throbber
INAUGURAL ARTICLE
`
`EXHIBJT_J
`WIT. K(; &o
`DATE 3
`KPAMM COURTREPORTJNG
`
`
`
`VEGF Trap complex formation measures prouucton
`rates of VEGF, providing a biomarker for predicting
`efficacious angiogenic blockade
`
`John S. Rudge*, Jocelyn llolasht, Donna Hylton, Michelle Russell, Shelly Jiang, Raymond Leidich,
`Nicholas Papadopoulos, Erica A. Pyles, Al Torn, Stanley J. Wiegand, Gavin Thurston, Neil Stahl,
`and George D. vancopo ulos*
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, NY 10591
`
`This contribution is part of the special series of Inaugural Articles by members of the National Academy of Sciences elected on April 20, 2004.
`
`Contributed by George D. Yancopoulos. September 21. 2007 (sent for review July 16, 2007)
`
`VEGF is the best characterized mediator of tumor angiogenesis.
`Anti-VEGF agents have recently demonstrated impressive efficacy
`in human cancer trials, but the optimal dosing of such agents must
`still be determined empirically, because biomarkers to guide dos-
`ing have yet to be established. The widely accepted (but unveri-
`fied) assumption that VEGF production is quite low in normal
`adults led to the notion that increased systemic VEGF levels might
`quantitatively reflect tumor mass and angiogenic activity. We
`describe an approach to determine host and tumor production of
`VEGF, using a high-affinity and long-lived VEGF antagonist now in
`clinical trials, the VEGF Trap. Unlike antibody complexes that are
`usually rapidly cleared, the VEGF Trap forms inert complexes with
`tissue- and tumor-derived VEGF that remain stably in the systemic
`circulation, where they are readily assayable, providing unprece-
`dented capability to accurately measure VEGF production. We
`report that VEGF production is surprisingly high in non-tumor-
`bearing rodents and humans, challenging the notion that systemic
`VEGF levels can serve as a sensitive surrogate for tumor load; tumor
`VEGF contribution becomes significant only with very large tumor
`loads. These findings have the important corollary that anti-VEGF
`therapies must be sufficiently dosed to avoid diversion by host-
`derived VEGF. We further show that our assay can indicate when
`VEGF is optimally blocked; such biomarkers to guide dosing do not
`exist for other anti-VEGF agents. Based on this assay, VEGF Trap
`doses currently being assessed in clinical trials are in the efficacious
`range.
`
`aflibercept I angiogenesis tumor I endothelial cell
`
`VEGF is critical in many settings of physiological and patho-
`
`logical angiogenesis (1). In particular, high VEGF expres-
`sion is characteristic of many types of cancers (1), suggesting that
`it might be an attractive target for therapeutic intervention
`aimed at preventing tumors from recruiting the blood supply that
`they need to survive (2). The first attempts at validating this
`particular approach were taken by Ferrara and colleagues (3),
`who demonstrated that a murine anti-human VEGF antibody
`suppressed the growth of human tumor cell lines implanted in
`nude mice. This led to the generation of a humanized mono-
`clonal antibody, bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, South San
`Francisco, CA), which yielded impressive results in a controlled
`clinical trial in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (4, 5).
`At doses of 3 and 10 mg/kg, bevacizumab treatment resulted in
`a significant prolongation in time to tumor progression com-
`pared with placebo, although the increased efficacy of the higher
`dose in this study suggested that the maximally efficacious dose
`may not yet have been attained (4, 5). Bevacizumab was subse-
`quently granted FDA approval based on the demonstration that
`it significantly improved the progression-free and overall sur-
`vival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when given in
`combination with irinotecan 5-FU/LV chemotherapy (6). Sev-
`
`eral other drugs designed to block VEGF signaling have since
`been developed and recently approved [BAY 43-9006 (snr-
`afenib) and 5U11248 (sunitinib)] or are proceeding through
`clinical trials [PTK787 (vatalanib), ZD6474 (zactima), ZD6126,
`5U5416 (semaxanib), and AG-013736] (7-9).
