throbber
Cladribine and progressive MS
`Clinical and MRI outcomes of a multicenter controlled trial
`
`George P.A. Rice, MD, for the Cladribine Clinical Study Group*; and Massimo Filippi, MD,
`and Giancarlo Comi, MD, for the Cladribine MRI Study Group*
`
`Article abstract—Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of two doses of cladribine in patients with progressive
`MS. Background: Treatment of progressive MS patients with cladribine in a previous single-center, placebo-controlled
`clinical trial was associated with disease stabilization. Methods: In the current study, 159 patients with a median baseline
`Kurtzke’s Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 6.0 were randomly assigned to receive placebo or cladribine
`0.07 mg/kg/day for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks for either two or six cycles (total dose, 0.7 mg/kg or 2.1 mg/kg,
`respectively), followed by placebo, for a total of eight cycles. Thirty percent had primary progressive MS (PPMS) and 70%
`had secondary progressive MS (SPMS). EDSS and Scripps Neurologic Rating Scale (SNRS) scores were assessed bi-
`monthly and MRI was performed every 6 months. The primary outcome measure was disability (mean change in EDSS).
`Results: Mean changes in disability did not differ among the groups at the end of the 12-month double-blind phase. Both
`cladribine treatments were superior to placebo for the proportion of patients having gadolinium-enhanced T1 lesions and
`for the mean volume and number of such lesions (p # 0.003). Differences were statistically significant at the 6-month
`evaluation time, with $90% reduction in volume and number of enhanced T1 lesions, which was maintained through final
`evaluation. This effect segregated largely with the SPMS group. The T2 burden of disease showed a modest improvement
`in cladribine-treated patients and worsened in placebo-treated patients. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in
`severity and not treatment limiting. Conclusion: No significant treatment effects were found for cladribine in terms of
`changes in EDSS or SNRS scores. Both doses of cladribine produced and sustained significant reductions in the presence,
`number, and volume of gadolinium-enhanced T1 brain lesions on MRI, and cladribine 2.1 mg/kg reduced the accumulation
`of T2 lesion load. Cladribine at doses up to 2.1 mg/kg was generally safe and well tolerated. Key words: Cladribine—
`MRI—Progressive MS—Suppression of disease activity.
`NEUROLOGY 2000;54:1145–1155
`
`With the exception of trauma, MS—a demyelinating
`disease of the CNS with an estimated prevalence of
`250,000 to 350,000 in the United States and 1.1 mil-
`lion worldwide—is the most common cause of neuro-
`logic disability in young adults.1 About two thirds of
`patients develop a relapsing-remitting pattern
`(RRMS), and the majority of these will experience a
`progressive deterioration, or secondary progressive
`MS (SPMS); about 15% of patients appear to have a
`progressive course from onset, or primary progres-
`sive MS (PPMS).2 The mandate for prevention of dis-
`ease progression is compelling. The natural history of
`progressive MS has been little altered, at least in the
`short term, by currently available agents. b-Interferons
`have been reported to be effective in the treatment of
`RRMS,3-13 and recently, interferon b-1b has been re-
`ported to delay the time to confirmed progression in
`patients with SPMS by 9 to 12 months.14
`MRI has allowed direct visualization of the num-
`ber, location, and volume of acute and chronic lesions
`associated with underlying disease pathology, and
`
`some correlations between MRI and clinical parame-
`ters have been demonstrated.15 In patients with
`RRMS and SPMS, there is a correlation between the
`frequency and extent of lesion enhancement and
`short-term disease activity.16-19 In clinical trials, the
`presence of contrast-enhanced T1 lesions at baseline
`has been shown to predict both clinical and MRI
`activity in the following 6 months,19 and, in patients
`with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of MS,
`T2 lesion load at presentation is strongly correlated
`with disability after 5 years.20,21 A recent meta-
`analysis of data from nine studies in 307 patients
`with RRMS and SPMS, however, found that although
`enhancement predicts the occurrence of relapses it is
`not a strong predictor of subsequent accumulation of
`disability over a 2-year period of observation.22 Phase
`III clinical trials evaluating new therapies for MS now
`almost always include MRI evaluations along with tra-
`ditional clinical assessments.15,23
`Cladribine (2-chlorodeoxyadenosine; 2-CdA) is a
`purine nucleoside analogue resistant to the action of
`
`*See Appendix 1 on page 1154 for a listing of members of the Cladribine Study Group and the Cladribine MRI Study Group.
