throbber
Letters to the Editor
`
`Disorders of Iron Metabolism
`
`Lack of correlation between iron overload
`cardiac dysfunction and needle liver biopsy iron
`concentration
`
`In 58 patients with transfusion dependent ane-
`mia, we compared cardiac function, as assessed by
`gated pooled cardiac scan at rest and during exer-
`cise stress, with liver iron concentrations (LIC) as
`determined by adequate biopsy samples. There
`was no relationship between LIC and cardiac func-
`tion and deaths occurred in patients with LIC lev-
`els below those that are usually associated with
`cardiac death. LIC should not be used as a surro-
`gate to determine risk of cardiac complications but
`purely for management of the hepatic iron load.
`Other methods, particularly magnetic resonance
`imaging, should be used to assess cardiac iron
`overload.
`
`haematologica 2005; 90:685-686
`
`(http://www.haematologica.org/journal/2005/5/685.html)
`
`In transfused thalassemia patients, liver iron concentra-
`tion (LIC) is said to reflect total iron body load.1
`Assessments by liver biopsy were regarded as the gold
`standard, despite problems with heterogeneity of iron dis-
`tribution and the small size of samples. LIC levels between
`7-15 mg/g dry weight are reported to indicate an increased
`risk of iron related toxicity and levels >15 mg/g dry weight
`a significant risk of fatal cardiomyopathy.2 A table has
`been proposed to indicate these risks.3
`Radionuclide ventriculography (MUGA scan) is a repro-
`ducible and accurate technique that measures resting left
`ventricular ejection fraction (LVEFrest), and left ventricular
`function during exercise (LVEFex). It is a valuable tool in
`the assessment of cardiac dysfunction, particularly sub-
`clinical forms.4 In 58 transfusion-dependent patients, we
`assessed whether LIC, measured on needle biopsy sam-
`ples, can predict subclinical cardiac dysfunction assessed
`by MUGA scan. The patients were aged between 10-45
`years (mean 22.6±6.5 years). There were 53 patients with
`thalassemia major, 3 with sickle cell disease and 2 with
`Diamond-Blackfan anemia. All were on similar transfusion
`regimes and received iron chelation therapy with desfer-
`rioxamine 40-50 mg/kg/infusion 5 days per week.
`Compliance was variable. Each patient had radionuclide
`gated pooled cardiac studies performed at rest and 55 were
`able to perform a semi-supine bicycle test to maximum
`exercise stress as described previously by our unit.5,6
`Liver iron concentration was measured on core needle
`biopsies performed within 6 months before or after the
`cardiac test. The dry weight of all biopsies exceeded 1g
`and all were at least 2 cm in total length. The hepatologist
`used a Menghini 1.6 mm needle and did not stop taking
`samples until satisfied that they were adequate. We have
`recently described our method of sample collection and
`assessments of LIC and degree of fibrosis.7
`Table 1 shows the LVEFrest, LVEFex and change in ejec-
`tion fraction (DLVEF) grouped according to LIC and in all
`patients; the same table also presents the number of
`
`Table 1. Ejection fraction results grouped according to liver iron
`concentration.
`
`N Minimum Maximum Mean
`
`S.D.
`
`Group 1 LIC <7 mg/g dry weight
`resting LVEF
`19
`exercise LVEF
`17
`DLVEF
`17
`*biopsy LIC (mg/g)
`19
`abnormal at rest
`1
`abnormal with exercise
`3
`percentage abnormal
`30
`
`48
`53
`-8
`1.200
`
`72
`82
`23
`6.800
`
`61
`68
`7
`4.238
`
`6.7
`9.0
`7.9
`1.606
`
`Group 2 LIC ≥≥7 mg/g and <15 mg/g dry weight
`resting LVEF
`25
`40
`25
`35
`exercise LVEF
`DLVEF
`25
`-7
`*biopsy LIC (mg/g)
`25
`7.030
`abnormal at rest
`5*
`abnormal with Exercise
`2
`percentage abnormal
`25
`
`70
`82
`24
`14.400
`
`57.3
`64.5
`7.2
`10.422
`
`7.8
`11.2
`7.9
`2.234
`
`Group 3 LIC ≥≥15 mg/g dry weight of liver
`resting LVEF
`14
`30
`exercise LVEF
`13
`57
`DLVEF
`13
`-5
`*biopsy LIC (mg/g)
`14
`17.000
`abnormal at rest
`1*
`abnormal with exercise
`2
`percentage abnormal
`21
`
`72
`81
`22
`62.000
`
`58.9
`69.7
`8.8
`32.417
`
`9.9
`7.9
`7.9
`15.076
`
`All patients
`resting LVEF
`exercise LVEF
`DLVEF
`*biopsy LIC (mg/g)
`abnormal at rest
`abnormal with exercise
`percentage abnormal
`
`72
`81
`24
`62.000
`
`30
`35
`-8
`1.200
`
`58
`55
`55
`58
`7
`16 (7 significantly)
`28
`
`58.6
`66.5
`7.5
`13.705
`
`8.2
`10.1
`7.9
`13.242
`
`*Two from group 2 and one patient from group 1 died.
