throbber
Therapy
`
`Antipsoriatic effect of fumaric acid derivatives
`
`R esults of a multicenter double-blind study in I 00 patients
`
`Peter J. Altmeyer, MD, a Ulrich Matthes, MD, a Frank Pawlak, MD,a Klaus Hoffmann, MD,a
`Peter J. Frosch, MD,b Peter Ruppert, MD,b Sawko W. Wassilew, MD,c Thomas Horn, MD,c
`Hans W. Kreysel, MD,d Gerhard Lutz, MD,d Joachim Barth, MD,e Ilona Rietzschel, MD,e
`and Rajendra K. Joshi, PhDr Bochum, Dortmund, Krefeld, Bonn, and Dresden, Germany;
`and Zurich, Switzerland
`
`Background: Psoriasis vulgaris may benefit from treatment with fumaric acid and/or its de(cid:173)
`rivatives; however, because different preparations have been used, results have been contra(cid:173)
`dictory and difficult to interpret.
`Objective: The purpose of this clinical trial was to evaluate the therapeutic value of fumaric
`acid derivatives.
`Methods: A randomized double-blind study was carried out in patients with psoriasis, com(cid:173)
`paring a well-characterized formulation of fumaric acid derivatives with placebo.
`Results: The results indicated statistically significant superiority of the fumaric acid deriv(cid:173)
`atives over placebo. Adverse events (flush, gastrointestinal disturbances) were initially rela(cid:173)
`tively frequent, but decreased thereafter.
`Conclusion: Fumaric acid derivatives were found to be effective and safe in the treatment of
`psoriasis.
`(JAM ACAD DERMATOL 1994;30:977-81.)
`
`The use of"fumaric acid" as antipsoriatic therapy
`has been controversial for more than 30 years. 1 In(cid:173)
`sufficient knowledge of the pharmacologic and tox(cid:173)
`icologic properties of this highly potent material re(cid:173)
`sulted in widespread abuse. Uncontrolled ingestion
`and overdose from combined topical and systemic
`therapy led to considerable nephrotoxic side effects
`in some patients and negative publicity. 2-4
`A distinction must be made between fumaric
`acid, which has no effect on psoriasis, and its esters,
`which may possess antipsoriatic activity. In the past
`primarily the monoethyl and dimethyl esters of fu(cid:173)
`maric acid, or a mixture of the two, were used. In
`contrast to pure fumaric acid these esters can be ab(cid:173)
`sorbed by the body and are thus systemically active.
`
`From the Dermatological Clinic, University of Bochum•; Municipal
`Hospital, Dortmundb; Municipal Hospital, Krefeld"; Dermatological
`Clinic, University of BoMd; Dermatological Clinic Medical Acad(cid:173)
`emy "Carl Gustav Carus," Dresden"; and the Department of Phar(cid:173)
`macy, Federal Institute of Technology, Ziirich.r
`Reprint requests: Peter J. Altmeyer, MD, Professor, Director of the
`Dermatological Clinic, University of Bochum, Gudrunstr. 56,
`D-44791 Bochum, Germany.
`Copyright@ 1994 by the American Academy of Dermatology, Inc.
`0190-9622/94$3.00 + 0 16/1/52297
`
`The pharmacologic effects of the fumaric acid esters
`are still largely unknown. A few older publications
`reported effects in lymphocyte cultures. 5• 6 In phy(cid:173)
`tohernagglutinin-stimulatedhumanlymphocytesfu(cid:173)
`marie acid monoethyl ester inhibited the incorpora(cid:173)
`tion of thymidine and uridine into nucleic acids and
`of alanine and leucine into proteins.5 In 1985 van
`Dijk7 reported the use of fumaric acid derivates in
`32 patients. Efficacy was good in most patients; ad(cid:173)
`verse events involved mainly the gastrointestinal
`tract. In 1987 Bayard et al.8 evaluated 11 patients
`who received a combination of fumaric acid deriv(cid:173)
`atives for 3 months. Good results were noted in more
`than half of these patients. In 1989 Nieboer et al.9
`described 136 patients who had been treated in var(cid:173)
`iously designed studies and confirmed the efficacy of
`the fumaric acid derivatives. In the first placebo(cid:173)
`controlled, double-blind study of fumaric acid de(cid:173)
`rivatives Nugteren-Huying et al. 10 confirmed the
`positive results of earlier studies.
`To reexamine the clinical efficacy and side effects
`of fumaric acid derivatives, a large, randomized,
`double-blind, placebo-controlled study was con(cid:173)
`ducted.
`
`977
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1030 PAGE 1
`
`