`From the University Hospital (Dr. Rice), University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; and the Neuroimaging Research Unit (Dr. Filippi) and Clinical
`Trials Unit (Dr. Comi), Department of Neuroscience, Scientific Institute Ospedale San Raffaele, University of Milan, Italy.
`Supported by the R.W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Corporation, Raritan, NJ.
`Presented in part at the 49th annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology; Boston, MA; April 1997; and at the 51st annual meeting of the
`American Academy of Neurology; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; April 1999.
`Received June 10, 1999. Accepted in final form November 1, 1999.
`Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Rice, LHSC-UC, 339 Windermere Road, London, Ontario N6A 5A5, Canada; e-mail: grice@julian.uwo.ca
`
`Copyright © 2000 by the American Academy of Neurology 1145
`
`Petitioner TWi Pharms., Inc.
`EX1008, Page 1 of 11
`
`

`

`adenosine deaminase, which results in preferential
`lymphocytotoxicity. In cells with a high ratio of deoxy-
`cytidine kinase to deoxynucleotidase (e.g., lymphocytes
`and monocytes), cladribine is phosphorylated into the
`active triphosphate deoxynucleotide, 2-CdATP,
`which accumulates, causing a disruption of cellular
`metabolism, DNA damage, and subsequent cell
`death.24 Its long-lasting lymphocytotoxic activity sug-
`gests that cladribine could be useful in modulating
`autoimmune processes involving lymphocyte abnor-
`malities such as MS. Sipe and colleagues have re-
`ported the outcome of a placebo-controlled clinical
`trial of cladribine in patients with progressive
`MS.25,26 Treatment with a total dose of 2.8 mg/kg
`cladribine was associated with significant stabiliza-
`tion of the disease in patients with SPMS. Compared
`with a progression rate of 50% of the patients treated
`with placebo, 95% of cladribine-treated patients were
`stable at 1 year. These clinical observations were
`supported by favorable effects in the MRI brain
`scans, i.e., nearly complete elimination of enhanced
`T1 lesions and stabilization of T2 lesion volume at
`final evaluation. Encouraged by this single-center
`study, a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled
`trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and effi-
`cacy of two doses of cladribine in patients with pro-
`gressive MS.
`
`Methods. Study population. A total of 159 patients
`with progressive MS were enrolled at six clinical centers in
`the United States and Canada. Inclusion criteria for entry
`into the trial were clinically definite or laboratory-
`supported MS according to the Schumacher criteria27 or
`Poser criteria28 and defined as chronic progressive by the
`slow progression of signs and symptoms over the preceding
`12 months; a baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale
`(EDSS)29 score between 3.0 and 6.5; age 21 to 60 years;
`serum creatinine levels ,1.5 mg/dL and creatinine clear-
`ance $ 80% of age-adjusted normal value; aspartate and
`alanine transaminase (AST and ALT) and alkaline phos-
`phatase levels less than twice the normal upper limit; neu-
`trophil count .1600/mL and platelet count .130,000/mL;
`and clinically normal ECG and chest x-ray. Patients were
`excluded from the trial if there was significant history of
`medical disease within the preceding 2 years that would
`impair participation in the trial; use of corticosteroids or
`other immunosuppressants such as cyclophosphamide,
`azathioprine, cyclosporine, or b-interferon within the pre-
`ceding 3 months; total lymphoid irradiation; persistent
`leukopenia or thrombocytopenia after treatment with im-
`munosuppressive agents; history of alcohol or drug abuse
`within the preceding year or of attempted suicide; malig-
`nancy or history of malignancy within the preceding 5
`years; pregnancy or nursing; positive test result for HIV;
`use of an experimental drug or device within the preceding
`60 days; or prior participation in a trial with cladribine.
`The protocol was approved by the respective institutional
`review boards, and patients signed informed consent
`forms.
`Study design. This multicenter trial was a random-
`ized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study
`designed to compare the safety and efficacy of two doses of
`
`1146 NEUROLOGY 54 March (1 of 2) 2000
`
`cladribine and placebo administered by subcutaneous (SC)
`injection in patients with progressive MS, to evaluate the
`dose-response relationship, and to obtain information con-
`cerning the duration of any effects. The study included a
`4-week screening phase, a 1-year double-blind phase, and
`a 6-year long-term extension. Patients were assigned to
`one of three parallel treatment groups (cladribine, 2.1 mg/
`kg; cladribine, 0.7 mg/kg; or placebo) according to a
`computer-generated randomization schedule stratified by
`baseline disease severity and site. Sample size computa-
`tion was based on an assumed SD of 1.7 for change from
`the baseline EDSS score. The planned sample size of 50
`patients per treatment group would have a statistical
`power of 80% based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05 to detect a
`difference of 1.0 in change from the baseline EDSS score
`between the cladribine, 2.1 mg/kg, and placebo groups.
