throbber

`
`THE LANCET
`
`normal in p-ost-secretin volume and maximum bicarbonate
`concentration, with a decrease in amylase output. Although
`the biliary juice in post—cemlein fractions did not contain
`G imaginable, post—secretin pancreatic juice contained lots of
`the protozoa. The patient was treated with 750 mg three
`times daily of metronidazole for 7 days. The CST after
`treaunent was normal and no giardia was found in any
`fraction
`of duodenal
`juice. Ultrasonography
`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 malabsorption 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 lipase3 by in—vitro studies. In our case, diabetes might
`have predisposed to an immunocompromised state or severe
`diabetic neuropathy might have affected the tone of Oddi’s
`sphincter to allow infection with the protozoa.
`
`*Itsuro Nakano, Toshihi‘ko Miyahara. Tetsuhide lto,
`Yoshlkatsu Migita, Hajime Nawata
`Third Department of Internal Medicine. Faculty of Medicine. Kyushu University.
`Fukuoka 812. Japan
`
`1 Gupta BK, Mehta S. Giardiasis in childhood: 3 study of pancreatic
`functions. Indiaaned Res 1973: 61: 743—48.
`2 Seow F, Katelaris P, Ngu M. The effect of Giardia Iambt’iu trophozoites
`on trypsin, chimiotrypsin and amylase in vi'tm. Parasitologv 1993; 106:
`233—38.
`3 Katelaris P, Seow F, Ngu M. The effect of Gi'ardz‘u lamblia trophozoites
`on lipolysis in vitro. Parasitologr [991; 103: 35839.
`
`
`
`Response to specific anti-oestrogen
`(ICI182780) in tamoxifen-resistant breast
`cancer
`
`SIR—vHowell 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
`secondsline agent such as an aromatase inhibitor.
`We have reanalysed the response rate of our two phase UH
`studies“2 of two new triazole aromatase inhibitors (vorozole
`and letrozole), 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 adjuvant
`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
`letrozole
`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~
`oestrogen. The response rate cited in each of the original
`papers without
`this selection was 33% (7/21 and 8124,
`respectively). Also in accord with Howell and colleagues”
`findings, several of our patients’ responses were of prolonged
`duration (for >2l months in 5 of 14).
`The new anti—oestrogen looks likely to he more effective
`than the other mixed agonistfantagonist
`torernifenc.
`It
`
`V01345 - February 25, 1995
`
`remains to be seen whether it will be more effective than
`
`other non-steroidal anti-oesu-ogens with less agonist activity
`than tamoxifen or toremifene, such as idoxifenc.’ 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
`oestrogenic signal.
`
`*M Dowsett, S R D Johnston. T J lveson. l E Smith
`Breast Unit. Royal Marsden NHS Trust. London SW3 SJJ. UK
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Iveson T], Smith IE, Ahern J, Smithers DA, Trunet P, Dowsctt M.
`Phase I study of oral aromatase inhibitor (36320267 in
`postmenopausal patients with breast cancer. Cancer Res 1993; 53:
`ace—70.
`Johnston 8RD, Smith IE, Doody 1), Jacobs 3, Robenshaw H,
`Dowsett M. The clinical and endocrine effects of the oral aromatase
`inhibitor vorozole in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast
`cancer. Caviar Re: 1994; 54: 5875—81.
`3 Chander SK, Newton C, McCague R, Dowsett M, Luqmani Y,
`Coombes RC. Pyrrolodine-rl—iodotamoxifen and 4—iodotamoxifen, new
`analogues of the antioestrogen tamoxifen for the treatment of breast
`cancer. Cancer Res 1991; 51: SSH—‘38.
`
`Budd-Chlarl syndrome and factor V Leiden
`mutation
`
`syndrome is characterised by hepatic
`SIR—Budd»Chiari
`venous outflow obstruction. Although myeloproliferative
`diseases
`are usually responsible for
`this obstruction,‘
`deficient or abnormal inhibitors of the haemostatic system,
`antithrombin 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
`thrombophiliaf The anticoagulant
`function of APC lies in its capacity to inactivate coaguladon
`(re-factors Va and Villa. APC resistance is linked to a single
`basepair mutation on the factor V gene,
`resulting in
`ArgmaGln substitution in the APC cleavage site and
`characterising factor V Leiden."4
`in
`admitted
`A 21-year—old
`trisomic woman was
`November, 1994, with fialminant hepatic failure, aseites, and
`peripheral oedema. Aspartate aminotransfcrase was 8745
`UIL, prothrombin time 34 5 (normal 12), fibrinogen 0‘65
`311., and D dimers 3-2 ug/mL (normal Ell-4 pg/n'tL). 2 years
`before, she had had an ilio-femoral thrombosis and bilateral
`pulmonary embolism. At that time, protein C, antithrombin
`III,
`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
`dopplcr
`ultrasonography
`showed
`hepatic veins and Budd—Chiari syndrome was histologically
`continued. The patient was treated with low-molecular-
`weight heparin (Enoxaparin) and then with vitamin K
`antagonists when prothrombin time reached about 15 s, and
`she was discharged. Coagulation studies would not have
`been informative because of
`the severe hepatocellular
`insufiiciency. We therefore examined the family although
`there was no familial history of thrombosis. The father,
`mother, and two brothers did not have deficiency in
`antithrornhin HI, proteins C or S, or plasminogen.
`Resistance
`to APC,
`assessed by the AFC-dependent
`prolongation of the activated partial thromboplastin time,2
`was found in the mother (ratio 211, normal 2-48—3’66).
`DNA analysis was done with Mitt] digestion of amplified
`factor V DNA fragment.’ Both our patient and her mother
`were heterozygous for the ArgiM—sGln mutation.
`The deficiency of free protein S seen previously seems to
`have been acquired, since it was not detected in the family.
`
`
`525
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2038 p. l
`InnoPharma Licensing LLC V. AstraZeneca AB IPR2017-00904
`Fresenius-Kabi USA LLC V. AstraZeneca AB IPR2017-01910
`
`

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