extreme-
`ly low, indeed at the level approaching
`the sensitivity of the radioimmunoas-
`say. Somewhat higher concentrations
`were noted when one drop of the 20
`mg/mL (2%) solution was used as
`opposed to the 2 mg/mL (0.2%) prepa-
`ration.
`A dose-response curve was obtained
`with the instillation of 80 or 800 pg of
`cyclosporine intracamerally. Poten-
`tially significant
`therapeutic levels
`were still found in the eye several
`days after the injection of the higher
`amount.
`staining of
`Immunofluorescence
`sections of eyes
`receiving topical
`cyclosporine demonstrates a clear
`pattern (Fig 2). The corneal epitheli—
`um appears to stain brightly within a
`few minutes of cyclosporine applica-
`tion. Staining of the internal struc-
`tures of the eye was insignificant.
`
`1560
`
`Arch OphthalmoI—Vol 103, Oct 1985
`
`Cyclosporine for Uveitis—Nussenblall et al
`
`Downloaded From: http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?urI=/data/journaIs/ophth/l7965/ by a Infotricvc Inc User on 06/19/2017
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`f:
`
`
`Fig 1_—Left, Right eye of Lewis rat that received 800 ug of cyclosporine intravitreally 1 1 days after S—antigen immunization. At 14
`days after immunization, retinal architecture is grossly intact. Only occasional inflammatory cells in anterior chamber,
`iris, and
`vitreous are visible. Right, Left eye of same rat as in Fig 1. left. This eye received no therapy. At 14 days, severe anterior and
`posterior inflammatory response is evident, with destruction of retinal architecture (X90).
`
`
`
`
`
`Table 2.—Ftat Vitreous Cyclosporine Leveis Alter Local Administration ,
`Cyclosporine Levels in Vitreous Alter Application,‘
`mg/mL
`
`
`/———A—--—
`Cyclosporlne
`98 hr
`
`1hr
`
`
`
`4 hr
`24 hr
`48 hr
`Administration
`197 7
`
`
`
`Topical
`2% solution
`
`
`33 3
`
`
`0 2% solution
`3
`
`
`390
`ND
`600 pg
`lntravitreal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`'Mean of at least four eyes per group.
`tND indicates not done.
`
`Faint staining of the iris, ciliary body,
`and retina was seen in some sections
`one to four hours after topical instilla—
`tion. No increase in the staining pat-
`tern, however, could be observed with
`time. Of
`interest was the intense
`staining of the posterior sclera.
`COMMENT
`
`We report herein that the effective
`control of EAU can be accomplished
`by the
`topical
`administration of
`cyclosporine in doses adequate to
`produce significant plasma levels. The
`systemic administration of cyclospo-
`rine effectively prevented the mani-
`festations of EAU, even after cells
`
`immunoreactive to the S antigen can
`be demonstrated.“ These animal stud-
`ies and human studies both suggest
`that the efi’erent arm of the immune
`system was particularly affected. The
`question as to whether local adminis-
`tration of cyclosporine would affect
`ocular inflammation raises not only
`practical but also theoretic considera-
`tions.
`Cyclosporine appears to interrupt
`T—cell activation at an early point at a
`state of antigen presentation.’ Dos
`Reis and Shevach,” in an in vitro
`model using guinea pigs, demonstrat-
`ed that cyclosporine appeared to block
`IL-2 production and responsiveness
`
`localization of
`Fig 2.——tmmunotluorescent
`cyclosporine in cornea 30 minutes after topi-
`cal application of 2% solution. Corneal epithe-
`lium stained brightly (X200).