`The trial was initiated in December 1994. During the
`1-year double-blind phase, patients were evaluated
`monthly for vital signs, adverse events, and a complete
`blood count (CBC) that was obtained just before the
`monthly visit. Neurologic status was evaluated bimonthly
`by assessment of EDSS and Scripps Neurologic Rating
`Scale (SNRS) scores by the blinded clinical investigators,
`who underwent standardized training. Brain MRI scans
`were obtained at baseline and months 6 and 12, as were
`total lymphocyte count and lymphocyte subset counts
`(CD31, CD41, CD81, CD191, CD161 plus CD561, and
`CD41/CD81 ratio). Physical examinations were performed
`at baseline and months 4, 8, and 12; a chemistry panel and
`urinalysis were performed periodically, and an ECG was
`obtained at the end of the treatment phase. During the
`first year of the post-double-blind follow-up phase, EDSS
`scores, CBC, and lymphocyte counts were assessed quar-
`terly; MRI scans were obtained at months 18 and 24.
`In addition to the treating physician, an examining phy-
`sician was designated at each site to assess the patient’s
`neurologic function using EDSS and SNRS scoring. All
`study investigators and patients were blinded to treatment
`assignment; adverse events and unblinded hematology re-
`sults were routinely reviewed by an independent safety
`monitoring board. After all patients at a study site com-
`pleted the 12-month double-blind phase, the blind was bro-
`ken, and patients who fulfilled the hematologic dosing
`criteria were permitted to receive open-label cladribine
`treatment during the long-term extension phase of the
`study, provided at least 12 months had elapsed since the
`last dose of cladribine and there was evidence of disease
`progression. Patients treated with open-label cladribine
`were evaluated monthly for 12 months following initiation
`of the drug, and then quarterly.
`Study medications and dosage. Patients who met the
`protocol-specified entry criteria were randomized in ap-
`proximately equal numbers to receive eight monthly
`courses of therapy. Patients received six courses of cladri-
`bine 0.07 mg/kg/day SC for 5 consecutive days (total dose,
`2.1 mg/kg), followed by two courses of placebo or two
`courses of cladribine 0.07 mg/kg/day SC for 5 consecutive
`days (total dose, 0.7 mg/kg), followed by six courses of
`placebo or eight courses of placebo SC for 5 consecutive
`days. To receive a subsequent course of blinded study
`drug, patients were required to meet the hematologic crite-
`ria, which were based on the results of a CBC obtained 2 to
`4 days before each dosing period and are listed in Appen-
`
`Petitioner TWi Pharms., Inc.
`EX1008, Page 2 of 11
`
`

`

`dix 2. For a patient who did not meet these criteria, pla-
`cebo was substituted for the active drug for that dosing
`period. If the hematologic criteria for dosing were met at
`the next evaluation, the patient received active drug the
`following month, up to the eighth month. All CBC data
`were reviewed by an independent third party. The treat-
`ing physician remained blinded but was provided with
`any abnormal CBC results required for proper medical
`management.
`Concomitant therapy. Methylprednisolone, 1 g/day for
`up to 5 days, was allowed only for treatment of severe
`exacerbations. In addition, patients were allowed to con-
`tinue receiving symptomatic therapies to treat trouble-
`some symptoms of MS (e.g., baclofen for spasticity or
`oxybutynin chloride for bladder dysfunction).
`MRI evaluation. Dual-echo conventional spin-echo im-
`ages were obtained using repetition times of 2500 msec
`and echo times of 30 (proton-density weighting) and 90 (T2
`weighting) msec. T1-weighted images were obtained using
`repetition times of 600 msec and echo times of 20 msec.
`For both sequences, slices were axial with a matrix size of
`256 3 256 mm and a field of view of 200 3 200 mm.
