throbber
normal in post-secretin volume and maximum bicarbonate
`concentration, with a decrease in amylase output. Although
`the biliary juice in post—cerulein fractions did not contain
`G ltlrestirialis, post—secretin pancreatic juice contained lots of
`the protozoa. The patient was treated with 750 mg three
`times daily of metronidazolc for 7 days. The CST after
`treatment was normal and no giardia was found in any
`fraction
`of duodenal
`juice. Ultras-onography
`showed
`reduction of the cyst size after treatment.
`To our knowledge, there has been no previous report of
`pancreatic infection with giardia, but
`the mechanism of
`diarrhoea and rnalabsorption in giardiasis has been explained
`by decreased pancreatic function,‘ which has been shown to
`be secondary to the inhibitory effect of giardia on trypsin3
`and lipase’ by in-villa studies. In our case, diabetes might
`have predisposed to an immunocompromised state or severe
`diabctic neuropathy might have affected the tone of Oddi’s
`sphincter to allow infection with the protozoa.
`
`*ltsuro Nakano, Toshihiko Miyahara. Tetsuhide lto,
`Yoshikatsu Mfg.-‘ta. Hajime Nawata
`Third Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine. Kyushu University.
`Fukuoka 812. Japan
`
`] Gupta RK, Mehta S. Giardiasis in childhood: a study of pancreatic
`functions. Im'1'.mt_7d/led Res 1973; 61: 743-48.
`2 Seow F, Katelaris P, Ngu M. The effect of Giardia Iamblia trophozoitcs
`on u-ypsin, chymotrypsin and amylase in virro. Parasitology» 1993; 106:
`233-38.
`
`3 Katclaris T’, Scow F, Ngu M. The effect of Giardia lamb-Ea trophozoites
`on lipolysis in oftro. Parasitology 1991; 103: 35499.
`
`Response to specific anti-oestrogen
`(lcl182780) in tamoxifen-resistant breast
`cancer
`
`SIR—l-lowell and colleagues’ data (Jan 7, p 29) on the novel
`steroidal antieoestrogen are encouraging. However, the cited
`response rate of 13/9 (69%), albeit striking, should be
`interpreted with care in relation to other published data.
`First, although there are biological and clinical arguments to
`include patients with 6 months of no change with objective
`responders, this approach is uncommon. Second, the group
`of patients that they selected for treatment would generally
`be regarded as favourable in relation to treatment with a
`second—line agent such as an arornatase inhibitor.
`We have reanalysed the response rate of our two phase UII
`studies‘-9 of two new triazole aromatase inhibitors (vorozolc
`and lctrozole), which are potent suppressants of plasma
`oestrogen concentrations in postmenopausal patients. In this
`reanalysis we have included only patients who fitted Howell
`and co-workers’ entry criteria. Thus, patients were excluded
`if they had received chemotherapy in addition to tamoxifen,
`failed on adiuvant
`tamoxifen after
`less
`than 2 years
`treatment, or showed intrinsic resistance to tamoxifen in the
`metastatic setting. We have also included patients with no
`change for 6 months in the group of responders.
`6 of 21 and 12 of 24 patients were acceptable for this
`reanalysis
`from the
`letrozolc
`and
`vorozolc
`studies,
`respectively. There were 5 and 9 responders, respectively,
`giving a combined response rate of 78% (14/18), which is
`clearly not significantly different.’ from that with the new anti-
`oesn-ogen. The response rate cited in each of the original
`papers without
`this selection was 33% (7/21 and 8/24,
`rflspcctively). Also in accord with Howell and colleagues’
`findings, several of our patients’ responses were of prolonged
`duration (for >21 months in 5 of 14).
`The new anti—oestrogen looks likely to be more effective
`than the other mixed agonist/antagonist
`toremifene.
`It
`
`THE LANCET
`
`remains to be seen whether it will be more effective than
`other non-steroidal anti-oestrogens with less agonist activity
`than tamoxifen or toremifene, such as idoxifene.’ Our data
`suggest that it may not be substantially more effective in
`terms of response rate than aromatase inhibitors, with which
`it
`is conceptually similar in its pure deprivation of the
`oestrogcnic signal.
