throbber
THE LANCET
`
`exhortation, short on cerebration, and shortest of all on
`consistency.
`
`Nicholas Coni
`Department of Medicine for the Elderly, Addenbrooke's Hospital.
`Cambridge CBZ 2QQ. UK
`
`Re-inventing WHO
`
`SIR—oFor those concerned about the future of WHO, your
`issue of Feb 4 contained good news. The hopeful message
`was not
`found in the entirely predictable response by
`Kickbusch (p 325), a member of Nakajima’s staff,
`to a
`previous Lancet editorial. Rather,
`in the news section,
`McGregor
`(p 312)
`reports that at
`the January WHO
`Executive Board meeting a decision was taken to develop
`and propose a new global health charter. This new charter,
`intended to be promulgated in late 1997, offers enormous
`promise, especially if several critical conditions are met.
`First, clarity and coherence in the analysis of global health
`problems, challenges, and possible solutions is essential.
`Although criticising the shortcomings of progress in realising
`the Alma—Ata Declaration (1976) is easy, a genuinely new
`and creative path forward will be more difficult to define.
`Global health is inextricably connected with global social,
`economic, and political realities. Since WHO was created,
`much has been learned about the biological and societal
`basis of health. A new vision can be built on the solid
`
`foundation of the preamble to the WHO constitution, with
`an updating to take account of such key elements as the
`insights for health arising from the modern human rights
`movement. A clear path forward must be both far—reaching
`and sufficiently concrete to mobilise the human and
`financial resources that protecting and promoting global
`health requires and merits. Then, as form follows function,
`organisational restructuring can ensue.
`Second,
`it
`is essential
`to recognise the strength and
`importance of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
`in health assessment, policy development, and assurance of
`services. Half a century ago, when WHO was created,
`NGOs were far fewer and less important; today, as shown by
`the Cairo conference on population, they are numerous and
`essential. Therefore, NGOs should not only be consulted,
`but
`also
`should
`become
`centrally
`involved
`in
`the
`development of a new health charter. Everyone knows that
`the United Nations (UN) and other official agencies can
`either give lip service to NGOs or take them seriously, and
`the difference will be critical and obvious.
`
`Third, the new global charter has to take account of the
`emerging realities
`in the UN’S involvement
`in health
`matters. Again, since WHO was created, and even more
`recently, many other parts of
`the UN system have
`(fortunately) interpreted their mandates to include health.
`For example, awareness of the importance of investment in
`people and on the linkage between health and development
`have led the World Bank and the UN Development Program
`to invest and focus increasingly on health, along with the
`more obvious UN participants such as UN Children’s Fund,
`UN Population Fund, UN Educational, Scientific and
`Cultural Organisation. Yet WHO’S entire budget is quite
`small compared with the resources of the World Bank or the
`UN Development Program. WHO needs to clarify its role
`within
`the UN system. How WHO organises
`these
`consultations and relations could determine the credibility of
`the new health charter.
`
`create unprecedented
`global public. New technologies
`communication opportunties, yet meaningful participation
`of an increasingly informed public is an as yet unrealised
`challenge for WHO in particular, and for the UN system
`more generally.
`
`J Mann
`Harvard School of PUbIIC Health, Frangons‘XaVier Bagnoud Center for Health and
`Human Rights. Cambridge. MA 02138, USA
`
`Ethics of n-of—1 trials
`
`SIR—We agree with Irwig et a1 (Feb 25, p 469) that medical
`research committee approval is unnecessary for n—of—l trials
`when the treatment and its indication for use are not new.
`
`We believe, however, that it is premature to call for n-of—l
`trials to be encouraged by health—care systems and for
`facilities to be made available to carry out n—of-l
`trials in
`daily clinical practice. Experience so far with n—of—l trials has
`been uncontrolled."3 Comparison of outcomes,
`including
`economic costs, between groups of patients randomised to
`receive treatment by n—of—l trials or by standard practice (an
`open, before-after test of therapy) is needed to show whether
`n—of-l trials are a cost-effective alternative to current clinical
`
`practice. In this respect, they are no different from other new
`interventions. Randomised controlled studies of n-of—l trials
`
`versus standard practice are feasible.4 Pending results of
`further such investigations, widespread use of n-of-l trials
`cannot be advocated.
`
`*Jeffrey L Mahon, Brian G Feagan, Andreas Laupacis
`Universrty Hospital, PO Box 5339, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5A5
`
`1 Guyatt G, Keller IL, Jaeschke R, Rosenbloom D, Adachi ID,
`Newhouse MT. The n—of-l randomized controlled trial: clinical
`usefulness. Ann Intern Med 1990, 112: 293—99.
`2 Larson EB, Ellsworth A], Oas J. Randomized clinical trials in single
`patients during a 2—year period. jAMA 1993; 270: 2708—12.