`Sections were 4 mm thick with a 1-mm interslice gap for
`the dual-echo scans and 3 mm thick and contiguous for the
`T1-weighted scans. The total imaging time was approxi-
`mately 20 to 25 minutes. Special attention was given to
`careful repositioning of the patient, using laser guidance
`and external landmarks to help achieve reproducible slice
`positions. All scan data were blinded to treatment, date,
`and sequence of scan.
`Lesion identification. Postcontrast T1-weighted images.
`A single experienced observer identified enhanced lesions fol-
`lowing rules and criteria established in recently published
`guidelines.30 Areas of enhancement were marked on trans-
`parent sheets superimposed over the scan hard copies, and
`then the total number of enhanced lesions per scan was
`counted. Corresponding dual-echo images were used to in-
`crease the confidence in lesion detection.
`T2-weighted images. A single experienced observer
`identified hyperintense MS lesions and marked the corre-
`sponding areas on transparent sheets superimposed over
`the proton-density scan hard copies. Corresponding T2-
`weighted images were used to increase the confidence in
`lesion detection.
`Lesion segmentation and measurement of lesion volume.
`Trained technicians measured the lesion volumes for the
`scans belonging to the same patient to avoid variabilities
`of interobserver measurement. A local thresholding tech-
`nique was used for lesion segmentation on computer-
`displayed images, with the marked hard copies kept as a
`reference. This local thresholding technique for segmenta-
`tion was provided by the Dispunc display software for MR
`images, developed by David Plummer (University College,
`London, UK). The observer first chooses a point on the
`lesion using a mouse-controlled cursor, and the algorithm
`starts contouring, following from the strongest edge point
`in the neighborhood of the user-selected point. This stron-
`gest edge point (i.e., the starting point) is found by search-
`ing over a 5 3 5 pixel square area with the manually
`selected point in its center. Once the algorithm has found
`the starting point, the program, searching in all directions
`and choosing the strongest one, finds the next contour
`point, which must have at least as strong a gradient as the
`
`starting point. The program then traces a contour from the
`most recent point, following the same principle described
`above; the contour is complete when it traces back to the
`starting point. The MS lesions detected are recorded in a
`file as regions of interest (ROIs) and superimposed on each
`image slice. The program automatically calculates the sin-
`gle ROI area. Manual outlining is required to modify part
`of the boundary of poorly defined lesions or (more rarely)
`to fully outline lesions not definable by contouring. The
`total lesion volume is then calculated, multiplying the total
`ROI area by the slice thickness. For the whole measure-
`ment process, the technicians followed recently published
`guidelines.31
`Statistical analyses. Efficacy and safety analyses were
`based on the population of patients who received at least
`one dose of study medication and had available data. For
`efficacy variables, all hypothesis tests were carried out
`two-sided, with a significance level of ,0.05 considered to
`be statistically significant.
`The designated primary efficacy parameter was mean
`change in EDSS score from baseline to the final evalua-
`tion. Secondary clinical outcome measures were mean
`change from baseline in SNRS score and time to progres-
`sion of MS. Disease progression was defined as an increase
`in EDSS score of $1.0 for patients with a baseline disabil-
`ity of 3.0 to 5.0 and an increase in EDSS score of $0.5 for
`patients with a baseline disability of 5.5 to 6.5, which was
`confirmed at the next scheduled visit. EDSS and SNRS
`examinations were performed by the blinded examining
`physician every second month during the double-blind
`phase. Treatment differences for the change from baseline
`to the final evaluation for these variables were assessed
`using a Wilcoxon’s rank sum test. Comparisons were made
`between the placebo and cladribine 2.1 mg/kg groups and
`the placebo and cladribine 0.7 mg/kg groups, respectively.
`Time to progression of MS was analyzed using survival
`analysis methods. Kaplan-Meier estimates for the proba-
`bilities of failure were computed for each group. Log-rank
`tests were used to compare the distributions between the
`placebo and cladribine 2.1 mg/kg groups and between the
`placebo and cladribine 0.7 mg/kg groups.
`The evaluation of MRI efficacy is based on the propor-
`tion of patients with contrast-enhanced T1-weighted brain
`lesions at the final evaluation. Additional MRI efficacy
`assessments are based on the number and volume of en-
`hanced T1-weighted lesions and volume of T2-weighted
`lesions. Comparisons between treatment groups (placebo
`versus cladribine 2.1 mg/kg, placebo versus cladribine 0.7
`mg/kg) of the proportion of patients with enhanced T1
`lesions at months 6 and 12 and the final evaluation were
`made using Fisher’s exact test. Treatment differences in
`enhanced T1 lesion volume and number, T2 lesion volume,
`and change and percent change in T2 lesion volume from
`baseline to final evaluation were assessed using Wilcoxon’s
`rank sum test.