`As new anti-VEOF agents proceed through the clinic, it would
`be very useful to have biomarkers that could either identify
`patients whose tumors depend most on VEGF or that could
`guide dosing by indicating when optimal VEGF blockade has
`been achieved. Unfortunately, accepted biomarkers do not
`currently exist for VEGF blockade and are few and far between
`for other targeted agents, such as epidermal growth factor
`receptor for colon cancer, Kit for gastrointestinal stromal tumor,
`and HER2/NEU for breast cancer (10). VEGF itself has been
`suggested as a candidate biomarker for guiding the application
`of anti-VEGF therapies. It is widely assumed that VEGF
`production is quite low in healthy adults in the absence of active
`angiogenesis. Were that the case, blood levels of VEGF in cancer
`patients might provide a useful index of tumor VEGF production
`(11, 12). However, because VEGF is rapidly cleared from the
`systemic circulation (having a half-life of only minutes), the
`sensitivity of assays measuring VEGF in the peripheral blood
`leads to a wide variability for blood levels of VEGF in published
`reports. Furthermore, VEGF is present at substantial levels
`within platelets and released upon their lysis such that prepa-
`ration of peripheral blood samples that avoid contamination
`from platelet-derived VEGF becomes difficult. These limita-
`tions are reflected in the disparate values reported for circulating
`VEGF levels in cancer patients, which range from 0,04 to 1
`ng/ml, calling into question the utility of plasma VEGF levels as
`a useful biomarker for guiding anti-angiogenic therapy (11,
`13-19).
`VEGF Trap is a fully human soluble decoy receptor protein
`that consists of a fusion of the second Ig domain of human VEGF
`receptor (VEGFR) 1 and the third Ig domain of human
`VEGFR2 with the constant region (Fc) of human Ig IgGi (20).
`
`Author contributions: J.5.R., iN,, and G.D.Y. designed research; J.S.R., SJ,W,, CT., and N.S.
`analyzed data: J.N., OH,, MR., Si.. R.L.. NP. EA, P., AT,, and G.T. performed research; H.P.
`contributed new reagents/analytic tools; and J.S.R. and G.D.Y. wrote the paper.
`
`The authors declare no conflict of interest.
`
`Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
`
`Abbreviationt: AMO. age-related macular degeneration: MALLS, muttiangled laser light
`scattering: SEC, size exclusion chromatography: VEGFR, VEGF receptor.
`
`To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: john.rudge@regeneron.com or
`george@regeneron.com.
`
`'Present address: Novartit. 1400 53rd Street, Emernsitle, CA 94608.
`
`This article contains supporting information online at w,vsw,pnas.org/cgi/content/fultf
`0708565104/OC1.
`
`02007 by The National Academy of sciences of the USA
`
`www.pnas.org/cgi/dol/10.1073/pnas.0708865104
`
`PNAS I November 20, 2007 I vol. 104 I no. 47 I 18363-18370
`
`Downloaded from htlps://www.pnas.org by 12,188,151.30 on March 9, 2022 from Pm
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1119
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 1
`
`

`

`I!
`
`Total VGT
`Free VEGF Trap
`mVEGFNEGF Trap Complex
`
`B 1500
`
`Total VEGF Trap
`Free VEGF Trap
`mVEGFN'EGF Trap Complex
`
`A
`
`C,
`
`0.1
`
`0.01
`0 5 10
`
`15
`Days
`
`30
`
`15
`Days
`
`25
`
`30
`
`C 1000
`oo4 -
`
`E 10
`
`Total VEGF Trap
`Free VEGF Trap
`— mVEGFNEGF Trap Complex
`
`D 1000
`
`00
`
`10
`
`—Tolal VEGF Trap
`Free VEGF Trap
`mVEOFNEGF Trap Complex
`
`0
`
`10
`
`is
`Days
`
`30
`
`0.1
`
`Be
`
`0 5 10
`
`20
`15
`Days
`
`25
`
`s.c. injection of VEGF Trap into SCID mice at different doses reveals different levels of circulating free VEGF Trap but similar levels of circulating mouse
`Fig. 1.
`VEGF-VEGF Trap complex. At all doses ranging from 1 mg/kg (A) to 25 mg/kg (0), a steady-state level of VEGF-VEGF Trap complex is achieved, which plateaus
`at -'1 jig/mi. Dose-dependent levels of free VEGF Trap are observed as follows: 1 mg/kg to 10 jig/ml Car. falling below complex levels at 4 days (A); 2.5 mg/kg
`to 20 jig/mI Cma, failing below complex levels at 7 days (B); 10 mg/kg to 80 jig/mi C,,falling below complex levels at 9 days (0; and 25mg/kg to 200 jig/ml
`falling below complex levels at 17 days (0). The half-life of VEGF Trap is -'2 days at doses >2.5 mg/kg. in = 6 for each dose.)
