Exoert
`· ·
`.
`.
`·
`opinion on invest1gational drugs
`~ 18, no . 10 (Oct. 2009)
`·
`:--,eneral Collection
`''V1 EX52M
`2009-10-20 09:53:24
`
`on lnvestigational Drugs
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1030.001
`
`

`

`October 2009 Vol. 18 No. 1 O
`
`ExP.ert
`Opinion on lnvestigational Drugs
`
`Forthcoming articles
`• lnvestigational HDAC8 inhibitors for
`neuroblastoma
`• Novel investigational Adenosine A2A receptor
`antagonists for Parkinson's disease
`• Investigating the role of platelet derived
`growth factor (PDGF) as a potential drug
`therapy in bone formation and fracture
`healing.
`• Monotherapy versus combination therapy for
`the treatment of chronic hepatitis B
`• Discontinued oncology drugs 2008
`• Lurasidone
`• Vilazodone, a novel dual-acting serotonergic
`antidepressant for managing major
`depression
`
`Editorial
`1425 Phospholipase A2 inhibitors in
`the treatment of
`atherosclerosis: a new approach
`moves forward in the clinic
`KE Suckling
`Discontinued Drugs Perspective
`1431 Discontinued psychiatric drugs
`in 2008
`VD Kirchhoff, HTT Nguyen,
`JK Soczynska, HO Woldeyohannes
`& RS McIntyre
`Reviews
`1445
`lnvestigational drugs targeting
`FLT3 for leukemia
`C Ustun, DL DeRemer, AP Ji/le/la &
`KN Bhalla
`1457 Targeting IL-6 in the treatment of
`inflammatory and autoimmune
`diseases
`C Ding, F Cicuttini, J Li & G Jones
`1467 Current data of targeted
`therapies for the treatment
`of triple-negative advanced
`breast cancer: empiricism or
`evidence-based?
`F Petrelli, M Cabiddu, M Ghi/ardi &
`S Barni
`1479 Current progress in the
`pharmacological therapy
`of fibromyalgia
`SG Rao
`1495 Glucose lowering and
`anti-atherogenic effects of
`i ncretin-based therapies:
`GLP-1 analogues and
`DPP-4-inhibitors
`M Rizzo, AA Rizvi, GA Spinas, GB
`Rini & K Berneis
`
`1505 Emerging oligonucleotide
`therapies for asthma and
`chronic obstructive pulmonary
`disease
`RM Seguin & N Ferrari
`1519 Histamine H3 and H4 receptors
`as novel drug targets
`E Tiligada, E Zampeli, K Sander &
`H Stark
`Drug Evaluations
`1533 Agomelatine, a melatonin
`agonist with antidepressant
`properties
`SL Dubovsky & C Warren
`1541 AVE8062: a new combretastatin
`derivative vascular disrupting
`agent
`A Delmonte & C Sessa
`1549 Cediranib: profile of a novel
`anti-angiogenic agent in patients
`with glioblastoma
`J Dietrich, D Wang & TT Batchelor
`1559 Clofarabine: emerging role in
`leukemias
`K Sampat. H Kantarjian &
`G Borthakur
`1565 Fospropofol disodium, a
`water-soluble prodrug of the
`intravenous anesthetic propofol
`(2,6-diisopropylphenol)
`J Fechner, H lhmsen, C Jeleazcov &
`J Schuttler
`1573 VEGF Trap-Eye for the
`treatment of neovascular
`age-related macular
`degeneration
`JA Dixon, SCN Oliver, JL Olson &
`N Mandava
`
`informa
`healthcare
`
`Expert Opinion on lnvestigational Drugs is grateful and indebted to the reviewers of all the
`above articles
`
`2009 © lnlorma UK ltd ISSN 1354·3784
`This material was copi e.d
`at th<> NLMan<fmaybe
`iul>ject US Copyright Laws
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1030.002
`
`

`

`ExP.ert
`Opinion on lnvestigational Drugs
`
`Aims and scope
`Expert Opinion on lnvestigational Drugs is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international
`journal publishing review articles and original papers on drugs in preclinical and early stage clinical
`development, providing expert opinion on the scope for future development.