`3 March L, Irwig L, Schwarz J, Simpson], Chock C, Brooks P. N of 1
`trials comparing a non—steroidal anti—inflammatory drug with
`paracetamol in osteoarthritis. BM} 1994, 309: 1041—45.
`4 Mahon JL, Laupacis A, Donner A, Wood T. A randomized trial of
`N of 1 trials versus conventional therapy. Clin Res 1993; 4: 180A.
`
`Response to a specific antioestrogen (ICI
`
`182780) in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer
`
`SIR—Dowsett and colleagues (Feb 25, p 525) argue that the
`high response rate that we reported (Jan 7, p 29) to the
`specific antioestrogen ICI 182780 should be interpreted with
`care since patients were selected as likely to respond after
`failure of tamoxifen. In a similarly selected group of patients
`they report
`a high response rate to newer aromatase
`inhibitors. We have seen a response rate of 63% in similar
`patients (n=57) given the progestagen megestrol acetate.
`Thus, we agree that the patients are generally responsive.
`The selection was made because we were unsure of the
`
`potential activity of a specific antioestrogen after failure of a
`partial agonist antioestrogen. Our study showed a high
`response rate and a prolonged response duration. The
`median response duration on megestrol acetate was 14
`months, whereas in the small group of patients given ICI
`182780 the median duration of response has not yet been
`reached after 22 months. When used to treat human
`
`Finally, the preamble to the WHO constitution highlights
`the importance of “informed opinion and active cooperation
`on the part of the public”. The development of a new health
`charter is an historic opportunity to inform and educate the
`
`mammary tumours growing in nude mice, ICI 182780
`resulted in cessation of tumour growth for periods about
`twice
`as
`long as
`tamoxifen (Osborne CK, personal
`communication). Our data suggest that ICI 182780 might
`
`Vol345 ' April 15, 1995
`
`989
`
`InnoPharma Exhibit 1045.0001
`
`

`

`THE LANCET
`
`produce prolonged remissions in patients and may be better
`than standard endocrine therapies.
`Dowsett and co-workers point out that use of the no-
`change
`category of
`response to endocrine therapy is
`uncommon. We showed that if patients had no change of
`their
`tumour growth for at
`least 6 months their
`final
`duration of response and overall survival did not differ
`significantly from that
`in patients who had a partial
`remission.‘ Thus, we feel that it is important to recognise the
`no—change category of response since it is clinically relevant.
`In our study the longest responder to ICI 182780 has stable
`disease after 28 months of treatment.
`In practice,
`few
`clinicians change treatment when metastatic disease is
`classed as no change.
`Dowsett and colleagues suggest that treatment with ICI
`182780 is conceptually similar
`to that with aromatase
`inhibitors in that both treatments produce “pure deprivation
`of the oestrogenic signal”. In as much that, as we have
`argued,2 all endocrine therapies for breast cancer probably
`act directly or indirectly by reducing the oestrogenic signal in
`tumour cells, this comment could be correct. However, ICI
`182780 and aromatase inhibitors have different mechanisms
`
`of action. The ability of ICI 182780 to bind tightly to the
`oestrogen receptor (much more so than tamoxifen) and to
`downregulate
`the
`receptor might
`afford
`the
`specific
`antioestrogen a therapeutic advantage over other forms of
`endocrine therapy. Our results suggest that this hypothesis is
`worth pursuing.
`
`*Anthony Howell, John Robertson
`*CRC Department of Medical Oncology, University of Manchester,
`Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester M20 4BX, UK; and Department of Surgery,
`City Hospital, Nottingham
`
`1 Howell A, MacIntosh J, Jones M, Redford J, Wagstaff J, Sellwood RA.
`The definition of the ‘No change’ category in patients treated with
`endocrine therapy and chemotherapy for advanced carcinoma of the
`breast. Eur] Cancer Clz'n Oncol 1988; 24: 1567—72.
`2 Howell A, DeFriend DJ, Anderson E. Mechanisms of response and
`resistance to endocrine therapy for breast cancer and the development
`of new treatments. Rev Endocr Rel Cancer 1993; 43: 1—17.
`
`Vitamin-D—receptor—gene polymorphism and
`bone loss
`
`SIR—Polymorphisms of the vitamin—D—receptor (VDR) gene
`have been linked with bone mineral density (BMD) in twin
`studies from both Australia‘ and the UK.2 Ferrari and
`
`colleagues (Feb 18, p 423) report in a study of 64 elderly
`women (and 8 men) that the annual rate of change in spinal
`BMD over
`18 months was
`small
`(+0-47%) and not
`significantly different from zero, but differed between VDR
`genotypes. They suggest that a similar genetic effect may
`also influence BMD changes in younger women. We have
`examined this potential relation in a larger group of healthy
`women soon after the menopause; these women should be
`experiencing greater rates of bone loss due to relative
`oestrogen deficiency.
