throbber
AZ44531_hochberg:AZ44531_hochberg 2/6/08 10:31 Page 1
`
`A novel, single-tablet formulation that delivers immediate-release omeprazole followed by enteric-coated (EC) naproxen
`significantly reduces the incidence of gastric ulcers compared with EC naproxen alone: results of a prospective,
`randomised, double-blind, 6-month study including patients with OA and RA
`Marc Hochberg,1 Jay L. Goldstein,2 John G. Fort,3 Mark Sostek,4 John Plachetka3
`1Division of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA;
`3POZEN Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; 4AstraZeneca, Wilmington, Delaware, USA
`
`THU0104
`
`䊳 There were significantly fewer upper GI adverse events in
`patients receiving PN200 BID compared with patients receiving
`EC naproxen 500 mg BID, and fewer premature discontinuations
`due to upper GI adverse events (Table 2).
`
`Table 2. Treatment-emergent adverse events; n (%)
`
`PN200
`BID
`n=206
`
`105 (51.0)
`86 (41.7)
`
`17 (8.3)
`145 (70.4)
`
`EC naproxen
`500 mg BID
`n=203
`
`144 (70.9)
`133 (65.5)
`
`18 (8.9)
`170 (83.7)
`
`9 (4.4)
`
`22 (10.8)
`
`p
`
`⬍0.001
`⬍0.001
`
`NS
`0.001
`
`0.012
`
`Any upper GI AE
`Any upper GI AE related to
`study drug
`Dyspeptic symptomsa
`Use of antacid
`rescue medication
`Upper GI AE leading
`to discontinuation
`
`GI, gastrointestinal; AE, adverse event; NS, not significant
`aupper abdominal pain, dyspepsia, eructation, gastric discomfort
`
`PN200 (n=206)
`EC naproxen (n=203)
`
`23.1%
`
`**
`72% RR
`
`29.4%
`
`10.3%
`
`3.4%
`
`5.1%
`
`8.3%
`
`1 month
`
`3 months
`
`6 months
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Gastric ulcers, %
`
`PN200
`(n=207)
`
`ITT population
`(n=206)
`
`EC naproxen
`(n=206)
`
`ITT population
`(n=203)
`
`Premature
`discontinuations
`(n=51)
`● AE (n=24)
`● Withdrew consent (n=14)
`● Lost to follow-up (n=3)
`● Duodenal ulcer (n=1)
`● Other (n=9)
`
`Premature
`discontinuations
`(n=68)
`● AE (n=30)
`● Withdrew consent (n=9)
`● Lost to follow-up (n=3)
`● Duodenal ulcer (n=14)
`● Other (n=12)
`
`RR, relative risk
`**p⬍0.001 between groups at 6 months
`
`Figure 5. Cumulative incidence of gastric ulcers over 6 months: ASA
`vs no ASA
`
`No ASA
`69% RR
`
`p<0.001
`
`ASA
`69% RR
`
`p=0.012
`
`28.8
`
`Completed study
`(n=155)
`
`Completed study
`(n=135)
`
`Figure 2. Study design
`
`Figure 3. Study disposition
`
`Figure 4. Survival analysis of incidence of gastric ulcers over time
`
`Consent
`
`Endoscopy
`
`Endoscopy
`
`Endoscopy
`
`Screening
`
`Baseline/
`randomisation
`
`Safety
`evaluation
`
`Safety
`evaluation
`
`Washout
`for PPIs
`
`Begin study
`medication
`
`Endoscopy
`
`Safety
`evaluation
`
`End of study
`
`Screened (n=649)
`
`Randomised (n=413)
`
`Introduction
`
`䊳 Upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with non-
`steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy are a significant
`cause of morbidity and mortality and are associated with
`decreased persistence.1
`䊳 The efficacy of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the prevention
`of mucosal injury, endoscopic ulcers and upper GI symptoms
`associated with NSAID therapy, is well documented.2,3
`䊳 Non-adherence to concomitant PPI therapy is associated with
`decreased relative effectiveness of preventing upper GI bleeding
`events.4 Persistence of concomitant PPI therapy is often low;5
`hence, novel therapeutic approaches would be beneficial to
`reduce the incidence of upper GI events in patients requiring
`chronic NSAID therapy.
`䊳 A single-tablet formulation of a non-enteric-coated PPI and an
`enteric-coated (EC) NSAID could address the issue of non-
`adherence. PN200 provides sequential delivery of omeprazole
`20 mg + EC naproxen 500 mg. The PN200 formulation delivers
`omeprazole before absorption of EC naproxen (Figure 1).
`
`Figure 1. Pharmacokinetic profile of PN200
`
`400
`
`60
`
`PN200 BID
`
`EC naproxen 500 mg BID
`
`Day -14 to -7
`
`Day 1
`
`Day 30
`
`Day 90
`
`Day 180
`
`䊳 Patients were seronegative for H.pylori and were at risk of
`NSAID-associated gastric ulcers (aged 18-49 years with a history
`of gastric ulcer or duodenal ulcer within the past 5 years, or
`aged ⭓50 years).
`
`䊳 Major exclusion criteria included use of antisecretory agents or
`misoprostol within 14 days prior to the baseline endoscopy
`(esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD]); and any gastric ulcer or
`duodenal ulcer (⭓3 mm diameter with depth) at baseline EGD.
`
`䊳 EGD was performed at baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months.
`
`䊳 Safety evaluations were performed at 1, 3 and 6 months.
`
`Conclusions
`䊳 Compared with EC naproxen, PN200 was
`associated with a significantly lower incidence of
`both gastric ulcers and duodenal ulcers.
`
`䊳 Concomitant low-dose aspirin therapy had no
`significant effect on the observed gastric ulcer
`risk reduction seen with PN200.