`The Editors welcome:
`• Reviews covering preclinical through to Phase II data on drugs or drug classes for specific
`indications, and their potential impact on future treatment strategies
`• Drug Evaluations reviewing the clinical and pharmacological data on a particular drug
`• Original Research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on agents that are in
`Phase I and II clinical trials
`The audience consists of scientists. managers and decision-makers in the pharmaceutical industry,
`and others closely involved in R&D.
`Editorial policy
`Articles published in Expert Opinion on lnvestigational Drugs are commissioned by the Editor in
`collaboration with the Section Editorial Board. Authors who wish to contribute should contact
`the Editor. All reviews and drug evaluations are subject to peer-review.
`Editorial boards
`The Senior Advisory Panel and Section Editorial Board are composed of Senior Scientists
`involved in drug research and development. The Senior Advisory Panel is responsible for the
`development of the journal, while the Section Editors are responsible for selecting authors and
`topics for review to ensure comprehensive coverage of subjects in each therapeutic area.
`Citations
`Expert Opinion on /nvestigational Drugs is indexed by:
`Chemical Abstracts (CODEN EOIDER)
`Current Contents®/Life Sciences
`EMBASE/Excerpta Medica
`ISi Alerting Services (2008 Impact Factor 4.058)
`Index Medicus/Medline
`Science Citations Index-Expanded
`Copyright and disclaimer
`Conditions of sale - Expert Opinion on lnvestigational Drugs may be circulated only to those
`members of staff who are employed at the site at which the subscription is taken out. Readers are
`reminded that, under internationally agreed copyright legislation, photocopying of copyright
`materials is prohibited other than on a limited basis for personal use. This means that making
`copies of any article published in Expert Opinion on lnvestigational Drugs is a breach of the law
`and can be prosecuted.
`Whilst every effort is made by the publishers and advisory board to ensure that no inaccurate or
`misleading data. opinions or statements appear in this journal. they wish to make it clear that
`the data and opinions appearing herein are the responsibility of the contributor concerned.
`Accordingly, the publishers, advisory board, editors and their respective employees. officers and
`agents accept no liability whatsoever for the consequences of any inaccurate or misleading
`data, opinions or statements. Approved product information should always be reviewed prior
`to prescribing .
`
`Editorial Office
`lnforma Healthcare, Telephone House,
`69· 77 Paul Street, London, EC2A 4LQ. UK
`
`Tel: +44 (0)20 7017 7650
`Fax: +44 (0)20 7017 7667
`E-mail: expertopin@informa.com
`Web: www.expertopin.com
`
`Commissioning Editor: Fizah Khan
`Production Editor: Sumayya Patel
`Original Research Editor: Elizabeth Knowles
`Drug Evaluations Editor: Elizabeth Knowles
`Publisher: Anna Heinink
`
`Editor-in-Chief: Dimitri P Mikhailidis
`MSc, MD, FACB, FACA, FFPM, FRCP, FRCPath
`Royal Free Hospital and University College
`Medical School, London, UK
`
`Senior Advisory Panel
`Chairman: Fitzgerald JD: Materia Medica, UK
`Abou-Gharbia M: Wyeth-Ayerst, USA
`Baldwin JJ: Pharmacopeia, USA
`Buckel P: Boehringer Mannheim, Germany
`Duncan WAM: RW Johnson, USA
`Evans C: Chiroscience. UK
`Gillis S: Corixa, USA
`Harrap K: Inst. Cancer Research, UK
`Hoyer D: Novartis, Switzerland
`Humphrey PPA: GlaxoSmithKline, UK
`Krogsgaard Thomsen M: Novo, Denmark
`Moncada S: The Cruciform Project, UK
`Morich F-J: Bayer, Germany
`Okazaki H: Takeda. Japan
`Paioni R: Novartis, Switzerland
`Poste G: Health Technology Networks, USA
`Ringrose PS: Bristol-Myers Squibb, USA
`Ross BC: GlaxoSmithKline, UK
`Setoyama 0: Chugai, Japan
`Sugino Y: Takeda. Japan
`Timmermanns P: DuPont, USA
`Weston A: Univ. Manchester, UK
`
`Section Editorial Board
`Pulmonary-Allergy, Dermatological,
`Gastrointestinal & Arthritis
`Bacon K, Braddock M, Farthing MJ, Foster M,
`Norris A, Richards IM, Roomans GM, Snell NJ.