`
`The VEGF Trap was engineered to have optimized pharmaco-
`kinetic properties and a very high affinity for all isoforms of
`VEGF-A (<1pM), as well as placental growth factor, a closely
`related angiogenic factor (20). VEGF Trap has shown robust
`antitumor effects in numerous mouse models of cancer and is
`now in clinical trials (21, t, §, ¶, fi). Here, we show that—unlike
`VEGF antibodies that tend to form multimeric immune com-
`plexes that are rapidly cleared from the circulation and can form
`immune complex deposits in tissues—the VEGF Trap forms a
`stable and inert 1:1 complex with VEGF. This VEGF—VEGF
`Trap complex has a long plasma half-life and can readily be
`measured in the systemic circulation, thus affording a reliable
`way to measure the rates of VEGF production in both tumor-
`bearing and non-tumor-bearing adult animals and humans. This
`unique ability to capture and thus precisely measure total VEGF
`levels, regardless of whether the VEGF comes from tumor or
`normal host tissues, allows for the unprecedented opportunity to
`accurately determine tumor and host VEGF production rates.
`Surprisingly, we find that total body VEGF production rates are
`quite high in normal adult rodents and humans, with the
`fractional contribution made by tumors being comparatively
`small. This finding has the important implication that therapies
`directed toward neutralizing VEGF produced by tumors must be
`provided in sufficient amounts so as to avoid being largely
`consumed by the significant levels of VEGF produced by the rest
`of the body. Toward this end, measurement of VEGF Trap
`complex allows the identification of VEGF Trap doses required
`to completely capture and block tumor-derived VEGF, provid-
`ing a useful guide for optimizing angiogenic blockade; such
`assays do not exist for other anti-VEGF agents. Based on this
`
`tRixe, 0., verolype, C., Meric, J. 0., Tejpar, 5., Bloch, J., crabbe, M., Khayat, 0., Furfine, E. S.,
`Assadouriaro, 5,, Van Cutsem, E. (2000)1 c/in. Onco!. 24:13161 (aboo,.).
`0MuIay, M.,Limentanl, SA., Carroll, M., Furfine, E. S., Cohen, 0. P., Rosen. L5.(2006)J. c//n.
`Oncot 24:130t1 (abstr.).
`
`5Tew, W. P., Colombo, N., Ray'Coquard, I., Oza, A., del Campo, I., Scambia, 6., Spriggs, D.
`(2007) J. c//n. Oncol. 25:5503 (abstrj.
`IMassarelli. 0., Miller, V.A., leighl. N., Rosen, P., Albain, K.. Hart, L., Melnyk, 0., sternal, t.,
`Akerman, i. Herbst, R. S. (2007) I On. Oncol, 25:7627 (abstr.).
`
`assay, we report that VEGF Trap doses currently being assessed
`in clinical trials appear to be in the efficacious range.
`
`Results
`VEGF Trap Forms an Inert Complex with VEGF That Remains Stably in
`the Circulation. Initial studies to determine the clearance rate of
`VEGF Trap revealed that it could form stable detectable
`complexes with endogenous VEGF in normal adult mice. After
`single injections of increasing amounts of VEGF Trap, we
`measured total VEGF Trap, uncomplexed/unbound or "free"
`VEGF Trap, and VEGF Trap—mouse VEGF "complex" at
`various times after injection (Fig. 1 .4—D represent increasing
`amounts of injected VEGF Trap). Because no exogenous VEGF
`was provided, complexes represent the association of VEGF Trap
`with endogenous marine VEGF. As expected, total VEGF Trap
`levels increased proportional to dose (determined by combining
`free VEGF Trap levels with complex levels) (Fig. 1, see green
`curves). Somewhat unexpectedly, substantial levels of VEGF
`Trap complexed with mouse VEGF accumulated rapidly (Fig. 1,
`see blue curves). At all doses of VEGF Trap tested, maximal
`levels of complex (1-2 pg/mI) were attained within 24-48 It of
`injection and sustained at this level for at least several days.