`
`*M Dowsett, S R DJohnston, T J lveson. I E Smith
`Bteast Unit. Royal Marsden NHS Trust. London SW3 SJJ. UK
`
`1
`
`2
`
`lvcson T], Smim IE, Ahern ], Smithers DA, Trunet P, Dowsett M.
`Phase I study of oral ammatasc inhibitor CGS2026'i' in
`postmenopausal patients with breast cancer. Cancer Res 1993; 53;
`2o6—70.
`Johnston SRD, Smith IE, Doody D, Jacobs 3, Robenshaw H,
`Dowsett M. The clinical and endocrine efibcts of the oral aromatase
`inhibitor vorozole in posttnenopausal patients with advanced breast
`cancer. Cancer Res 1994; 54: 5875-81.
`3 Chander SK, Newton C, Mccague R, Dowsen M, Luqrnani Y,
`Coornbes RC. Pyrrolodine-4~iodotarnoxifen and 4-i()Clt)tatTlOXif¢2l'J., new
`analogues of the antiocstrogen tamoxifen for the treatment of breast
`cancer. Cancer Res 199]; 51: 5851-58.
`
`Budd-Chlatl syndrome and factor V Leiden
`mutation
`
`syndrome is characterised by hepatic
`SIR—Budd—Chiari
`venous outflow obstruction. Although rnyeloproliferative
`diseases
`are usually responsible for
`this obstruction,‘
`deficient or abnormal inhibitors of the haemostatic system,
`antithromhin III, protein C, and protein S, and anti‘
`phospholipid antibodies can be involved. A defect
`in
`anticoagulant response to activated protein C (APC) is a
`new mechanism for
`thromhophiliai The anticoagulant
`function of APC lies in its capacity to inactivate coagulation
`co—facto1's Va and Vllla. APC resistance is linked to a single
`basepair mutation on the factor V gene,
`resulting in
`Arg‘°“—»Gln substitution in the APC cleavage site and
`characterising factor V Leiden.“
`in
`admitted
`A 2l~year~old
`trisomic woman was
`November, 1994, with fulminant hepatic failure, ascites, and
`peripheral oedema. Aspartate arninoo-ansferase was 8745
`UL, prothrombin time 34 s (normal 12), fibrinc-gen 0-65
`g/L, and D dimers 3-~2 ugfml. (normal EEO-4 pgfmL}. 2 years
`before, she had had an ilio-femoral thrombosis and bilateral
`pulmonary embolism. At that time, protein C, antithroinbin
`1H,
`and antiphospholipid antibodies were normal or
`negative, but
`free protein S was low at 46% (normal
`65-120). She had been treated with unfractionated heparin,
`followed by vitamin K antagonists for 6 months.
`occluded
`Hepatic
`doppler
`ultrasonography
`showed
`hepatic veins and Budd-Chiari syndrome was histologically
`confirmed. The patient was treated with low-n'1olecular-
`weight heparin (Enoxaparin) and then with vitamin K
`antagonists when prothrombin time reached about l5 s, and
`she was discharged. Coagulation studies would not have
`been informative because of
`the severe hepatoccllular
`insufficiency. We therefore examined the family although
`there was no familial history of thrombosis. The father,
`mother, and two brothers did not have deficiency in
`antithrombin III, proteins C or S, or plasrninogen.
`Resistance
`to AFC,
`assessed by the APC-dependent
`prolongation of the activated partial thromboplastin time,2
`was found in the mother (ratio Zvll, normal 2-48-3-66).
`DNA analysis was done with [Mull digestion of amplified
`factor V DNA fragment.’ Both our patient and her mother
`were heterozygous for the Arg"°“—9Gln mutation.
`The deficiency of free protein S seen previously seems to
`have been acquired, since it was not detected in the family.
`
`Vol 345 ' February 25, 1995
`
`525
`
`Astraleneca Ex. 2038 p. 1
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. V. Astraleneca AB IPR2016-01325

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