`Taylor PC, Warne P
`Anti-infectives
`Blondeau J, Bryskier A. Buckheit R, Chopra I,
`Clerici M, Georgopapadakou N, Neamati N,
`Ryder N, Turik M
`Endocrine & Metabolic
`Brandi ML, Colca J, Dujovne C,
`Fuller P, Kowluru R, McCormack J, Proietto J,
`Whitfield J
`Central & Peripheral Nervous Systems
`Grundemar L, Gurwitz D, Hill RG. Kloog Y,
`Palacios JM, Panetta JA. Schachter S,
`Tamminga C, Tariot P, Wood M
`Cardiovascular & Renal
`Barton M. Danser AHJ, Herbert J-M,
`Holvoet P, Papatsoris AG, Ruffolo RR.
`von Haehling S. Winkelmann BR
`Oncologlc
`Denny WA, Kelland L, Koutsilieris M,
`Papatsoris AG, Papavassiliou AG, Sawyer TK,
`Udayan D, Williams R, Zhang WW
`
`20l0si!)rlafrowtl!1 ~s l!hjSfi'tl 13 S4· 3 784
`at the NLM am:l'maybe
`Subject USCo:Pvri!!:ht Laws
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1030.003
`
`

`

`This mate rial may be protected by Copyright law {Title 17 U.S. Code)
`
`ExP.ert
`Opinion
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`2. Background
`3. Conclusion
`4. Expert opinion
`
`informa
`
`healthcare
`
`Drug Evaluation
`VEGF Trap-Eye for the treatment
`of neovascular age-related
`macular degeneration
`James A Dixon, Scott CN Olivert, Jeffrey L Olson & Naresh Mandava
`University ofColomdo Dawe,; Rocky Mo1111tai11 Lions Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology,
`1675 North Aurom Court. PO Box 6510. M,til Stop F-731, A11rorn, CO 80045-2500, USA
`Background: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) affects > 14 million
`individuals worldwide. Although 90% of patients with AMO have the dry
`form, neovascular AMD accounts for the vast majority of patients who
`develop legal blindness. Until recently, few treatment options existed for
`treatment of neovascular AMD. The advent of anti-VEGF therapy has sig(cid:173)
`nificantly improved the safe and effective treatment of neovascular AMD.
`In addition to two anti-VEGF drugs currently in widespread use, ranibizumab
`and bevacizumab, a number of medications that interrupt angiogenesis are
`currently under investigation. One promising new drug is aflibercept (VEGF
`Trap-Eye), a fusion protein that blocks all isoforms of VEGF-A and placental
`growth factors-1 and -2. Objective: To review the current literature and clini(cid:173)
`cal trial data regarding VEGF Trap-Eye for the treatment of neovascular
`AMO. Methods: Literature review. Results/conclusion: VEGF Trap·Eye is a
`novel anti-VEGF therapy, with Phase I and II trial data indicating safety, toler(cid:173)
`ability and efficacy for the treatment of neovascular AMD. Two Phase Ill clini(cid:173)
`cal trials (VIEW-1 and VIEW-2) comparing VEGF Trap-Eye to ranibizumab are
`currently continuing and will provide vital insight into the clinical applicability
`of this drug.
`
`Keywords: aflibercept, AMO, angiogcnesis, neovascularization. VEG F, VEGF inhibition, VEGF Trap
`1-:xpert Opin. /n vestig. Drugs (2009) 18(10):1573-1580
`
`1. Introduction
`
`Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) affects > 1.75 million individuals in the
`US an<l it is estimated that by 2020 this number will increase to almost 3 million 111.
`Worldwide, AMD is estimated to affect 14 million people 121. While the vast major(cid:173)
`ity of patients suffering from AMD have the dry form, - 80 - 90% of patients who
`develop severe vision loss have the neovascular or 'wet' form of the disease 131, Until
`recently, healthcare professionals had few options when it came to treating neovascular
`AMO. For many years, subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) was treated
`with argon laser therapy according to guidelines from the Macular Photocoagulation
`Study 14-121. This treatment, in the setting of subfoveal disease, was unsatisfactory for
`a number of reasons, including the limited benefits in visual stabilization and the
`high risk of inducing central vision deficits 1131, Treatment outcomes improved with
`the introduction of photodynamic therapy (PDT) which utilized a photosensiti1.ing
`dye (verteporfin) to selectively target CNV. While more efficacious than previous
`treatments, patients receiving PDT failed to recover vision and continued to experi(cid:173)
`ence a decline in visual acuity 1!41 and the treatment was of questionable cost
`effectiveness [ I 'i 1.
