throbber
drug is concentrated in the central nervous system at theoretically
`efficacious levels, and the intranasal route holds promise for
`outpatient studies. These data argue for expanded testing of peptide
`T in AIDS and other HIV infected, less immunologically
`suppressed, neuropsychiatrically impaired persons, which is now
`underway.
`
`Intramural Research Program,
`National Institute of Mental Health,
`Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA;
`University of Southern California,
`Los Angeles County Medical Center,
`Los Angeles, California,
`and Integra Institute,
`Germantown, Maryland
`
`T. PETER BRIDGE
`PETER N. R. HESELTINE
`ELIZABETH S. PARKER
`ELAINE EATON
`LORING J. INGRAHAM
`MARK GILL
`MICHAEL RUFF
`CANDACE B. PERT
`FREDERICK K. GOODWIN
`
`1. Pert C, Hill J, Ruff M, et al. Octopeptides deduced from the neuropeptide
`receptor-like pattern of antigen T4 in brain potently inhibit human
`immunodeficiency virus receptor binding and T-cell infectivity. Proc Natl Acad
`Sci (USA) 1986; 83: 9254-58.
`2 Ruff M, Martin B, Ginns E, et al. CD4 receptor binding peptides that block HIV
`infectivity cause monocyte chemotaxis. FEBS Lett 1987; 211: 17-22.
`3 Ruff M, Hallberg P, Hill J, et al. Peptide T is core HIV envelope required for CD4
`receptor attachment. Lancet 1987; ii: 751.
`4. Brenneman D, Westerbrook G, Fitzgerald S, et al. Neuronal killing by the enveloped
`protein of HIV and its prevention by vasoactive intestinal peptide. Nature 1988;
`335: 639-42.
`5. Brenneman D, Buzy J, Ruff M, et al. Peptide T sequences prevent neuronal cell death
`produced by the protein (gp 120) of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Drug
`Dev Res 1988; 15: 361-69.
`
`RAPAMYCIN FOR IMMUNOSUPPRESSION IN
`ORGAN ALLOGRAFTING
`SIR,-Rejection
`of
`complications
`infective
`and
`immunosuppressive treatment are the main causes of failure in
`organ allografting in man. To minimise the individual side-effects,
`azathioprine, corticosteroids, and cyclosporin are combined in small
`doses. Cyclosporin is the most powerful agent of the three, but can
`be nephrotoxic. No other immunosuppressants are useful clinically
`because of toxicity and/or lack of efficacy.
`The fungal product, FK506, is immunosuppressive in animals
`with organ grafts.’ We confirmed the immunosuppressive effect but
`animal toxicity was too severe to proceed to clinical trial,z although
`such a study is now underway in the USA. A compound with
`structural similarities to FK506, rapamycin, was investigated on the
`basis of a report that it inhibited experimental allergic encephalitis,
`adjuvant arthritis, and the formation of humoral antibody in rats.3
`Rapamycin is a lipophilic macrolide produced by Streptomyces
`hygroscopicus with both antifungal and antitumour properties.4
`rapamycin
`administration,
`intramuscular
`After
`was
`immunosuppressive in rats given heterotopic heart allografts
`(table). Graft survival, assessed by palpation of the beating heart,
`was prolonged in all animals given rapamycin beyond the control
`period of 7-4 days. Toxicity in the rat was mild: weight loss of less
`than 10% was observed in the group treated with the highest dose.
`Non-immunosuppressed nephrectomised pigs with major
`histocompatibility complex incompatibles renal allografts die from
`uraemia due to rejection within a mean survival time of 15’ 1 days.b
`Survival times of treated pigs (mean 76 days, median 55) and causes
`of death are shown in the table, with current creatinine values of
`surviving animals. Three animals survived with normal serum
`creatinine levels, after not receiving any drug for 6 months. One
`kidney was rejected early, on day 4. The interstitial pneumonitis in
`five pigs was probably due to over-immunosuppression. There was
`no histological or biochemical evidence of rejection in four of these
`animals and a mild degree of cellular reaction in the fifth, which had
`had its immunosuppression stopped. Dogs had vomiting and
`diarrhoea associated with ulceration of the mouth and
`thrombocytopenia after daily oral doses of 0-25-5 mg/kg. At
`necropsy all the dogs had gastrointestinal ulcers from the mouth to
`the colon, secondary to acute necrotising fibrinoid vasculitis of
`arterioles and small arteries. The lesions were present even in dogs
`treated with an apparently non-immunosuppressive regimen of
`2 mg;kg on days 3-5 (table).