`(descriptive statistics and regression analysis using Microsoft® Excel 2000.).
`Normal LVEFrest ≥ 52%. DLVEF > 10% of LVEFrest – i.e. if LVEFrest is 60%
`the DLVEF should be £6%. A significant reduction in DLVEF is £ 0. If the
`LVEFrest ≥70% a rise not expected as it considered that the patient was stressed
`even at rest in those circumstances; a fall in LVEFex was regarded as abnormal
`but only significant if ≥ 5%.
`
`patients with abnormal cardiac studies. There were no sig-
`nificant relationships between the patients’ ages and
`LVEFrest (p=0.75), LVEFex (p=0.2) or DLVEF (p=0.09), as
`evaluated by the t-test for independent samples using
`SPSS for Windows (version 8.0.0)
`Figure 1 shows LIC in relation to LVEFrest, LVEFex and
`DLVEF, illustrating that there are no significant relation-
`ships between the LIC and any of the LVEF results. No
`patient with only an abnormal DLVEF died, but three sub-
`sequently developed abnormal LVEFrest and were treated
`with intensified chelation therapy with improvement in
`
`haematologica/the hematology journal | 2005; 90(5) | 685 |
`
`
`Apotex Tech.
`Ex. 2022
`
`

`

`load, only one had an abnormal resting LVEF and only two
`had a significant reduction in their DLVEF. Magnetic reso-
`nance imaging (MRI) techniques can now provide an
`assessment of the myocardial iron load and accurate and
`reproducible evaluation of cardiac function.8-10 Studies have
`shown that liver iron concentration in chelated patients is
`a poor predictor of the amount of iron accumulated in the
`heart or of the risk of developing cardiomyopathy and that
`severe cardiac iron loading affects cardiac function nega-
`tively. In conclusion, there is no relationship between LIC
`by biopsy and cardiac function by MUGA. This analysis
`suggests that: (i) it is not useful to perform liver biopsies
`regularly to determine the risk of developing cardiomyopa-
`thy; (ii) cardiac risk should be assessed by echocardiogra-
`phy, MRI T2* and/or MUGA at rest and during exercise
`stress testing, if available; (iii) liver biopsies should be per-
`formed only to determine LIC and fibrosis for making
`appropriate clinical decisions related to the liver itself. The
`reasons why some patients who have complied very well
`with therapy and who maintain what is regarded as an
`acceptable LIC nevertheless have significant cardiac dys-
`function, and why other patients who are poorly compli-
`ant and have a high LIC manifest little evidence of car-
`diomyopathy, remain to be clarified.
`Vasili Berdoukas,* Carolyn Dakin,* Anthony Freeman,°
`Ian Fraser,# Athanassios Aessopos,@ Timothy Bohane*
`*Sydney Children's Hospital and the °Prince of Wales Hospital;
`#South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service of the Prince of Wales
`and the Sydney Children’s Hospital Randwick, Australia;
`@First Department of Medicine University of Athens, Laiko
`Hospital, Athens, Greece
`Key words: liver iron concentration, iron overload, thalassemia,
`cardiac dysfunction.
`Correspondence: Vasili Berdoukas, Thalassaemia Unit “Aghia
`Sophia” Children’s Hospital, Thivon and Levadias, Goudi,
`Athens, 11527, Greece. E-mail: plomari@hol.gr
`
`References
`
`1. Angelucci E, Brittenham GM, McLaren CE, Ripalti M, Baronciani
`D, Giardini C, et al. Hepatic iron concentration and total body
`iron stores in thalassaemia major. N Engl J Med 2000;343:327-31.
`2. Brittenham GM, Griffith PM, Nienhuis AW, McLAren CE, Young
`NS, Tucker EE, et al. Efficacy of deferoxamine in preventing com-
`plications of iron overload in patients with thalassemia major. N
`Engl J Med 1994;331:567-73.
`3. Olivieri NF, Brittenham GM. Iron-chelating therapy and the treat-
`ment of thalassemia Blood 1997;89:739-61.
`4. Leon MB, Borer JS, Bacharach SL, Green MV, Benz EJ Jr, Griffith P,
`et al. Detection of early cardiac dysfunction in patients with
`severe b-thalassemia and chronic iron overload. N Engl J Med
`1979;301:1143-8.
`5. Freeman AP, Giles RW, Berdoukas VA, Walsh WF, Choy D,
`Murray PC. Early left ventricular dysfunction and chelation thera-
`py in thalassaemia major. Ann Int Med 1983;99:450-4.
`6. Freeman AP, Giles RW, Berdoukas VA, Talley P and Murray PC.