`The more recent development of agents that inhibit VEGF has largely
`supplanted these previous treatments. The pathogenesis of CNV in the setting of
`
`10. 15 I 7/13543780903201684 © 2009 lnforma UK Ltd ISSN 1354-3784
`/\II rights rcser-.lihfsr~mi~i<!lfF~<w~or in part not permitted
`at the Nl t•t:andm:aybe
`Siurt>ject US Copy.right L:aws
`
`1573
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1030.004
`
`

`

`VEGF Trap-Eye
`
`AMD is complex; however, there is overwhelming evidence
`that VEGF is a predominant mediator in its genesis. VEGF
`receptors are expressed by a number of important cell types
`in the eye, including vascular endothelial cells, choroidal
`fibroblasts, retinal pigment epithelial cells and inflammatory
`cells attracted by hypoxia [16-19). Higher levels of VEGF
`expression have been demonstrated in animal models [20,21)
`and human studies of eyes with AMD [17,22-24) and antago(cid:173)
`nism of VEGF in both settings have definitively demon(cid:173)
`strated inhibition of neovasculariz.ation and vascular permeability.
`VEGF-A is the predominant member of the VEGF family
`targeted by ~ currently in widespread use; however, the
`group is also comprised of VEGF-B, VEGF-C, VEFG-D and
`placental growth factors-I and -2.
`Systemic administration of bevacizumab is effective against
`neovascular AMD; however, systemic complications limit its
`use [25). Accordingly, all anti-VEGF agents for neovascular
`AMD are administered only by intravitreal injection. The two
`largest studies examining anti-VEGF therapy, the MARINA [26)
`and the ANCHOR [27.28) trials, were randomized, controlled,
`double-masked Phase III clinical trials that together evaluated
`monthly ranibizumab for the treatment of all types of neovas(cid:173)
`cular AMD. In both trials, 94% of patients with neovascular
`AMD lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity at 12 and
`24 months when treated with ranibizumab. Surprisingly, as
`many as 40% of patients in the two trials improved by > 15
`letters from baseline at 2 years. Ranibizumab received the
`FDA approval for all types of neovascular AMD in 2006.
`Based on the results of these two landmark studies, anti-VEGF
`therapies for neovascular AMD have largely replaced previous
`treatment modalities.
`
`2. Background
`
`2.1 Overview of the market (unmet needs,
`competitor compounds/in clinical development)
`By far the most commonly used anti-VEGF drugs currently
`in use for neovascular AMD are ranibizumab and bevaci(cid:173)
`zumab. Pegaptanib was the first anti-VEGF drug approved
`by the FDA for the treatment of AMD; however, it proved
`less efficacious than current treatments [13) (possibly due to
`its selective binding of VEGF-165) and is no longer widely
`used in most countries. Ranibizumab is the only drug in
`widespread use currently approved by the FDA for treat(cid:173)
`ment of neovascular AMD and is by far the most extensively
`studied [26,27,29,30] . It is a recombinant monoclonal antibody
`fragment with a high binding affinity for all isotypes of
`VEGF-A. Bevacizumab, currently being used off-label for
`the treatment of AMD in the US, is a humanized whole
`antibody to VEGF-A used in oncology regimens that also
`binds all isotypes of VEGF-A. Although ranibizumab has
`been shown to have a higher affinity for VEGF-A, it is not
`clear if ranibizumab has superior efficacy to bevacizumab.
`Retrospective and small randomized studies have suggested
`similar efficacy profiles [31,32]. The Comparisons of Age-Related
`
`Macular Degeneration Treatment Trial (CATT) is a 2-year,
`multi-centered, randomized clinical trial comparing ranibi(cid:173)
`zumab and bevacizumab for neovascular AMD. Enrollment
`began in February 2008. Despite the off-label status of beva(cid:173)
`cizumab, it continues to be a popular treatment choice in the
`US because of the significantly reduced price of treatment
`($ 50 - 100 for bevacizumab versus$ 2000 for ranibizumab
`(2008 pricing)).