`Safety analyses included summaries of adverse events.
`For laboratory analytes, vital signs, and body weights,
`means and mean changes from baseline were computed at
`each monthly visit.
`
`Results. Demographic and baseline characteristics.
`The 159 eligible patients were randomly assigned to re-
`ceive placebo (n 5 54), cladribine 0.7 mg/kg (n 5 53), or
`cladribine 2.1 mg/kg (n 5 52). The three treatment groups
`March (1 of 2) 2000 NEUROLOGY 54 1147
`
`Petitioner TWi Pharms., Inc.
`EX1008, Page 3 of 11
`
`

`

`Table 1 Demographic and baseline characteristics
`
`Characteristic
`
`Age, mean (y)
`% Male/female
`Pattern of disease
`% PPMS
`% SPMS
`Duration of disease (y)
`Mean
`Median
`EDSS score at entry
`Mean
`Median
`Category, % 3.0–5.0/5.5–6.5
`SNRS score at entry
`Mean
`Median
`
`Placebo
`(n 5 54)
`
`Cladribine
`0.7 mg/kg
`(n 5 53)
`
`Cladribine
`2.1 mg/kg
`(n 5 52)
`
`44.2
`37/63
`
`44.6
`42/58
`
`43.8
`50/50
`
`26
`74
`
`12.3
`11.7
`
`5.6
`6.0
`31/69
`
`60.9
`62.0
`
`36
`64
`
`10.9
`10.0
`
`5.6
`6.0
`30/70
`
`60.7
`62.0
`
`29
`71
`
`10.6
`8.8
`
`5.6
`6.0
`25/75
`
`62.3
`62.0
`
`PPMS 5 primary progressive MS; SPMS 5 secondary progres-
`sive MS; EDSS 5 Expanded Disability Status Scale; SNRS 5
`Scripps Neurological Rating Scale.
`
`were similar with respect to age, gender, duration and
`pattern of disease, and baseline disability as defined by
`EDSS or SNRS scores (table 1). Overall, the median age
`was 44 years; 43% of patients were men and 57% were
`women. At baseline, 111 (70%) patients had SPMS and 48
`(30%) patients had PPMS; 71% of patients had a baseline
`EDSS score of $5.5, indicating a population with substan-
`tial disability. Consistent with a population of more ad-
`vanced disease and 30% of patients with PPMS, 63% had
`no enhanced lesions at baseline. Mean enhanced T1 lesion
`count was 1.3, and mean enhanced T1 lesion volume was
`216.4 mL at baseline. Mean T2 lesion volume at baseline
`was 12.0 mL. Patients in the placebo group had a some-
`what smaller mean enhanced T1 lesion volume than pa-
`tients in the two cladribine groups ( p 5 NS), and T1 lesion
`volumes at baseline had higher standard deviations among
`the cladribine patients than among the placebo patients.
`Compliance. All 159 patients randomized to receive
`double-blind therapy received at least one dose of the
`study drug, and all are included in the efficacy analysis;
`155 (97%) patients completed the double-blind phase.
`There were no withdrawals due to adverse events; 4 (3%)
`patients withdrew voluntarily from the study (subject
`choice) before completion of the double-blind phase (three
`from the low-dose cladribine group and one from the
`higher-dose group). The majority of patients received all
`eight scheduled courses of therapy (7/54 placebo-treated
`patients, 11/53 cladribine 0.7 mg/kg-treated patients, and
`16/52 of 2.1 mg/kg-treated patients received a placebo sub-
`stitution). The most common reasons for failure of the dos-
`ing criteria were fluctuations in hemoglobin levels and
`platelet counts, which occurred at a similar frequency in
`all groups.
`Post-double-blind follow-up data are available for 148 of
`the 159 patients enrolled in the double-blind phase of this
`
`1148 NEUROLOGY 54 March (1 of 2) 2000
`
`Figure 1. Probability of disease progression over time. SP
`5 secondary progressive.
`
`ongoing study. For the outcomes presented here, the mean
`duration of follow-up from the first dose was 29 months.