`Consistent with conversion of free VEGF Trap into complexed
`VEGF Trap, most of the injected VEGF Trap is initially found
`in the free, unbound form, but after reaching peak levels ('=24
`Ii after injection) free VEGF Trap in the circulation declines
`progressively (Fig. 1, note that red curves, corresponding to free
`VEGF Trap, initially overlap at early time points with green
`curves, representing total VEGF Trap, but then drop, as is most
`obvious at the lowest dose). Levels of free VEGF Trap decline
`because of a "consumption" (binding VEGF, thus being con-
`verted to complex) and clearance, which occurs at an identical
`rate for free and bound Trap. Thus, as long as free VEGF Trap
`remains in excess of bound, maximal steady-state levels of
`complex are maintained in the circulation. VEGF Trap is also
`able to bind placental growth factor with high affinity and is
`capable of forming stable circulating placental growth factor—
`VEGF Trap complexes in vivo with the same profile as VEOF—
`
`18364 1 vAvw.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0708065104
`
`Rudge et at
`
`Downloaded from https://wwwpnasorg by 12188.151.30 on March 9, 2022 from P address 12.188.151.
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1119
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 2
`
`

`

`3 Go 10
`
`2kb'
`
`0'
`
`2
`
`5—.
`
`0000,10'
`
`00
`00 00 itO 12.0 14.0 '6.0 ItO
`
`EILOIOR Vobum., ml.
`
`D
`
`VEGFTrap :?0
`complexes
`
`B0evacizUmab
`complexis.
`
`Fig. 2. The molar masses of VEGF T ap-VEGF and bevacizumab-VEGF com-
`plexes were determined by MALLS coupled to SEC. (A) Using a 12 molar ratio
`of VEGF Trap to VEGFiot, discrete peaks were observed at 17 ml for VEGF (41
`kDa) and 14.5 ml for VEGF Trap-VEGF complex (143 kDa) with SEC (red line)
`and MALLS (dashed red line). In contrast, a 1:2 molar ratio of bevacizumab to
`VEGFi&s revealed a heterogeneous multimeric complex that ranged in molar
`mass from m370 kDa to >2,000 kDa (SEC. solid blue line; MALLS, dashed blue
`line). (B-F) One milligram of a preformed complex of VEGF Trap and VEGF, 05
`(Band C) or bevacizumab and VEGF165 (0 and E) were injected into the left
`ventricle of 2- to3-month-old C57bI6 mice. After 10mm, micewere killed, and
`their kidneys were processed for immunocytochemistry, using an anti human
`Fc reporter antibody to the human Fc moiety present on both VEGF Trap and
`bevacizumab. Significant staining was observed in the glomeruli of bevaci-
`zunabNEGFtreated mice but not in theglomeruli ofVEoFirapNEGFtreated
`mice (white arrows).
`
`munostaining in the kidney. After iv. administration, renal
`glomeruli stained strongly for bevacizumab-VEGF Complexes
`(Fig. 2 D and E) but not for VEGF Trap-VEGF complexes (Fig.
`2 B and Q. Current evidence indicates that, as a class, pharmaco-
`logical agents that block VEGF signaling may produce mechanism-
`based effects on kidney function. Deposition of immune com-
`plexes as noted for bevacizumab/VEGF in the renal glomeruli
`could further accentuate renal toxicity in a nonspecific and
`non-class-dependent manner.
`
`VEGF Trap Complex Formation Reveals Unexpectedly High Production
`of Endogenous VEGF in Normal Adult Mice. As shown above, VEGF
`antibodies form immune complexes that rapidly deposit in
`tissues and thus do not allow for easy ascertainment of the
`amount of complex formed. In contrast, VEGF Trap forms inert
`complexes with VEGF that remain stably in the circulation and
`are thus readily accessible for measurement. In fact, the above
`findings demonstrate that, if VEGF Trap is present at sufficient
`levels so as to be in excess of Trap bound in complexes, the
`steady-state levels of VEGF Trap complex in the circulation
`reflect the total amount of VEGF produced. Daily production
`
`10-fold lower levels (data not
`
`VEGF Trap complex, albeit at
`shown).
`In separate experiments, the bioavailability of VEGF Trap
`and the efficiency of VEGF capture were determined by inject-
`ing s.c. [supporting information (SI) Fig. 74] or i.v. (SI Fig. 7B)
`preformed complexes of the Trap and its VEGF target, or both
`agents separately. The results show that the bioavailability of s.c.