`As previously mentioned, the MARINA [26) and the
`ANCHOR [27.28) trials examined the efficacy of ranibizumab
`when administered monthly. The time and financial burden
`of monthly injections has led to the initiation of studies to
`examine the efficacy of alternative dosing schedules. In the
`PIER study [30J, patients initially received monthly injections
`of ranibizumab for 3 months followed by quarterly injec(cid:173)
`tions. Although patient visual acuities actually improved at
`3 months, during the quarterly dosing segment visual acuity
`returned to baseline. The PrONTO study [29) looked at as
`needed (p.r.n.) dosing of ranibizumab after three consecutive
`monthly doses. The need for further injections was made on
`the basis of recurrent CNV as evidenced by worsening
`vision, retinal thickening on ocular coherence tomography
`(OCT) or abnormalities on fluorescein angiogram (FA). At
`2 years of follow up, 78% of patients had maintained vision
`and vision had improved by > 3 lines in 43% of patients
`with an average of five injections a year. These later studies
`seem to indicate that quarterly dosing is associated with
`poorer outcomes but it may be possible to extend the time
`between injections if the patient is frequently monitored.
`However, even with the p.r.n. dosing utilized in the PrONTO
`study, patients are still required to make monthly visits to the
`office with frequent and expensive testing.
`The development of new drugs for neovascular AMD has
`thus focused on both improving efficacy and extending
`duration of action. Most new compounds in development
`are targeted toward inhibition of various steps in the VEGF
`signaling pathway. There are a number of drugs in develop(cid:173)
`ment that inhibit the downstream tyrosine kinase cascade
`activated by the binding of VEGF with its receptor
`(VEGFR). Vatalanib is an oral formulation that binds to all
`three VEGFRs and has recently completed Phase I/II study
`as adjuvant to PDT and ranibizurnab [33]. Topical tyrosine
`kinase inhibitors currently undergoing Phase II clinical stud(cid:173)
`ies include pazopanib [34] and TG100801 [35]. Another
`approach utilizes siRNA to silence genes which express pro(cid:173)
`teins involved in angiogenesis. Bevasiranib, an siRNA that
`targets VEGF-A mRNA, showed encouraging Phase I and II
`data, but the Phase III trial was halted in March 2009 for
`projected failure to meet the primary end point [36) . An
`extra antiangiogenic target being developed is pigment
`epithelium-derived factor (PEDF), a potent inhibitor of new
`vessel growth. AdGVPEDF.llD uses an adenovector to
`deliver the PEDF gene to target cells, resulting in the local
`production of PEDF in the treated eye. AdGVPEDF.l lD
`has recently completed Phase I clinical trials [37]. Another
`
`1574
`
`Expert Opin. lnvestig. Drugs (2009) 18(10)
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1030.005
`
`

`

`recently discovered alternative pathway for decreasing angio(cid:173)
`genesis involves inhibition of nicotinic acetylcholine recep(cid:173)
`tors. ATG3 (mecamylamine), a topical formulation that
`inhibits the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, has shown
`promising results in animal and Phase I trials and is currently
`undergoing a Phase II study [25).
`
`2.2 Introduction to compound
`VEGF Trap-Eye is a novel anti-VEGF drug currently in
`commercial development for the treatment of neovascular
`AMD by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Tarrytown, NY,
`USA) in the US and in collaboration with Bayer HealthCare
`(Leverkusen, Germany)
`in global markets. Structurally,
`VEGF Trap-Eye is a fusion protein of key binding domains
`of human VEGFR-1 and -2 combined with a human IgG
`Fe fragment (Figure 1). Functionally, VEGF Trap-Eye acts as
`a receptor decoy with high affinity for all VEGF isoforms,
`binding more tightly than their native receptors. Unlike
`anti-VEGF drugs currently in use, VEGF Trap-Eye
`is
`designed to inhibit placental growth factors-I and -2 in
`addition to all isoforms of VEGF-A.
`
`2.3 Chemistry
`VEGF Trap-Eye and aflibercept (the oncology product) have
`the same molecular structure, but there are substantial dif(cid:173)
`ferences between the preparation of the purified drug prod(cid:173)
`uct and their formulations. Both aflibercept and VEGF
`Trap-Eye are manufactured in bioreactors from industry
`standard Chinese hamster ovary cells that overexpress the
`fusion protein. However, VEGF Trap-Eye undergoes further
`purification steps during manufacturing to minimize risk of
`irritation to the eye. VEGF Trap-Eye is also formulated with
`different buffers and at different concentrations (for buffers
`in common) suitable for the comfortable, non-irritating,
`direct injection into the eye.