`

`978 Altmeyer et a/.
`
`Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
`June 1994
`
`Table I. Remission indexes based on the PAST
`score
`
`Complete remission
`Good improvement
`Moderate improvement
`Slight improvement
`No change
`Deterioration
`
`.Remission index
`
`>95%
`70%-95%
`30%-69%
`<30%
`0%
`<0%
`
`PATIENTS AND METHODS
`
`One hundred patients of both sexes were admitted to
`the study (women of cbild-beari ng age only after exclu(cid:173)
`sion of pregnancy). The patients 18 to 70 years of age
`(drug group: mean 41.1 years [range 21 to 69 years];
`placebo group: mean 39.0 years [range 19 to 67 years])
`had psoriasis (chronic plaque type, exanthema tic guttate
`type, pustular type, psoriatic erythroderma) for at least 2
`years and were no longer or only insufficiently responsive
`to external therapy. Only patients in whom more than
`10% of the body surface was affected were included.
`Topical antipsoriatic drugs had to be withdrawn at least
`2 weeks before entering the study. O ther concomitant
`treatment not affecting psoriasis was to be kept constant
`whenever possible and was monitored particularly with
`respect to possible interactions. Topical preparations such
`as ointments and bath oils were allowed.
`The exclusion criteria were impaired kidney or liver
`function, cardiac disease, pregnancy (contraception was
`required during therapy), gastrointestinal disorders, or
`hematologic disorders.
`All patients were treated with either placebo or drug in
`tablet form according to a uniform randomization sched(cid:173)
`ule. The drug consisted of a mixture of dimethylfumaratc
`and monoethylhydrogenfumarates. It was available in
`two different enteric-coated formulations: low-strength
`tablets containing l 05 mg of ester mixture (30 mg dim(cid:173)
`ethylfumaratej75 mg monoethylhydrogenfumarate as
`calcium, magnesium, zinc salts) and as "forte" tablets
`containing 2 15 mg of ester mixture ( 120 mg dimethylfu(cid:173)
`marate/95 mg monoethylhydrogenfumarate as calcium,
`magnesium, zinc salts}.
`T he patients were treated with ascending doses as fol(cid:173)
`lows: In the first week 105 mg of the ester mixture or pla(cid:173)
`cebo daily, in the second week 210 mg per day. After the
`second week the "forte" form was given and the dose in(cid:173)
`creased by 215 mg per day (week 3) up to a maximum
`dose of I 290 mg (week I 6) ester mixture per day. Patients
`receiving placebo were given the corresponding numbers
`of tablets.
`The following laboratory studies were performed on
`dayO (TO) and after 2 (Tl), 4 (T2), 6 (T3), 8 (T4), !2
`
`(T5), and 16 (T6) weeks: hemoglobin; erythrocyte, leu(cid:173)
`kocyte, and diiferential counts; platelet count; levels of
`bilirubin, creatinine, urea, uric acid, glucose, alkaline
`phosphatase, transaminases, gamma-GT, cholesterol,
`triglycerides, calcium, sodium, and potassium; as well as
`urinalysis. Creatinine clearance was detennined at TO
`and after 16 weeks.
`The status of the disease was measured by determin(cid:173)
`ing the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). The
`PASI values (P) were then used for calculation of are(cid:173)
`mission index (RI) giving the percentage improvement in
`the psoriasis at the time TI (TI = T 1-T6) compared with
`the starting time. The following formula was used:
`
`RI (~) = PASITO-PASITI
`PASITO
`X lOO
`0
`
`The calculated remission values were used as a basis for
`the classification listed in Table I. The clinical findings
`were evaluated al times TO (initial examination) and
`Tl-T6 (after 2, 4, 6, 8, 12,and 16 weeks). In addition, the
`pruritus, arthralgia, and nail deformities were assessed on
`the basis of a clinical score from 0 to 4 (O = none to
`4 = very severe). At each visit both the physician and the
`patient were asked to assess the outcome of therapy and
`any side effects. At the end of the study a global evalua(cid:173)
`tion of the outcome of treatment was made as weU as a
`comparison with the results of previous treatments.
`The following statistical tests were used: Wilcoxon(cid:173)
`Mann-Whitney U test, Mantei-Haenszel test, and chi(cid:173)
`square test for two or more factors. The laboratory results
`were examined for transitions with the t test and fre(cid:173)
`quency tables. In addition to the initial statistical meth(cid:173)
`ods the t test for unequal variances (Welch approxima(cid:173)
`tion) was used when the conditions for the t test were not
`fulfilled (significant F test, L¥ == 0.005). In general the sig(cid:173)
`nificance level was ex = 0.05.
`
`RESULTS
`
`A predominance of male patients was found in
`both the drug group and the placebo group. The pa(cid:173)
`tients in the drug group had psoriasis for an average
`of 14.6 years (2 to 45 years) and those in the placebo
`group for an average of 15.6 years (2 to 51 years).
`The distribution of the different forms of psoriasis
`was homogeneous in the two groups. Evaluation of
`homogeneity showed no signiticant differences be(cid:173)
`tween the individual centers.
`In Fig. 1 the P ASl scores in the drug group are
`compared with those in the placebo group. The data
`indicate that there was a definite and continuous
`drop in the index in the drug group. Compared with
`a starting value of21.57 (TO) thePASI determined
`in the sixteenth week (T6) was 10.77. In contrast,
`the PAS! in the placebo group remained practically
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1030 PAGE 2
`
`