`Clinical outcomes. During the 12-month double-blind
`phase, the mean changes in EDSS and SNRS scores from
`baseline to final evaluation were small in all three treat-
`ment arms (placebo, 0.7 mg/kg, and 2.1 mg/kg cladribine),
`and no differences among treatment groups were observed
`for placebo and cladribine. Examination of changes in
`EDSS scores according to pattern of disease showed that
`for patients with SPMS, EDSS scores increased modestly
`(0.3) over time in the placebo group but less in the active
`treatment groups (60.0, p 5 NS); by comparison, very
`little change in EDSS score was experienced in any treat-
`ment arm by patients with PPMS. Similarly, although no
`significant differences among treatment groups were found
`in time to progression assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimate
`for all patients, there was a trend toward a more favorable
`clinical response to cladribine than to placebo in the SPMS
`subgroup (figure 1); 33% of patients in the placebo group
`met the criteria for disease progression by the end of the
`double-blind phase, compared with 24% to 27% of
`cladribine-treated patients with SPMS.
`Exacerbations, steroid utilization, and hospitalizations
`did not differ among the three groups.
`Follow-up EDSS scores obtained after the 12-month
`double-blind phase, but before retreatment, are available
`
`Petitioner TWi Pharms., Inc.
`EX1008, Page 4 of 11
`
`

`

`Table 2 Summary of MRI outcomes during double-blind phase of study: all patients
`
`MRI parameter
`
`n (%) or mean (SD) n (%) or mean (SD) p Value n (%) or mean (SD) p Value
`
`Placebo
`
`Cladribine 0.7 mg/kg
`
`Cladribine 2.1 mg/kg
`
`Enhanced T1 lesions
`Proportion of patients with lesions (%)a,b,d
`Baseline
`Month 6
`Month 12
`Final evaluation
`Mean number of lesions (SD)a,c,d
`Baseline
`Month 6
`Month 12
`Final evaluation
`Mean volume of lesions in mL (SD)a,c,d
`Baseline
`Month 6
`Month 12
`Final evaluation
`T2 lesions
`Mean lesion volume (mL) (SD)a,c,d
`Baseline
`Month 6
`Month 12
`Final evaluation
`Change from baseline to final evaluationc,d,e
`Mean (SD)
`Median
`Percent change from baseline to final
`evaluationc,d,e
`Mean (SD)
`Median
`
`53 (38%)
`51 (33%)
`50 (32%)
`54 (31%)
`
`1.17 (2.23)
`0.78 (1.49)
`0.57 (1.10)
`0.58 (1.12)
`
`52 (33%)
`49 (12%)
`48 (10%)
`51 (10%)
`
`1.64 (4.43)
`0.17 (0.52)
`0.13 (0.40)
`0.12 (0.39)
`
`142.66 (302.15)
`78.67 (168.07)
`67.76 (119.65)
`78.11 (155.74)
`
`283.82 (803.10)
`12.44 (44.35)
`10.94 (39.99)
`10.28 (38.83)
`
`12.90 (12.35)
`13.45 (12.77)
`13.13 (13.11)
`13.31 (13.00)
`
`13.03 (12.37)
`13.15 (12.09)
`12.62 (11.52)
`12.65 (11.96)
`
`0.41 (1.72)
`0.10
`
`20.39 (1.70)
`20.01
`
`50 (36%)
`52 (2%)
`48 (6%)
`52 (6%)
`
`1.10 (2.07)
`0.12 (0.85)
`0.09 (0.35)
`0.08 (0.34)
`
`235.24 (777.94)
`19.40 (137.18)
`6.36 (26.63)
`5.98 (25.85)
`
`9.91 (8.50)
`9.78 (8.60)
`9.79 (8.80)
`9.71 (8.56)
`
`20.20 (1.13)
`20.13
`
`0.0169
`0.0131
`0.0080
`
`0.008
`0.007
`0.005
`
`0.008
`0.005
`0.003
`
`0.872
`0.944
`0.868
`
`0.055
`
`1.81 (11.38)
`1.53
`
`21.67 (14.98)
`0.03
`
`0.144
`
`23.93 (14.80)
`22.51
`
`0.001
`0.0017
`0.0009
`
`,0.001
`0.001
`0.001
`
`,0.001
`0.001
`0.001
`
`0.155
`0.231
`0.180
`
`0.040
`
`0.029
`
`a Includes patients with both baseline and final evaluations.
`b Fisher’s exact test (two-sided significance).
`c Based on Wilcoxon’s (Mann-Whitney) rank sum test.
`d The final evaluation is the last evaluation for each patient up to month 12 during year 1.