`
`2A Pharmacodynamics
`The aflibercept dose that is administered in oncology settings
`is either 4 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks,
`which corresponds to 2 mg/(kg week) with either schedule.
`The highest intravitreal dose being used in pivotal trials for
`VEGF Trap-Eye is 2 mg/month, which corresponds to at
`least a 280-fold lower potential systemic exposure than in the
`oncology setting. Early trials with aflibercept administered
`intravenously for AMD indicated that doses of 0.3 mg/kg
`(21 mg total) were inadequate to fully capture systemic
`VEGF. Thus, the low intravitreal dose of 2 mg allows for
`extended blocking of VEGF in the eye, but would be pre(cid:173)
`dicted to give negligible systemic activity as it will be rapidly
`bound to VEGF and inactivated.
`
`2.s Pharmacokinetics and metabolism
`Aflibercept is cleared from circulation through two pathways:
`by binding to VEGF to form an inactive VEGF-aflibercept
`complex and by Fe-receptor or pinocytotic mediated pathways
`
`Dixon, Oliver, Olson & Mandava
`
`that end in proteolysis, which are presumed to be similar to
`pathways that metabolize antibodies. At very high doses, free
`aflibercept has a terminal half-life of - 17 days in the circu(cid:173)
`lation. The half-life of human intravitreal doses is unknown.
`lntravitreal primate doses of ranibizumab have a half-life of
`- 3 days [38). At low blood levels, clearance of free afliber(cid:173)
`cept is rapid as a result of binding to VEGF with picomolar
`affinity [39).
`
`2.6 Clinical efficacy
`2.6.1 Phase I
`A Phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
`of intravenous aflibercept (oncology formulation) was com(cid:173)
`pleted in 25 patients with AMD. Although systemic afliber(cid:173)
`cept did demonstrate a dose-dependent decrease in retinal
`thickness, the study was halted due to concerns of dose(cid:173)
`dependent toxicity when one patient developed hypertension
`and another proteinuria [40).
`The safety, tolerability and biological activity of intravitreal
`VEGF Trap-Eye in treatment of neovascular AMD was eval(cid:173)
`uated in the two-part Clinical Evaluation of Anti-angiogenesis
`in the Retina-I (CLEAR-IT-I) study [41). The first part was
`a sequential cohort dose-escalation study in which 21 patients
`were monitored for safety, changes in foveal thickness on
`OCT, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and lesion size on
`FA for 6 weeks. No adverse systemic or ocular events were
`noted and visual acuity remained stable or improved ~ 3
`lines in 95% of patients with a mean increase in BCVA
`of 4.6 letters at 6 weeks [42). Patients showed substantially
`decreased foveal thickness [41].
`In the second part, 30 patients received a single intravitreal
`injection of either 0.5 or 4 mg of VEGF Trap-Eye and were
`followed for 8 weeks. All patients were evaluated for their
`rates of retreatment, changes in BCVA, foveal thickness as
`well as change in total lesion size and area of CNY. Patients
`had ETDRS (Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy
`Study) BCVA ranging from 20/40 to 20/320 with any angio(cid:173)
`graphic subtype of CNV at baseline. No serious adverse
`events or ocular inflammation was identified during the
`study. At 8 weeks, the mean decrease in retinal thickness in
`the low dose group was 63.7 Jllil compared to 175 µm for
`the high dose group. Of the first 24 patients to complete the
`study, 11 out of 12 patients in the 0.5 mg dose group
`required retreatment in a median of 64 days, compared with
`4 out of 12 in the 4 mg dose group who required retreatment
`in a median of 69 days [43).
`VEGF Trap-Eye has also undergone a small open-label
`safety study for the treatment of diabetic macular edema
`(DME) [44). The drug was administered as a single 4 mg
`intravitreal injection to five patients with longstanding dia(cid:173)
`betes and several previous treatments for DME. The single
`injection resulted in a median decrease of central macular
`thickness measured by OCT of 79 µm. BCVA increased by
`9 letters at 4 weeks and regressed to a 3 letter improvement
`at 6 weeks.