`
`SURVIVAL OF ALLOGRAFTS
`
`227
`
`Major pathological findings: * = rejection; t = interstitial pneumonitis but no vasculitis;
`and = toxicity. Latest creatinine (pool/1): 141O, 161, 235, 176, 239, 283, 220, 137, and
`148; ¶294, 503, 1758, 1708, 1388, 871, and 541.
`
`Like FK506, rapamycin is a powerful immunosuppressant that is
`especially toxic in dogs. The vasculitic lesions, however, were
`largely confmed to the gastrointestinal tract with rapamycin,
`whereas with FK506 vasculitis was widespread, including in the
`heart.2 If rapamycin, which appears to have little toxicity in
`primates (Dr J. Chang, Wyeth-Ayerst), is found to have a
`satisfactory
`therapeutic index and is
`effective
`as an
`immunosuppressant in primates with organ allografts, then the
`compound has potential clinical use. Vasculitis in the dog remains a
`worry and raises the question of a species idiosyncratic reaction.
`We thank Dr Joseph Chang and Dr Surendra N. Seghal of Wyeth-Ayerst
`Research, Pnnceton, New Jersey, for helpful discussion and supply of drugs.
`D. ST. J. COLLIER
`R. Y. CALNE
`SUSAN LIM
`S. G. POLLARD
`D. J. G. WHITE
`A. SAMAAN
`SATHIA THIRU
`
`Department of Surgery,
`Addenbrooke’s Hospital,
`Cambridge CB2 2QQ
`
`1. Ochiai T, Sakamoto K, Nagata M, et al. Studies on FK506 in experimental organ
`transplantation. Transplant Proc 1988; 20: 209-14.
`2. Collier DStJ, Calne RY, Thiru Sathia, et al. FK506 in experimental renal allografts in
`dogs and primates. Transplant Proc 1988; 20: 226-28.
`3. Martel RR, Klicius J, Galet S. Inhibition of the immune response by rapamycin, a new
`antifungal antibiotic. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1977; 55: 48-51.
`4. Eng CP, Sehgal SN, Vézna C. Activity of rapamycin (AY-22,989) against transplanted
`tumors. J Antibiol 1984; 37: 1231-37
`5. Bradley BA, White DJG, Edwards JM. Restriction of polymorphism defined by
`mixed lymphocyte reactions in the pig. Tissue Antigens 1974; 4: 283-90.
`6. White DJG, Bradley BA, Calne RY, et al. The relationship of the histocompatibility
`locus in the pig to allograft survival. Transplant Proc 1973; 5: 317-20.
`7. Heron I. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1971; 79: 366.
`8. Calne RY, Sells RA, Marshall VC, et al. Multiple organ grafts in the pig. Br J Surg
`1972; 59: 969-77.
`9. Calne RY, Alexandre GPJ, Murray JE. A study of the effects of drugs in prolonging
`survival of homologous renal transplants in dogs. Ann NY Acad Sci 1962; 99:
`743-61.
`
`LEWIS NEGATIVE GENOTYPE AND BREAST
`CANCER RISK
`SIR,-Mr Phipps and Mr Perry’s data (May 27, p 1198) support
`an association between the Lewis negative genotype and breast
`cancer, but their findings have been challenged by Prof Petrakis et al
`(July 1, p 41). There are difficulties in the genetic interpretation of
`Lewis phenotypes, and they preclude the use of this system in
`paternity and forensic studies. Lewis antigens are adsorbed onto the
`red cell surface from the plasma and the Le(a - b + ) phenotype can
`only arise by interaction between the products of Le, Se, and H
`genes. Since only one Le gene exists Phipps and Perry’s hypothesis
`is that the Lewis negative genotype is due to a chromosomal deletion
`should mean that the observed increase in the Le(a-b-)
`phenotype would be equally shared from the Le(a+b-) and
`Le(a - b +) pool of patients. Saliva studies, which are the most
`reliable way to Lewis type patients as long as one is aware that
`Le(a - b +) people will secrete Lea as well as Leb substance, show
`the increase in the Le(a - b - ) phenotype to be solely at the expense
`
`West-Ward Exhibit 1053
`Calne 1989
`Page 001
`
`

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