`e Positive change indicates disease progression.
`
`through month 24 for a sizable cohort of patients, although
`cohort sizes became smaller as some patients entered re-
`treatment during the follow-up phase. Although mean
`EDSS scores increased over time in all treatment groups,
`scores for the follow-up period were also analyzed by pat-
`tern of disease. For patients with SPMS, mean changes in
`EDSS scores were somewhat more favorable with cladri-
`bine (0.2 and 0.3, respectively, for the 0.7-mg/kg and 2.1-
`mg/kg doses) compared with placebo (0.6) by 24 months.
`No difference was observed for patients with PPMS.
`Proportion of patients
`Magnetic resonance outcomes.
`with enhanced T1 lesions. At baseline, approximately
`35% of patients in each treatment group had enhanced T1
`lesions (figure 2, table 2). Whereas the proportion of pa-
`tients with enhanced T1 lesions remained nearly un-
`changed from baseline to final evaluation in the placebo
`
`group, the proportion of cladribine-treated patients with
`enhanced T1 lesions decreased significantly, to 10% in the
`0.7 mg/kg group ( p 5 0.0080) and 6% in the 2.1 mg/kg
`group ( p 5 0.0009). By final evaluation, there was a 70%
`reduction in the proportion of patients with enhanced T1
`lesions in the cladribine 0.7 mg/kg group and an 83% re-
`duction in this proportion in the cladribine 2.1 mg/kg
`group, compared with a reduction of 18% in the placebo
`group. The difference between the cladribine and placebo
`groups in the proportion of patients with enhanced T1
`lesions was statistically significant at month 6 (see figure
`2, table 2). It remained significant through month 18 for
`the 0.7 mg/kg dose and through month 24 for the 2.1 mg/kg
`dose (table 3).
`Subgroup analysis of the proportion of patients with
`enhanced T1 lesions by pattern of disease showed no sig-
`March (1 of 2) 2000 NEUROLOGY 54 1149
`
`Petitioner TWi Pharms., Inc.
`EX1008, Page 5 of 11
`
`

`

`nificant difference among treatment groups in patients
`with PPMS (data not shown). In patients with SPMS, how-
`ever, significantly smaller proportions of patients treated
`with either cladribine dose had enhanced T1 lesions at
`month 6 and the double-blind final evaluation, and those
`treated with 2.1 mg/kg maintained significant differences
`at follow-up months 18 and 24 (data not shown).
`Examination of the relationship between the status of
`patients with and without enhanced T1 lesions at baseline
`and their status at final evaluation showed that for pa-
`tients who presented without enhanced T1 lesions at base-
`line, new enhanced T1 lesions developed by final
`evaluation in 18% of placebo patients compared with 9%
`and 6%, respectively, of the low- and high-dose cladribine
`groups (NS). Moreover, for patients with enhanced T1 le-
`sions present at baseline, the treatment effect on enhanced
`T1 lesions at final evaluation was significantly greater in
`patients receiving 0.7 mg/kg ( p , 0.02) and 2.1 mg/kg
`( p , 0.002) cladribine than in the placebo patients; these
`differences in treatment effect between the placebo group
`
`Figure 2. Proportion of patients with enhanced T1 lesions
`during the double-blind phase study. *p , 0.02 versus
`placebo. **p , 0.001 versus placebo. ***p , 0.0001 versus
`placebo.