`
`Expert Opin. lnvestig. Drugs (2009) 18(10)
`
`1575
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1030.006
`
`

`

`VEGF Trap-Eye
`
`VEGFR1
`
`VEGFR2
`
`i i
`9i
`~
`9i
`8i
`9i
`9i
`• •
`
`VEGF
`Trap
`
`=
`
`Fe
`
`VEGFR1 10-30pM
`VEGFR2 100 - 300 pM
`j VEGF Trap Eye - 0.5 pM
`
`111112
`
`Figure 1. Schematic diagram of VEGF Trap-Eye, a fusion
`protein of binding domains of VEGF receptors-1 and -2
`attached to the Fe fragment of human lgG.
`
`2.6.2 Phase II
`CLEAR-IT-2 trial
`[45] was a prospective, randomized,
`multi-center, controlled dose- and interval-ranging Phase II
`trial in which 157 patients were randomized to five dose
`groups and treated with VEGF Trap-Eye in one eye. The
`mean age of the group was 78.2 years and all angiographic
`subtypes of CNV were represented at baseline. The mean
`ETDRS BCVA in letters at baseline was 56. Two groups
`received monthly doses of either 0.5 or 2.0 mg for 12 weeks
`(at weeks 0, 4, 8 and 12) and three groups received quar(cid:173)
`terly doses of either 0.5, 2.0 or 4.0 mg for 12 weeks
`(at weeks O and 12). Following this fixed dosing period,
`patients were treated with the same dose of VEGF Trap-Eye
`on a p.r.n. basis. Criteria for re-dosing included an increase in
`central retinal thickness of :::0: 100 µm by OCT, a loss of :::0: 5
`ETDRS letters in conjunction with recurrent fluid by OCT,
`persistent fluid as indicated by OCT, new onset classic neo(cid:173)
`vascularization, new or persistent leak on FA or new macular
`subretinal hemorrhage.
`Patients initially treated with 2.0 or 0.5 mg ofVEGF Trap(cid:173)
`Eye monthly achieved mean improvements of 9.0 (p < 0.0001)
`and 5.4 (p < 0.085) ETDRS letters with 29 and 19% gaining,
`respectively, :::0: 15 ETDRS letters at 52 weeks. During the
`p.r.n. dosing period, patients initially dosed on a 2.0 mg
`monthly schedule received an average of 1.6 more injections
`and those initially dosed on a 0.5 mg monthly schedule
`received an average of 2.5 injections. The median time to first
`reinjection in all groups was 110 days and 19% of patients
`required no more injections at week 52. Patients in these two
`monthly dosing groups also displayed mean decreases in
`
`retinal thickness versus baseline of 143 µm (p < 0.0001) in the
`2.0 mg group and 125 µm (p < 0.0001) in the 0.5 mg group
`at 52 weeks as measured by OCT [45].
`Patients in the three quarterly dosing groups also showed
`mean improvements in BCVA and retinal thickness; how(cid:173)
`ever, they were generally not as profound as the monthly
`injection group (45).
`
`2.6.3 Phase Ill
`A two part Phase III trial ofVEGF Trap-Eye was initiated in
`August of 2007. The first part, VIEW 1 (VEGF Trap:
`Investigation of Efficacy and safety in Wet age-related macular
`degeneration) [46] will enroll - 1200 patients with neovascu(cid:173)
`lar AMD in the US and Canada. This non-inferiority study
`will evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravitreal VEGF
`Trap-Eye at doses of 0.5 and 2.0 mg administered at 4-week
`dosing intervals and 2.0 mg at an 8 week dosing interval
`(following three monthly doses), compared with 0.5 mg of
`ranibizumab administered every 4 weeks. After the first year
`of the study, patients will enter a second year of p.r.n. dosing
`evaluation. The VIEW 2 [47] study has a similar study design
`and is currently enrolling patients in Europe, Asia Pacific,
`Japan and Latin America. In both trials, the primary out(cid:173)
`come will be the proportion of patients who maintain vision
`at week 52 (defined as a loss of< 15 ETDRS letters).