`

`Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
`Volume 30, Number 6
`
`Altmeyer eta/. 979
`
`5
`
`0 ~--------------------------------------~
`Baseline
`week 2
`week4
`week6
`week 8
`week 12
`week 16
`J • Fumaric acid derivates • Placebo I
`Duration of treatment
`Fig. I. Influence on mean PAS! of fumaric acid derivatives and placebo during 16 weeks
`of treatment.
`
`patients (n)
`
`30 .-------------------------------------------,
`
`25
`
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`5
`
`RI<O
`RI=O
`Rl<30
`Rl=70-95 Rl=30-69
`Rl>95
`Fig. 2. Physicians' judgment of the therapeutic effect of fumaric acid derivatives (FAD) and
`placebo. RI, Remission index.
`
`constant during the en tire test period. The difference
`between the groups at T6 (week 16) is significant
`(p < 0.0001 ).
`At the end of the study physicians were requested
`to assess the effects of treatment as follows: complete
`remission, good improvement, moderate improve(cid:173)
`ment, slight improvement, no change, deterioration.
`A significant difference (p < 0.0001) in favor of the
`drug group was found (Fig. 2). In 71.3% of the
`drug-treated patients the degree of remission was
`described as complete, good, moderate, or slight. In
`addition, I. 8% showed no response and l 0.2% showed
`deterioration. In the placebo group 18% had an
`complete remission to slight improvement, whereas
`82% remained unchanged or deteriorated. Analysis
`of the individual data of the pati~nts with a positive
`
`response shows that the most marked treatment ef(cid:173)
`fects were found between the second and twelfth
`treatment weeks. In I 3 of 36 patients with a positive
`response the greatest tendency towards improve(cid:173)
`ment was between the second and fourth weeks; in
`five this occurred between the twelfth and sixteenth
`weeks.
`At the end of the study the clinical symptom ar(cid:173)
`thralgia had been alleviated in the drug group com(cid:173)
`pared with the placebo group (p < 0.002). No sta(cid:173)
`tistically significant differences were found with re·
`spect to "nail changes," although in individual
`patients (n = 15) marked improvement in onycho(cid:173)
`dystrophy was seen. There was a marked difference
`(p < 0.0001) between the two groups at the end of
`the study with respect to adverse reactions. In the
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1030 PAGE 3
`
`