`
`Arch Ophthalmol—Vol 103, Oct 1985
`
`Cyclosporine for Uveitiszussenblatt et al
`
`1561
`
`Downloaded From: http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?urI=/data/journaIs/ophth/l7965/ by a Infotrieve Inc User on 06/19/2017
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`and, depending on the stage of the T
`cell, appeared to directly block the
`induction of IL-2 receptors. The addi-
`tion of exogenous IL-2 was variable in
`its capacity to overcome cyclosporine
`inhibition, this depending on the T—
`cell stimulus as well as the stage of
`the differentiation. Further, Kauf-
`mann and colleagues,” employing
`hybridomas devoid of functional IL-2
`receptors
`in
`an in vitro system,
`obtained
`results
`suggesting
`that
`cyclosporine action on T cells could be
`through the interference of antigen
`binding to antigen receptors, with a
`resultant blockade of the lymphokine
`cascade. Further, it has been shown
`that T cells bearing IL—2 receptors are
`relatively immune from the effects of
`cyclosporine.7
`We surmised that effective control
`of severe ocular inflammation by sys-
`temically administered cyclosporine
`was due to a central effect of the
`agent, but primarily on the efferent
`arm of the immune response. We have
`reported the presence of intraocular T
`cells bearing the TAC (IL-2) recep-
`tor,” a sign of T-cell activation. We
`therefore suggested that in endoge-
`nous uveitis a rather rapid influx of
`immunoreactive cells into the eye was
`occurring, therefore making it possi-
`ble for cyclosporine to rapidly inter-
`rupt
`the cycle of
`immune recruit-
`ment.
`The effectiveness of intracameral
`cyclosporine
`administration would
`suggest that the final activation of the
`recruited T cells may be a local (ocu—
`lar) phenomenon. This could explain
`the profound inflammatory ocular
`response one can observe with little
`evidence of a systemic one in many
`uveitic conditions. Another potential
`mechanism may be
`cyclosporine's
`effect on ocular tissue involved in the
`localization to the eye of the immune
`response. It has now been demon—
`strated that the localized expression
`of Ia on vascular endothelial cells is
`associated with T-cell—mediated dis—
`orders, such as experimental allergic
`encephalomyelitis." Since y-interfer-
`on is the most effective natural stimu-
`lant for Ia expression, it is possible
`that cyclosporine’s prevention of the
`release of lymphokines from T cells
`might alter the continued expression
`of Ia on the ocular vascular endotheli-
`um,
`thereby interrupting the pro-
`posed “homing” mechanism of immu-
`
`noreactive cells to a site of inflamma-
`tion.
`staining
`immunofluorescent
`The
`deserves
`comment. This
`pattern
`that
`cyclosporine
`quickly
`showed
`coated the corneal epithelium. The
`presence of cyclosporine intraocularly
`after
`topical application, however,
`was minimal at best. Weak staining of
`the iris and retina could be seen on
`occasion, but this was not the case for
`all eyes. This observation was sup-
`ported by the use of the radioimmuno—
`assay, which also failed to detect sig-
`nificant intraocular levels of cyclospo-
`rine. We do know from our human
`experience that cyclosporine can be
`detected in the eye after systemic
`administration,” but these observa-
`tions were made in eyes with a nonins
`tact blood-aqueous barrier. It may be
`that the lipophilic structure of cyclo-
`sporine does not permit
`it
`ready
`access into the eye. Our findings sup-
`port those observed by Mosteller and
`colleagues.‘6 They noted that cyclospo-
`rine collected in high concentrations
`in the
`rabbit
`cornea, while
`low
`amounts were measured in the aque-
`ous humor. This lack of penetration
`would explain our inability to reliably
`protect rats from EAU with topical
`cyclosporine therapy.
`As we have noted, topical therapy
`seemed predictably effective only if
`Serum cyclosporine
`levels
`entered
`what
`is considered the therapeutic
`range of 50 to 300 ng/mL. Although
`this observation would support
`the
`notion that the action of cyclosporine
`is central, the subsequent finding that
`intracameral cyclospOrine effectively
`protected the eye in which it was
`injected raises the possibility of a
`peripheral effect as well. The levels in
`the eye receiving cyclosporine indi’
`cated a
`therapeutically acceptable
`range. Therefore,
`locally
`applied
`cyclosporine may potentially be useful
`in certain human uveitic conditions,
`particularly those endogenous disor-
`ders with no systemic associations.
`The need for greater drug penetration
`into the eye, however, still has to be
`addressed. It may be that a change in
`the vehicle, such as to liposomes, may
`permit a higher concentration of
`cyclosporine to enter the eye. The
`development of this methodology will
`permit the testing of many theoretic
`considerations and will also be of
`practical import.