`
`2.1 Safety and tolerability
`Based on Phase II study data, VEGF Trap-Eye seems to be
`generally well tolerated with no serious drug-related adverse
`events. In the 157 patients enrolled in CLEAR-IT 2 trial,
`there was one reported case of culture-negative endophthal(cid:173)
`mitis not deemed to be related to the study drug. There
`were also two deaths (one from pre-existing pulmonary
`hypenension and one from pancreatic carcinoma) and one
`arterial thromboembolic event (in a patient with a history of
`previous stroke) that occurred during the study period, but
`no serious systemic adverse events were deemed related to
`VEGF Trap-Eye administration. The most common adverse
`events reported in the study included conjunctival hemor(cid:173)
`rhage (38.2%),
`transient increased intraocular pressure
`(18.5%), refraction disorder (15.9%), retinal hemorrhage
`(14.6%), subjective visual acuity loss (13.4%), vitreous
`detachment (11.5%) and eye pain (9.6%) [45],
`
`3. Conclusion
`
`Anti-VEGF therapy has vastly improved the treatment of
`neovascular AMD in terms of both safety and efficacy. The
`ANCHOR (26] and MARINA (27,28] trials have established
`ranibizumab as an effective therapy when dosed monthly. It
`has been shown to stabilize vision in 94% of patients and in
`almost 40% of patients vision will actually improve by 3 or
`more lines. However, the monthly dosing schedules used in
`these trials present a financial and time burden to patients
`and healthcare practitioners. The more recent PIER [30] and
`
`1576
`
`Expert Opin. lnvestig. Drugs (2009) 18(1 O)
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1030.007
`
`

`

`Dixon, Oliver, Olson & Mandava
`
`PrONTO [29) trials have shown that ranibizumab is less
`effective when dosed quarterly, but it may be possible to
`extend the time between injections when patients are
`· followed closely with frequent examinations and ancillary
`testing. The most effective dosing regimen and monitoring
`program for anti-VEGF therapy has yet to be firmly estab(cid:173)
`lished but new treatments are aimed at extending and
`improving on the efficacy of ranibizumab. VEGF Trap-Eye
`differs from established anti-VEGF therapies in its higher
`binding affinity for VEGF-A and its blockage of placental
`growth factors-I and -2. Phase I data demonstrated accept(cid:173)
`able safety and tolerability of VEGF Trap-Eye in the treat(cid:173)
`ment of neovascular AMD. In Phase II study data, patients
`dosed in a similar fashion to the PrONTO trial demon(cid:173)
`strated stabilization of their vision that was similar to previ(cid:173)
`ous studies of ranibizumab at 1 year. Of the greatest interest,
`patients dosed at 2.0 mg during the initial monthly dosing
`period required 1.6 injections on average during the p.r.n.
`dosing phase. While this number is difficult to compare
`directly to the number of injections required during the
`p.r.n. phase of the PrONTO ranibizumab study; it is prom(cid:173)
`ising. A direct comparison of the efficacy ofVEGF Trap-Eye
`versus ranibizumab will be possible with the completion of
`two Phase III trials, the VIEW-I and -2 studies.
`
`4. Expert opinion
`
`The advent of anti-VEGF therapy for treatment of neovascu(cid:173)
`lar AMD has revolutionized therapy for a common blinding
`disease. Before the development of pegaptanib, ranibizumab
`and bevacizumab, the diagnosis of neovascular AMD por(cid:173)
`tended a prognosis of nearly universal decline in vision, and
`frequently loss of useful vision in the affected eye.
`Current treatment regimens with either ranibizumab or
`bevacizumab now afford stabilization of vision in > 90%
`of patients, with significant vision gain in one-third of all
`patients treated. There have been no significant, proven
`adverse systemic effects with the intraocular use of either
`drug. However, limitations of current therapy include the
`need for frequent intraocular injections, as often as
`monthly, without a defined stopping point. Each injection
`subjects patients to risks of cataract, intraocular inflamma(cid:173)
`tion, retinal detachment and endophthalmitis. A signifi(cid:173)
`cant time and financial burden falls on patients during
`their treatment course.
`Desirable attributes for emerging therapies for neovascular
`AMD include higher visual improvement rates and decreased
`dosing intervals. For other indications, time-release delivery
`methods have met with some success, including the follow(cid:173)
`ing agents: intraocular steroids, including polymeric fluoci(cid:173)
`nolone and dexamethasone, lasting 3 years and 6 months,
`respectively [48-50), and for a single biologically active
`cytokine, ciliary neurotrophic factor, which is released for a
`period greater than 1 year by encapsulated, bioengineered,
`implanted cells [51). While efforts are underway to develop
`
`encapsulated cell technology for sustained-release anti-VEGF
`therapy; no investigational drugs or devices have progressed
`yet to clinical trial enrollment.
`VEGF Trap-Eye represents the most promising anti-VEGF
`investigational drug that