`(SO) injected complex was essentially identical to that of i.v.
`injected complex, indicating that negligible complex was depos-
`iting within tissues. Moreover, whether the VEGF Trap was
`injected as a preformed complex with VEGF (single bolus) or
`the Trap and its target were injected separately, similar levels of
`complex were rapidly noted in the circulation, indicating that the
`Trap efficiently captures its target and brings it into the systemic
`circulation. In addition, VEGF Trap is also capable of seques-
`tering VEGF already bound in target tissues as shown by
`injecting VEGF before VEGF Trap (SI Fig. 7). Thus, VEGF
`Trap efficiently captures and forms inert complexes with VEGF
`that enter and remain stably in the circulation, readily accessible
`for measurement.
`
`Although VEGF Trap Forms a 1:1 Complex with VEGF, VEGF Antibodies
`Form Heterogeneous. Multimeric Immune Complexes with VEGF. The
`above findings suggested that VEGF Trap might behave very
`differently than VEGF antibodies, because antibodies com-
`monly form multimeric immune complexes that rapidly deposit
`in tissues and thus are rapidly cleared from the circulation.
`Because immune complexes rapidly disappear, the amount of
`captured ligand cannot be determined from levels of bound or
`unbound antibodies remaining in the circulation. To demon-
`strate directly that the VEGF Trap behaves in a fundamentally
`different way than antibodies, we compared VEGF Trap com-
`plex formation and clearance with that of a well.characterized
`VEGF antibody, bevacizumab (Avastin). As predicted, size
`exclusion chromatography (SEC) of a preformed VEGF Trap-
`VEGF 165 complex revealed a single major homogenous peak,
`with an approximate molecular mass (as judged by comparison
`to molecular mass standards, data not shown) of 150 kDa
`corresponding to that expected of a 1:1 complex between VEGF
`Trap (110 kDa) and VEGF 145 (40 kDa) (Fig. 24, solid red
`line); a minor peak of free excess VEGF J65 was also seen, as was
`a small shoulder of higher molecular mass. The molecular masses
`of the peaks were confirmed by using coupled multiangled laser
`light scattering (MALLS) (dashed red lines in Fig. 24). In
`contrast, SEC of preformed bevacizumab-VE6F 165 complexes
`revealed a heterogeneous mixture corresponding to very high
`molecular masses (Fig. 24, solid blue line) in addition to the
`small peak of free excess VEGF565. The purity of free VEGF
`Trap, bevacizumab, and VEGF was >97%, as determined by
`SEC (data not shown). Coupled MALLS analysis revealed
`molecular masses of the heterogeneous mixture ranging from
`370 kDa (corresponding to a multimer consisting of two bev-
`acizumab molecules, each with a molecular mass of d45 kDa,
`and two VEOFIoS molecules, each with a molecular mass of
`'40kDa) to >2,000 kDa (corresponding to much larger mul-
`timers) (Fig. 24, dashed blue line). Consistent with the apparent
`tendency of bevacizumab to form multimeric immune complexes
`with VEGF, preformed bevacizumab-VEGF 165 complexes rap-
`idly disappeared from the circulation when injection intrave-
`nously, as would be expected for multimeric immune complexes
`(SI Fig. 8; note that the levels of Bevacizumab when complexed
`with VEGF rapidly drop compared with the levels of free
`Bevacizumab that remain much higher), and in contrast to what
`was described above with VEGF Trap complexes that remain
`stably in the circulation. Because immune complexes can often
`be cleared by depositing in the renal glomeruli, we further
`explored apparent differences in the clearance of bevacizumab-
`VEGF and VEGF Trap-VEOF complexes by performing im-
`
`Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by 12188151.30 on March 9, 2022 tom II' address 12.188.151
`
`Rudge et at
`
`PNAS I November 20, 2007 I vol. 104 I no. 47 I 18365
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1119
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 3
`
`

`

`rates of VEGF can be calculated by assuming that steady-state
`levels of VEGFTrap-VEGF complex reflect a balance between
`production of VEGF leading to formation of complex, and
`clearance of the resulting complex. Based on experimentally
`determined values for the steady-state levels of complex and its
`clearance (see Materials and Methods), we estimate that mice
`produce 0.065 gg of VEGF per day per ml of the volume of
`distribution, or 0.0O6 jig per gram of tissue per day. Because
`VEGF is active at picomolar levels, this at first seems to be a
`surprisingly high level of production for a normal adult animal
`(see below for comparison to tumor production rates). However,
`it should be noted that in the absence of VEGF Trap, any VEGF
`that enters the systemic circulation is rapidly cleared. For this
`reason, among others noted above, it has not proven possible to
`consistently and reliably measure systemic VEGF levels, pre-
`venting accurate estimation of VEGF production rates in normal
`adult animals.