`
`The cyclosporine and radioimmunoassay used
`in this investigation were supplied by Sandoz,
`Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
`
`References
`
`1. Nussenblatt RB, Gery I, Wacker WB: Exper-
`imental autoimmune uveitis: Cellular immune
`responsiveness.
`Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
`1980;19:686-690.
`2. Nussenblatt RB, Kuwabara T, deMonasterio
`FM, et al: S—antigen uveitis in primates: A new
`model
`for human disease. Arr]? Ophthalmol
`1981;99:1090-1092.
`3. Mochizuki M, Nussenblatt RB, Charley J, et
`a]: Involvement of the pineal gland in rats with
`experimental autoimmune uveitis. Invest Oph-
`lemol Vis Sci 1983;24:1333-1338.
`4. Salinas-Carmona MC, Nussenblatt RB,
`Gary 1: Experimental autoimmune uveitis in the
`athymis nude rat. Br J Immunol 1982;12:480-
`484.
`5. Mochizuki M, Kuwabara T, Chan CC, et al: A
`correlation between susceptibility to experimen—
`tal autoimmune uveitis and choroidal mast cells.
`J Immunol 1984;133:1699-1701.
`6. Nussenbiatt RB, Rodrigues MM, Wacker
`WB, et a1; Cyclosporin A: Inhibition of experi-
`mental autoimmune uveitis in Lewis rats. J Clin
`Invest 1981;67:1228—1231.
`7. Bore] JF, Lafierty KJ: Cyclosporine: Specu~
`lotion about its mechanism of action. Transplant
`Proc 1983;15:1881-1885.
`8. Nussenblatt RB, Palestine AG, Chan CC:
`Cyclosporin A therapy in the treatment of intra-
`ocular inflammatory disease resistant to system-
`ic corticosteroids and cytotoxic agents, Am J
`Uphtlmlmol 1983;96:275—282.
`9. Palestine AG, Nussenblatt RB, Chan CC:
`Side effects of systemic cyclosporine in nontrans»
`plant patients. Am J Med 1984;77:652-656.
`10. Wacker WB, Donoso LA, Kalsow CM, et al:
`Experimental allergic uveitis: Isolation, charac»
`terization, and localization of a soluble uveito-
`pathogenic antigen from bovine retina. Jimmy.—
`nol 1977;119:1949-1958.
`11. Dos Reis GA, Shevach EM: Effect of
`cyclosporin A on T cell function in vitro: The
`mechanism of suppression of T cell proliferation
`depends on the nature of the T cell stimulus as
`well as the differentiation state of the respond-
`ing T cell. J Immunol 1982;102:2360—2367.
`12. Kaufmann Y, Chang AE, Robb RJ, Et al:
`Mechanism of action of cyclosporin A: Inhibition
`of lymphokine secretion studied with antigen,
`stimulated T cell hybridomas. J Immzmol
`1984;133:3107-3111.
`’
`13. Nussenblatt RB. Palestine AG, El-Saied M,
`et al: Long-term antigen-specific and non-specif-
`ic T-cell lines and clones in uveitis. Curr Fly? Res
`1984;23:299—305.
`14. Sobel RA, Calvin RE: The immunopatholo-
`gy of experimental allergic encephalomyelitis
`(EAE):
`III. Differential
`in situ expression of
`strain 13 la on endothelial and inflammatory
`cells of (strain 2 X strain 13)F, guinea pigs With
`EAE. J Immunol 1984;134:2333-2337.
`15. Palestine AG, Nussenblatt RB, Chan CC:
`Cyclosporine penetration into the anterior cham—
`ber and ccrebrospinal fluid. Am J Ophthalmol
`1985391210211.
`16. Mosteller MW, Gebhardt BM, Hamilton
`AM, et al: Penetration of topical cyclosporine
`into the rabbit cornea, aqueous humor, and
`serum. Arch Ophthalmol 19851032101402.
`
`1562
`
`Arch OphthalmoI—Vol 103. Oct 1985
`
`Cyclosporine for Uveiiis—Nussenblafl et al
`
`Downloaded From: http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?urI=/data/jnurnaIs/ophtll/l7965/ by a Infotrieve Inc User on 06/19/2017
`4
`
`4
`
`

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