`296 women within 5 years of the menopause were
`recruited from two population—based cohort volunteer
`groups. All were free of bone disorders and did not receive
`hormone replacement therapy or other medication known to
`affect bone throughout the study period 1988—93. BMD was
`measured at
`the lumbar spine and femoral neck by dual
`photon absorptiometry (Novo—BMC Lab 22a) at O, 12, 24,
`and 48 months
`in
`141 women and by dual—energy
`absorptiometry (Hologic QDR—IOOO) at 0, 12, 24, and 48
`months in 155 women. Coefficients of variation from repeat
`measurements on healthy volunteers were 08% at the spine
`
`990
`
`
`
`VDR genotype
`TT
`(0:71)
`
`Tt
`(n=96)
`
`tt
`(n=28)
`
`52-8 (3-7)
`
`52-5 (3-5)
`
`52-6 (3-3)
`
`50-5 (3-7)
`2 2 (1-3)
`
`50-2 (3-4)
`2-3 (1-4)
`
`50-4 (28)
`2-2 (1-4)
`
`161(0-06)
`660 (110)
`25-3 (42)
`
`1-61(0-18)
`67-0 (13-3)
`25-6 (4-1)
`
`1-62 (005)
`66-6 (14-1)
`25-3 (4-7)
`
`Mean (SD) age In years
`Menopause
`Mean (SD) age at onset in years
`Mean (SD) duration in years
`
`Mean (SD) anthropometry
`Height (m)
`Weight (kg)
`Body-mass index (kg/m2)
`
`Mean (SE) bone loss (% per year)
`~1-01(0-30)
`—1-09 (0-17)
`e131 (0-14)
`Lumbar spine
`
`Femoral neck —1-00(0-46) —0-48 {0-36) —1-00 (0-20)
`
`
`
`Table: Relation of vitamin D receptor genotypes, demographic
`variables, and bone loss in 195 women
`
`and 1-6% at the hip for both techniques. Rates of Change
`in BMD for each individual subject werercalculated by
`least-squares
`regression analysis. DNA was
`extracted
`from leucocytes, PCR used to amplify a 740 bp DNA
`sequence, and the Tag] restriction enzyme used to detect
`VDR alleles. The genotypes were coded as TT, Tt, and tt;
`the tt genotype is equivalent to the previously reported BB
`genotype.l
`Full results (three or more scans and VDR genotype) are
`available for 195 women. Genotype frequencies were as
`expected from other populations. There were no significant
`differences in anthropometric or menopausal characteristics
`between the genotype groups
`(table). There was no
`difference in the rate of change in BMD from hip or spine
`between the VDR genotypes (analysis of variance, p=0-55
`and p=0-37). For the total group the 95% CI for rate of
`change in BMD were —1-32 to ~~0-88% per year at the
`spine, and —l-08 to —0-45% per year at
`the hip. The
`proportion of women with spinal bone loss below the lower
`95% CI of ~1-32% per year (as used by Ferrari et al) was
`similar in the three groups: 35/71 (TT), 38/96 (Tt), and
`10/28 (tt). The same was true of losses at the femoral neck.
`By contrast with Ferrari and colleagues’ findings,
`in a
`larger
`and longer-duration study we have
`found no
`association between VDR genotype and bone loss from
`lumbar spine or femoral neck. We believe that the VDR
`gene acts predominantly to determine peak bone mass and
`that other genes are likely to be involved in the regulation of
`bone loss after the menopause.
`
`R W Keen, P J Major, J S Lanchbury, T D Spector*
`*Rheumatology Department, St Thomas' Hospital, London SE1 7EH, UK; and
`Molecular Immunogenetics Unit, UMDS, Guy's Hospital, London SE1
`
`1 Morrison NA, Qi JC, Tokita A, et al. Prediction of bone density from
`vitamin D receptor alleles. Nature 1994; 367: 284‘87.
`2 Spector TD, Keen RW, Arden NK, et al. Vitamin D receptor gene
`(VDR) alleles and bone density in postmenopausal women: a UK twin
`study. j'Bone Min Res 1994; 9: $143.
`
`SIR—Ferrari and his colleagues conclude that the variability
`in the response of bone mass to calcium intake and vitamin
`D supplementation may be predicted by analysis of VDR—
`gene polymorphisms. We
`investigated the
`effects
`of
`1 or(OH)D3 (05 pg per day) with or without calcium
`supplementation (as calcium lactate of 1-5 g per day) on
`lumbar—spine mineral density in 31 Japanese adults (4 men,
`27 postmenopausal women; mean age 68-3 [SE 14] years),
`in whom lumbar—spine mineral density (L2—4) was lower
`than in age and sex matched Japanese controls. BMD of
`L2~4 was measured with dual energy X—ray absorptiometry
`(DPX, Lunar Co)1 before and after (mean 80 [SE 0-7]
`
`
`Vol 345 - April 15, 1995
`
`lnnoPharma Exhibit 1045.0002
`
`

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