`
`Tumor-Derived VEGF Represents a Minority of Total Body VEGF Under
`Conditions of Minimal Tumor Burden. Next, we compared the total
`body production rate of VEGF, as determined above, with tumor
`production rates of VEGF. Toward this end, we implanted mice
`with tumors, allowed these tumors to grow to 0.5-3% of total
`body weight (average mouse weight, -25 g) and measured levels
`of VEGF Trap complex in these mice to compare them to
`complex levels found in healthy, non-tumor-bearing mice. Sur-
`prisingly, in mice bearing four different types of rodent tumors,
`the total levels of complex were not markedly different from
`those seen in non-tumor-bearing mice (1-2 Ag/ml; see Fig. 14
`and compare with Fig. 1). This finding implies that tumor-
`derived VEGF represented only a small proportion of total body
`VEGF or circulating bioavailable VEGF in these mice.
`To further validate this unanticipated finding, we analyzed
`VEGF Trap complex levels in mice bearing human tumors,
`where it is possible to distinguish complexes formed with en-
`dogenous mouse VEGF with those formed with human VEGF
`derived from the implanted tumors by analyzing human VEGF-
`VEGF Trap complex levels in mouse serum. The levels of
`mouse-derived complexes (Fig. 3E) in these animals were equiv-
`alent to those of non-tumor-bearing mice (Fig. 2, above) and
`mice bearing rodent-derived tumors (Fig. 14). In contrast, the
`levels of VEGF Trap complexed with tumor-derived human
`VEGF were an order of magnitude lower (0.08-0.2 gig/ml) (Fig.
`3D). This result was seen in mice bearing tumors of three
`different human cell lines (5K-NE?, A673, and HT1080). To-
`gether, these studies demonstrate that normal total body pro-
`duction of VEGF eclipses the production from tumors that may
`weight as much as 3% of body weight (mouse weight ranges from
`23 to 29 g). Thus, it is unlikely that total levels of free VEGF in
`the systemic circulation would provide a sensitive index of tumor
`burden, even if accurate measurement of unbound VEGF in
`blood samples were readily achievable. Moreover, the above
`findings suggest that therapeutic compounds designed to bind
`and inactivate tumor-derived VEGF would have to be provided
`at sufficient levels to avoid being diverted by significant levels of
`VEGF normally produced by the rest of the body.
`
`VEGF Trap Complex Levels Provide Guidance on When Efficacious VEGF
`Blockade Is Achieved. Based on the results above, it is evident that
`drugs that bind and neutralize VEGF must engage significant
`levels of VEGF derived from normal tissues, in addition to that
`originating from tumors. Therefore, we reasoned that measure-
`ments of VEGF Trap complex might provide a useful guide to
`when the dose of VEGF Trap sufficient to substantially neu-
`tralize both host and tumor-derived VEGF had been achieved.
`Indeed, for three different tumors [B16F1 mouse melanoma
`(Fig. 4i1); A673 human rhabdomyosarcoma (Fig. 4B); and MMT
`mouse mammary carcinoma (Fig. 4C)J, increasing the VEGF
`
`0.1
`
`0.01
`
`0.1
`
`C
`
`Free Trap
`
`VEGF Trap
`Complex
`(Mouse)
`
`25
`20
`15
`5 10
`VEGF Trap Dose [mg/kg]
`
`30
`
`a
`Free Trap
`
`VEGF Trap
`., Complex
`4' (Mouse)
`} Complex
`(Human)
`25
`30
`20
`15
`5 10
`VEGF Trap Dose (mg/kg]
`
`--No Tumor
`— Lewis Lung Carcinoma
`MMT mammary
`Carcinoma
`'-'--BiBFlO Melanoma
`B1GF1 Melanoma
`( A673 Rhabdomyosarcoma
`HT1080 Fibrosarcoma
`-SK-NEP Wilrn's Tumor
`
`In mice bearing tumors c3% body weight, the tumor pool of VEGF
`Fig. 3.