`Sustained normalization of cardiac function by chelation therapy
`in thalassaemia major. Clin Lab Haematol 1989;11:299-307.
`7. Berdoukas V, Bohane T, Tobias V, De Silva K, Fraser I, Aessopos
`A, et al. Liver iron concentration and fibrosis in a cohort of trans-
`fusion-dependent patients on long-term desferrioxamine therapy.
`Eur Hem J 2005;5:572-8.
`8. Anderson LJ, Wonke B, Prescott E, Holden S, Walker JM, Pennell
`DJ. Comparison and effects of oral deferiprone and subcutaneous
`desferrioxamine on myocardial iron concentrations and ventricu-
`lar function in b-thalassaemia. Lancet 2002;360:516
`9. Anderson LJ, Holden S, Davis B, Prescott E, Charrier CC, Bunce
`NH, et al. Cardiovascular T2* magnetic resonance for the early
`diagnosis of myocardial iron overload. Eur Heart J 2001;22:2171-
`9.
`10. Wood JC, Tyszka M, Carson S, Nelson M, Coates T. Myocardial
`iron loading in transfusion-dependent thalassemia and sickle-cell
`disease. Blood 2003;20:103-5.
`
`Letters to the Editor
`
`A. LIC in relation to resting left ventricular
`ejection fraction
`
`쏆
`쏆
`
`쏆쏆쏆
`
`쏆
`
`쏆
`
`쏆
`
`쏆쏆
`쏆
`쏆쏆
`
`쏆쏆쏆
`
`쏆쏆쏆쏆
`쏆쏆
`쏆쏆
`쏆 쏆
`쏆쏆쏆쏆
`쏆쏆
`쏆쏆쏆쏆
`쏆
`
`쏆쏆
`
`0
`
`20
`
`40
`LVEFrest
`
`60
`
`80
`
`B. LIC in relation to exercise left
`ventricular ejection fraction
`
`쏆
`
`쏆
`
`쏆 쏆
`
`쏆
`
`쏆
`쏆쏆 쏆쏆쏆
`쏆
`쏆
`쏆
`쏆쏆쏆 쏆쏆쏆쏆
`쏆 쏆 쏆
`쏆 쏆쏆
`쏆쏆
`쏆 쏆 쏆쏆
`80
`60
`LVEFex
`
`0
`
`20
`
`40
`
`C. LIC in relation to change in LVEF
`with exercise
`
`70000
`60000
`50000
`40000
`30000
`20000
`10000
`0
`
`LIC in mmg/mg dry weight
`
`p=0.78
`
`70000
`60000
`50000
`40000
`30000
`20000
`10000
`0
`
`p=0.7
`
`LIC in mmg/mg dry weight
`
`100
`
`70000
`60000
`50000
`40000
`30000
`20000
`10000
`0
`
`쏆
`
`쏆
`
`쏆
`
`쏆쏆
`쏆
`쏆
`쏆쏆 쏆
`쏆쏆 쏆
`쏆쏆
`쏆쏆
`쏆
`쏆
`쏆 쏆
`
`쏆
`
`쏆쏆쏆
`쏆쏆
`쏆쏆
`쏆쏆쏆
`쏆쏆
`
`0
`
`10
`DDLVEF
`
`쏆
`쏆쏆 쏆
`
`쏆쏆
`쏆쏆
`
`20
`
`30
`
`LIC in mmg/mg dry weight
`
`쏆
`쏆
`
`-10
`p=0.996
`
`Figure 1. A. LIC in relation to the LVEFrest and the regression
`analysis. The grey line is the line of best fit; r=0.04 and r2=0.001.
`B. LIC and LVEFax and regression analysis. The grey line is the line
`of best fit; r= 0.1 and r2=0.01. C. LIC in relation to the DDLVEF and
`regression analysis. The grey line is the line of best fit. The r and
`r2 are almost zero indicating that the line of best fit is almost hor-
`izontal.
`
`their cardiac function. The LVEF results in patients from
`group 3 (LIC ≥15 mg/g dry weight) were compared with
`those in group 1 (LIC <7 mg/g dry weight) and group 2 (LIC
`≥7 mg/g to <15 mg/g dry weight) combined and the results
`in groups 2 and 3 were compared with those in group 1: no
`statistically significant difference was found (assessed by
`the t-test for equality of means-SPSS). A Pearson 2- tailed
`correlation (SPSS) analyzing the LVEF results and LIC
`showed no significant correlation between any cardiac
`measure and liver iron.
`There were two deaths in group 2 and one in group 1.
`The percentage of patients with abnormal cardiac function
`in each group as well as the number of deaths do not sup-
`port the threshold values proposed by Olivieri and
`Brittenham.2,3 In 15 patients with a LIC in the range in
`which one might expect serious problems from iron over-
`
`| 686 | haematologica/the hematology journal | 2005; 90(5)
`
`
`Apotex Tech.
`Ex. 2022
`
`

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