`
`Table 3 Summary of MRI outcomes during post– double-blind follow-up: all patients
`
`MRI parameter
`
`n (%) or mean (SD)
`
`n (%) or mean (SD)
`
`p Value
`
`n (%) or mean (SD)
`
`p Value
`
`Placebo
`
`Cladribine 0.7 mg/kg
`
`Cladribine 2.1 mg/kg
`
`Enhanced T1 lesions
`Proportion of patients with lesions (%)a– c
`Baseline
`Final evaluation
`Month 18
`Month 24
`Mean number of lesions (SD)a,c,d
`Baseline
`Final evaluation
`Month 18
`Month 24
`Mean volume of lesions (mL)a,c,d
`Baseline
`Final evaluation
`Month 18
`Month 24
`T2 lesions
`Mean lesion volume (mL) (SD)a,c,d
`Baseline
`Final evaluation
`Month 18
`Month 24
`Percent change from baseline to Month 24c,e
`Mean (SD)
`
`14 (36%)
`14 (36%)
`14 (36%)
`7 (24%)
`
`0.64 (1.04)
`0.62 (1.14)
`0.62 (1.37)
`1.17 (3.97)
`
`15 (32%)
`5 (10%)
`5 (11%)
`4 (11%)
`
`1.72 (4.56)
`0.13 (0.40)
`0.20 (0.67)
`0.26 (0.82)
`
`83.10 (160.33)
`75.87 (126.94)
`111.59 (351.47)
`168.83 (708.80)
`
`298.11 (826.49)
`10.94 (39.99)
`21.16 (90.58)
`69.40 (236.50)
`
`10.42 (8.80)
`10.47 (8.71)
`10.50 (8.75)
`10.75 (9.55)
`
`13.28 (12.49)
`12.87 (12.06)
`13.22 (12.21)
`12.41 (12.95)
`
`0.0079
`0.0089
`0.1965
`
`0.004
`0.011
`0.182
`
`0.003
`0.006
`0.238
`
`0.395
`0.379
`0.839
`
`16 (36%)
`2 (4%)
`1 (2%)
`0 (0%)
`
`1.09 (2.13)
`0.04 (0.21)
`0.07 (0.46)
`0.0 (0.00)
`
`241.36 (816.41)
`3.20 (15.10)
`4.42 (28.97)
`0.00 (0.00)
`
`10.34 (8.81)
`10.08 (8.87)
`9.91 (8.29)
`10.36 (8.83)
`
`0.0002
`0.0001
`0.0014
`
`,0.001
`,0.001
`0.001
`
`,0.001
`,0.001
`0.001
`
`0.825
`0.769
`0.945
`
`3.74 (15.38)
`
`1.02 (23.16)
`
`24.22 (17.55)
`
`a Includes patients with both baseline and final evaluations.
`b Fisher’s exact test (two-sided significance).
`c The final evaluation is the last evaluation of the double-blind phase.
`d Based on Wilcoxon’s (Mann-Whitney) rank sum test.
`e Positive change indicates disease progression.
`
`1150 NEUROLOGY 54 March (1 of 2) 2000
`
`Petitioner TWi Pharms., Inc.
`EX1008, Page 6 of 11
`
`

`

`and cladribine groups were statistically significant at
`month 6.
`Volume and number of enhanced T1 lesions. The
`cladribine groups had approximately 90% reductions in the
`mean number of enhanced T1 lesions at month 6 and
`maintained 92% reductions through final evaluation, com-
`pared with 33% and 50% reductions in the placebo group
`at month 6 and final evaluation, respectively (see table 2).
`The differences in the numbers of these lesions at the final
`evaluation between the placebo and cladribine 0.7 mg/kg
`groups ( p 5 0.005) and the placebo and cladribine 2.1
`mg/kg groups ( p 5 0.001) were statistically significant, as
`were the differences at month 6. Compared with a 3%
`reduction in the mean number of enhanced T1 lesions in
`the placebo group at month 18 and a 77% increase at
`month 24, the cladribine groups maintained a 91% reduc-
`tion at month 18 ( p , 0.001) and month 24 ( p 5 0.005, see
`table 3).
`The mean volume of enhanced T1 lesions also decreased
`from baseline in all three treatment groups during double-
`blind therapy, with greater reductions observed in the two
`cladribine groups (96% and 97%, respectively, for the low-
`and high-dose groups) compared with the placebo group
`(45%; see table 2). Differences between placebo and
`cladribine treatments in enhanced T1 lesion volume were
`statistically significant at each timepoint after baseline,
`with .90% reduction in both cladribine treatment groups
`at month 6. Compared with 34% and 70% increases in the
`volume of enhanced T1 lesions in the placebo group at
`months 18 and 24, respectively, patients receiving cladri-
`bine had a 95% reduction in volume at month 18 ( p ,
`0.001) and an 87% reduction at month 24 ( p 5 0.007, see
`table 3).
`Subgroup analysis of the volume and number of en-
`hanced T1 lesions by pattern of disease and post-double-
`blind follow-up data are consistent with the observations
`on proportions of patients having such lesions and support
`the finding that the effect of cladribine on suppression of
`enhanced T1 lesions is greater in patients with SPMS and
`is sustained for up to 24 months, particularly at the 2.1
`mg/kg dose.
`Volume of T2 lesions. Mean baseline T2 lesion vol-
`umes were generally comparable across all treatment
`groups. During the double-blind phase, both cladribine
`gro

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