`production is modest compared with endogenous mouse tissue VEGF produc-
`tion. (A and B) Mouse (A) or human (B) tumors were allowed to growto -100
`mm 3, and then VEGF Trap was administered twice per week for 1-2 weeks at
`0.5. 1.2.5. 10, and 25 mglkg. At the termination of the experiment, free VEGF
`Trap, mouse, and human complex levels were measured in serum. In all cases,
`regardless of terminal tumor volume, levels of circulating mouse complex
`were -1 gig/mI, whereas human complex levels in the mice bearing human
`tumors were -0.1 gig/mI. Free Trap levels increased incrementally, with the
`dose levels rising above complex levels at the 2.5 mg/kg dose and reaching
`-100 gig/mI at the 25 mg/kg dose. In = 6 for each dose). (C) Legend of mouse
`and human tumor types used.
`
`Trap dose resulted in progressive, marked improvements in
`anti-tumor efficacy until a dose at which free VEGF Trap
`substantially exceeded maximal steady-state levels of complex
`was reached (Fig. 4). For all three tumor types, this was achieved
`at a dose of 2.5 mg/kg VEGF Trap given twice weekly: at this
`dose, free VEGF Trap (blue curve) is severalfold the level of
`complex (green curve), and past this point further dose escala-
`tion yields only modest incremental increases in complex levels
`(green curve) and in anti-tumor efficacy (red curve). In other
`tumor types, such as U87 glioblastoma, higher levels of VEGF
`Trap are required to achieve maximal efficacy (22).
`
`Human VEGF/VEGF Trap Complex Levels Are Directly Related to Tumor
`Size. The finding that conventionally sized s.c. tumors in mice
`produced <10% the amount of total body VEGF prompted us
`to determine whether there is a consistent relationship between
`tumor size and VEGF production levels. Human tumors (A673
`rhabdomyosarcoma) were implanted into mice and allowed to
`grow to various sizes before injecting VEGF Trap. In this case,
`we could define a clear linear relationship between tumor size
`(Fig. 5A) and complex levels (Fig. 5B, note that the assay reflects
`
`18366 I w.vtpnas.org/cgi/dni/10.1073/pnas.0708865104
`
`nudge et at
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1119
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 4
`
`

`

`I
`
`5
`
`0.
`0.
`4
`
`readily detectable contribution to total body VEGF production.
`To determine whether or not thiswas indeed the case, we studied
`VEGF Trap complex formation in non-cancer patients [patients
`suffering from age-related macular degeneration (AMD)) and
`then compared these results with complex formation in cancer
`patients. In the AMD patients, the lowest dose of VEGF Trap
`tested (0.3 mg/kg, i.v.) was insufficient to neutralize all VEGF,
`as evidenced by the levels of free Trap quickly falling below those
`of bound VEGF Trap, and bound VEGF Trap did not approach
`the maximal steady-slate levels seen with higher doses (Fig. GA
`and B). However, doses of 1.0 and 3.0 mg/kg (i.v.) maintained
`substantial free Trap levels throughout the dosing period (Fig.
`GA), and maximal complex levels were attained, as evidenced by
`equivalent levels of complex being generated at the two higher
`doses (-1-2 pg/mI, see Fig. GB). In cancer patients with ad-
`vanced solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, remarkably
`similar results were obtained. That is, similar doses of VEGF
`Trap were required to saturate VEGF binding and complex
`formation (Fig. 6 C-E). In addition, the maximal steady-state
`levels of VEGF-VEGF Trap complex were similar to those seen
`in non-cancer patients (Fig. 6 B, D, and E). These findings
`indicate that, consistent with our findings in mice, endogenous
`VEGF production in adult human subjects is quite high, whether
`or not the individuals harbor tumors (Fig. GE).
`Using the same approach as was used for the mouse (see
`Materials and Methods), human production rates of VEGF in
`humans were found Lobe -0.0025 pg per gram of tissue per day,
`which is remarkably similar to that calculated for mice (see
`above). If our findings in animal models continue to be predic-
`tive, these VEGF Trap levels achieved in ongoing clinical studies
`should be in the efficacious range.