`
`䊳 The PN formulation may offer a potential treatment
`option for patients at risk of NSAID-associated
`gastric ulcers or duodenal ulcers and may help
`address issues of persistence of use and
`compliance with gastroprotective agents.
`
`References
`1. Lanas A et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 1685-1693.
`2. Hawkey CJ et al. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 727-734.
`3. Scheiman JM. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2008; 11: 125-134.
`4. Goldstein JL et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4: 1337-1345.
`5. Sturkenboom MC et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18: 1137-1147.
`
`Acknowledgements
`Study PN200-301 was funded by POZEN Inc.
`Editorial support was provided by Complete Medical Communications and was
`funded by AstraZeneca.
`
`EULAR 2008, Paris, France, 11-14 June 2008
`
`21.9
`
`8.9
`
`6.7
`
`PN200
`n=150
`
`Naproxen
`n=151
`
`PN200
`n=56
`
`Naproxen
`n=52
`
`45
`40
`35
`30
`25
`20
`15
`10
`
`05
`
`Gastric ulcers, %
`
`NS
`
`NS
`
`ASA, acetylsalicylic acid
`RR, relative risk
`NS, not significant
`
`Figure 6. Survival analysis of incidence of duodenal ulcers over
`6 months (ITT)
`
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`PN200 (n=206)
`EC naproxen (n=203)
`
`5.4%
`
`10.8%
`
`8.9%
`
`0.5%
`
`0.5%
`
`0.5%
`
`1 month
`ITT, intent-to-treat
`
`3 months
`
`6 months
`
`05
`
`Duodenal ulcers, %
`
`Endpoints
`
`䊳 The primary endpoint was the incidence of gastric ulcer
`(⭓3 mm diameter with depth) during the study estimated by
`survival analysis.
`
`䊳 Secondary endpoints included the incidence of duodenal ulcers.
`
`Results
`
`䊳 Study disposition is shown in Figure 3 and patient demographics
`are shown in Table 1.
`
`䊳 290 patients completed the 6-month study: PN200 BID (n=155
`[75.2%]) and EC naproxen 500 mg BID (n=135 [66.5%]).
`
`䊳 The incidence of gastric ulcers during the course of the study
`was significantly lower in the PN200 group compared with the EC
`naproxen group (8.3% vs 29.4% for PN200 and EC naproxen,
`respectively; relative risk [RR] of 72%, p⬍0.001) (Figure 4).
`
`䊳 The reduction in the incidence of gastric ulcers associated with
`PN200 in comparison with EC naproxen was similar in patients
`taking low-dose aspirin (⭓325 mg) compared with patients not
`taking low-dose aspirin (Figure 5).
`
`䊳 The incidence of duodenal ulcers was significantly lower in
`patients receiving PN200 BID compared with patients receiving
`EC naproxen 500 mg BID (Figure 6).
`
`ITT (intent-to-treat) population: all patients randomised who received at least one dose of
`study drug with no ulcer at baseline
`(At baseline: 4 subjects: 1 PN200, 3 EC naproxen)
`
`Table 1. Patient demographics (ITT population)
`
`Gender, n (%)
`Race, n (%)
`
`Age
`
`Aspirin use
`Ulcer Hx, n (%)
`
`Indication NSAID use, n (%)
`
`PN200
`BID
`n=206
`
`73 (35)
`175 (85)
`24 (12)
`7 (3)
`61
`106 (51)
`199 (97)
`56 (27)
`13 (6)
`2 (1)
`168 (82)
`8 (4)
`1 (0.5)
`36 (18)
`
`EC naproxen
`500 mg BID
`n=203
`
`60 (30)
`173 (85)
`20 (10)
`10 (5)
`61
`100 (49)
`201 (99)
`52 (26)
`4 (2)
`0
`169 (83)
`14 (7)
`0
`25 (12)
`
`Male
`White
`Black
`Other
`Mean
`⬍60 years, n (%)
`⭓50 years, n (%)
`
`Gastric
`Duodenal
`Osteoarthritis
`Rheumatoid arthritis
`Ankylosing spondylitis
`Othera
`
`aOther includes: back pain; back pain-herniated disc surgery; chronic back pain; chronic dental
`pain; chronic headache; chronic knee pain; chronic lower back pain; chronic plantar fasciitis;
`chronic spondylosis; degenerative arthritis; degenerative disc disease; Dequervain’s
`tenosynovitis; fibromyalgia; herniated discs; hip fracture; inflammatory arthritis; left Achilles
`calcific insertional peritendinitis; leg pain; low back pain; neck, shoulder, bilateral hand pain; pain
`in bilateral hips; psoriatic arthritis; shoulder pain; spinal stenosis
`
`Naproxen concentration (µg/mL)
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`24
`
`Omeprazole
`EC naproxen
`
`350
`
`300
`
`250
`
`200
`
`150
`
`100
`
`50
`
`0
`
`Omeprazole concentration (ng/mL)
`
`0
`
`4
`
`8
`
`12
`
`16
`
`20
`
`Time (hours)
`First-dose kinetics from Study PN200-301; a single-dose crossover
`pharmacokinetic study, n=30 (POZEN: data on file)
`
`䊳 The objectives of this study were to compare the safety and
`tolerability of PN200 with EC naproxen 500 mg alone.
`
`Methods
`
`䊳 The protocols were reviewed and approved by an independent
`ethics committee and all subjects gave written, informed consent.
`䊳 Study PN200-301 was a 6-month, randomised, double-blind,
`parallel-group, multicentre study in patients with arthritis
`requiring chronic NSAID treatment. Patients were randomised to
`either PN200 BID or EC naproxen 500 mg BID (Figure 2).
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1012 PAGE 1
`
`

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