`

`980 Altmeyer et al.
`
`Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
`June 1994
`
`drug group adverse reactions occurred in 75.5% of
`the patients and in the placebo group in 16.0%.
`During the entire study period abdominal distur(cid:173)
`bances such as diarrhea were reported 27 times
`(placebo twice), stomachache or stomach cramps 35
`times (placebo twice). Flush was reported 21 times
`(placebo none), skin burning twice (placebo once),
`itching once (placebo none), and heat sensations
`three times (placebo none). These figures refer to the
`total number of side effects during the entire study,
`that is, a single symptom occurring several times in
`one patient was counted several times.
`There were no changes in hemoglobin or erythro(cid:173)
`cyte count during the 16 weeks. No differences were
`detectable either between groups or within groups.
`Leukocytes showed a mild decrease in week 8 in both
`the drug group and the placebo group but showed no
`further changes after this time. The between-group
`comparison showed no significant difference for
`week 16, w:hereas the within-group comparison
`showed a significant decrease in the drug group
`(p = 0.0163). Eosinophils showed a significant in(cid:173)
`crease in the drug group from 2.0% (TO) to 3.4%
`(T2) (p < 0.05). A further increase was observed at
`T4 ( 4. 7%) but was not significant. Eosinophilia of
`28% was found in one patient. Eosinophil counts re(cid:173)
`mained unchanged in the placebo group. In the drug
`group a nonsignificant reduction in lymphocyte
`counts was measured between TO and T6. In the
`placebo group the values remained unchanged. The
`values for platelets, bilirubin, urea, creatinine, glu(cid:173)
`cose, alkaline phosphatase, transaminases, gamma(cid:173)
`GT, cholesterol, triglycerides, and urinalysis did not
`change significantly in either group. There were no
`significant differences in creatinine clearance in ei(cid:173)
`ther group.
`Treatment was terminated prematurely in 19 pa(cid:173)
`tients (38.8%) in the drug group and 29 (58.0%) in
`the placebo group. These withdrawals had no neg(cid:173)
`ative influence on the value of the study because the
`"carry forward last value" method was applied. The
`19 patients in the drug group terminated treatment
`for the following reasons: four because of side
`effects, five because of deterioration; 10 gave several
`reasons (e.g., "no change, increase in the extent of
`the disease, and side-effects"). Gastrointestinal side
`effects were the main reasons for termination. By
`comparison most of the drop-outs in the placebo
`group were due to worsening (n = 22), one because
`of gastrointestinal disturbances and six because of
`general dissatisfaction with the outcome of treat(cid:173)
`ment.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The results of our multicenter, randomized, dou(cid:173)
`ble-blind clinical trial clearly confirm the antipsori(cid:173)
`atic efficacy of the fumarate mixture. It is indicated
`for treatment of extensive severe psoriasis that no
`longer responds to external therapy but not for sta(cid:173)
`ble chronic plaque psoriasis. 12 The clinical results
`were good in labile or pustular psoriasis.
`The main side effects of the fumarates are diar(cid:173)
`rhea, nausea, or other gastrointestinal complaints7-9
`· that limit the use of the preparation. Expected gas(cid:173)
`trointestinal problems were the reason we chose a
`slow increase in dosage in the first weeks of treat(cid:173)
`ment. Experience has shown that this leads to better
`tolerability. Flushing occurs Y2 to 2 hours after tak(cid:173)
`ing the fumaric acid esters and persist for up to Y2
`hour. They were described as tolerable by all pa(cid:173)
`tients and did not lead to discontinuation of treat(cid:173)
`ment in any of them. The reason for the flush is not
`known.
`The relatively late response of some patients to
`treatment should be noted. In 36.1% of responders,
`the maximal effect was between the second and
`fourth week. Five patients were distinct late re(cid:173)
`sponders with a maximal effect between the twelfth
`and sixteenth weeks. We suspect that fumarates
`show clinical effects only after a saturation phase of
`several weeks. A definite disadvantage of the study
`design was the composition of the drug itself. The
`administered preparation was composed of several
`fumaric acid esters and their salts so that conclusions
`from this study can be made only with respect to the
`overall mixture and not to an individual component.
`In addition, for gastrointestinal reasons the study
`protocol prescribed use of a low-strength form in the
`first 2 weeks of treatment that contained a different
`mixture ratio from that of the "forte" form.
`Some noteworthy individual findings were notre(cid:173)
`vealed by a purely statistical evaluation (e.g., the
`improvement in patients with severely mutilating
`onychodystrophy). Striking improvements were ob(cid:173)
`served from treatment with the fumaric acid esters.
`In some patients with psoriatic arthropathy (n = 7),
`the joint complaints did not respond despite notice(cid:173)
`able effects on the skin, whereas others showed im(cid:173)
`pressive clinical improvement in the joint pain.
`
`REFERENCES
`l. Schwcckendiek W. Heilungvon Psoriasis. Med Monat~chr
`1959;13:103-4.
`2. RoodnatJI, ChristiaansMHL, Nugteren-Huying WM, et
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1030 PAGE 4
`
`