`
`Discussion
`At present, there are a number of anti-angiogenic agents tar-
`geting the VEGF pathway that are proceeding through clinical
`trials or already approved for the treatment of cancer (9). One
`major challenge is the lack of objective measures to guide dosing
`to determine when sufficient blockade has been achieved or to
`inform pharmacological response to these drugs. VEGF itself
`has been suggested as a potential bioninrker for the above
`purposes, based on the assumption that VEGF in the peripheral
`circulation was primarily derived from the tumor and therefore
`accurately reflected tumor burden (19). However, to date it has
`proven difficult to accurately measure systemic levels of VEGF,
`correlate these levels with tumor burden, or use them as a guide
`to dosing (11, 12). Here, we describe the use of the VEGF Trap,
`a potent VEGF antagonist that forms a stable, inert complex
`with VEGF, as an index that allows for the accurate assessment
`of VEGF production rates. In addition, this unique property of
`the VEGF Trap allows accurate assessment of the amounts of
`VEGF made by a resident tumor compared with the rest of the
`body. Furthermore, in animals, this approach has been shown to
`provide a useful guide to selecting dosing regimens that sub-
`stantially block available VEGF. This has not been possible with
`anti-VEGF antibodies, as VEGF-antibody complexes are rap-
`idly cleared.
`We find unexpectedly high levels of VEGF production in the
`normal adult setting, where it has long been assumed that, in the
`absence of ongoing angiogenesis, VEGF production rates would
`be quite low (11, 12). However, the unexpectedly high rates of
`VEGF production in non-tumor-bearing adult mice and humans
`is consistent with the recent realization that VEGF likely plays
`an ongoing role in the "quiescent" vasculature of normal adults
`(23). For example, treating normal adult mice and monkeys with
`VEGF antagonists can increase hematocrit (a measure of the
`proportion of the blood volume occupied by red blood cells)
`(24). Similarly, VEGF antagonists can also increase blood
`pressure (25), indicating that VEGF is involved in regulating
`
`Free Tr
`
`25
`20
`15
`5 10
`VEGF Trap Do,. (mgflcg)
`
`1000
`
`IN
`
`10
`
`0.1
`
`aol
`30
`
`25
`20
`15
`IC
`VEGF Trap Dose (molkel
`
`Free Trap
`
`1000
`
`100
`
`C
`3
`
`0
`
`25
`20
`15
`5 10
`VEGF Trap Dose (mgflcgj
`
`Fig. 4. VEGF Trap Complex provides guidance on when optimal VEGF
`blockade is achieved for antitumor purposes. In mice bearing B1GF1 mouse
`melanomatumors (4), A673 human rhabdomyosarcoma (B). and MMTmouse
`mammary carcinoma tumors (C) grown to -100 mm 3 before treatment,
`increasing the dose of VEGETrap from 0.5 mg/kg twice perweek to 25 mg/kg
`twice perweek results in a steady-state of mousecomplexat a1 pg/ml at 1-2.5
`mg/kg and free circulating VEGF Trap levels of -10 jog/ml at the 2.5 mg/kg
`dose, rising to -100 jog/ml at the 25 mg/kg dose. Tumors remain quite large
`at the 0.5 and 1 mg/kg doses but begin to show a significant lack of growth at
`the 2.5 mg/kg dose, where free Trap levels rise above steady-state complex
`levels (,, = 6 for each dose). Tumors were treated with VEGF Trap from 6-13
`(B16F1), 4-13 (MMD, and 12-18 (A673) days after implantation.
`
`levels of complexes containing only human VEGF to specifically
`detect only tumor-derived complex). The amount of complex per
`unit weight of tumor was similar across different-sized tumors
`(Fig. SC), indicating that tumors maintained their rates of VEGF
`production as they grew. Linear regression analysis confirmed
`that there was a very strong correlation between A673 tumor
`volume and circulating human VEGF complex (Fig. SD).
`At these larger tumor sizes, the amount of complex (ranging
`from -0.8 to 5 jig/ml) contributed by the tumor matched or even
`exceeded that contributed by the rest of the body, confirming
`that tumors do indeed make substantially more VEGF per cell
`than does the average cell in the normal adult host. For example,
`in the largest tumors (weighing 10% of the total mass of the
`mouse, Fig. 54), the tumor-derived human VEGF-VEGF Trap
`complex levels (-5 lug/ml, Fig. SB) were -3-fold above the levels
`of marine VE

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