`

`Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
`Volume 30, Number 6
`
`Giandoni and Grabski
`
`a!. Akute Niereninsuffizienz bei der Behandlung der Pso(cid:173)
`riasis mit Fumarsaureester. Schweiz Med Wochenscbr
`1989;119:826-30.
`3. Dubiel W, Happle R. Behandlungsversuch mit Fumarsiiu(cid:173)
`remonoethylester bei Psoriasis vulgaris. Z Haut-Geschl Kr
`1972;13:545-50.
`4. Raab W. Treatment of psoriasis with fumaric acid and fu(cid:173)
`marates. Z Hautkr 1959;10:671-9.
`5. Petres J, KalkoffKW, Baron D, et al. Der Einfluss von Fu(cid:173)
`marsiiuremonoethylester auf die Nucleinsiiure und Pro(cid:173)
`teinsynthese PHA-stimulierter menschlicher Lym(cid:173)
`phozyten. Arch Derm Forsch 1975;251:295-300.
`6. Hagedorn M, Kalkoff KW, Kiefer G, et al. Fumarsiiure(cid:173)
`monoethylester: Wirkung auf DNA-Synthese und erste
`tierexperimentelle Befunde. Arch Derm Forsch 1975;
`254:67-73.
`7. van Dijk E. Fumaarzuurvoor de bebandelingvan patienten
`met psoriasis. Ned Tijdschr Geneesk 1985;129:485-6.
`
`8. Bayard W, Hunziker Th, Krebs A, et al. Perorale Lang(cid:173)
`zeitbehandlung der Psoriasis mit Fumarsaurederivaten.
`Hautarzt 1987;38:279-85.
`9. Nieboer C, de Hoop D, Van Loenen AC, et al. Systemic
`therapy with fumaric acid derivatives: new possibilities in
`the treatment of psoriasis. JAM ACAD DERMATOL 1989;
`20:601-8.
`10. Nugteren-Huying WM, van der Schroeff JG, Hermans J,
`et al. Fumaric acid therapy for psoriasis: a randomized,
`double-blind, placebo-controlled study. JAM ACAD DER(cid:173)
`MATOL 1990;22:311·2.
`11. Fredriksson T, Petterson U. Severe psoriasis: oral therapy
`with a new retinoid. Dermatologica 1978;157:238-44.
`12. Matthes U, Pawlak F, Altmeyer P. Oral therapy or severe
`psoriasis by derivatives of fumaric acid: an open long-term
`studyoveroneyear[Abstract].Presentedat the 18th World
`Congress of Dermatology, New York, June 12-18, 1992.
`1992:146A.
`
`Cutaneous candidiasis as a cause of delayed
`surgical wound healing
`Martin B. Giandoni, MD, and William J. Grabski, MD San Antonio, Texas
`
`Background: Reports in the literature of surgical wounds infected with Candida species are
`scant.
`Objective: We describe a subset of patients with cutaneous candidiasis whose only clinical
`finding was delayed wound healing.
`Methods: Surgical wounds managed with moist occlusive postoperative dressings were ob(cid:173)
`served for delayed healing.
`Results: Three patients are described who demonstrated delayed wound healing with failure
`to epithelialize. Fungal cultures from each patient revealed heavy growth of Candida. The
`problem resolved quickly with a modified wound care regimen and application of an anti yeast
`cream.
`Conclusion: Cutaneous candidiasis can be a cause of delayed wound healing, especially in
`surgical wounds treated with antibacterial ointments and occlusive dressings.
`(J AM ACAD DERMATOL 1994;30:981-4.)
`
`Cutaneous candidiasis associated with a surgical
`wound is probably more common than is generally
`recognized. 1• 2 Cutaneous candidiasis usually ap(cid:173)
`pears as a brightly erythematous eruption with su(cid:173)
`perficial erosions, crusting, and small pustules in
`both a central and satellite distribution. Occasion(cid:173)
`ally this appearance is associated with a surgical
`wound, but few reports in the literature describe this
`complication. We describe three illustrative pa-
`
`From the Dermatology Service, Brooke Army Medical Center.
`Presented at the national meeting of The American Society for Derma(cid:173)
`tologic Surgery, Charleston, S.C., March 18, 1993.
`Reprints not available.
`16/1/52479
`
`tients, although we have seen many more, with sur(cid:173)
`gical wounds that failed to heal completely after an
`extended period. We postulate that cutaneous can(cid:173)
`didiasis associated with a surgical wound that fails
`to reepithelialize is common. This phenomenon has
`been briefly noted previously,2 and we believe that it
`should be emphasized further. We discuss the spec(cid:173)
`trum of clinical presentation of this condition, the
`factors that favor cutaneous candidiasis in a surgi(cid:173)
`cal wound, and a simple regimen to treat the condi(cid:173)
`tion.
`
`CASE REPORTS
`Case 1. An 81-year-old woman had a large basal cell
`carcinoma excised from her left cheek. The defect re-
`981
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1030 PAGE 5
`
`

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