throbber
Poster Abstracts
`
`0493
`
`Pharmacokinetics of oval cladvibine (Miylinax®) after administration
`in patienis with multiple sclerosis
`
`Munafo, A’, Tran, D®, Marcus, $3, Ammoury, Ni. /Seronc
`International SA, Geneva, Switzerland; °Bourn Hall Clinic, Cambridge,
`UK; Ftvax Corp fac, Miami, USA
`Background: Intravenous (IV) cladribine produces clinical benefits in
`multiple selorosis OWS) patients. Since oral administration would havs
`advantages over the IV route, the bioavailabiliry and pharmacokinetics
`of an oral cladribine formulation were assessed.
`Method: Tn a. randomized. 2-way crossover manner, 26 confirmed MS
`patients (mean age 44.1] years, mean weight 72 kg) each received
`3 single fixed cladribine doscs separated by >5 days: 3mg and 10mz
`orally
`(Mylnax-Serono/Ivax),
`and 3mg
`by
`1-h
`IV infusion
`‘Leustatin®-Janssen-Cilag). Blood samples were obtained before
`administration and repeatedly over ] day thereafter. Masma concen-
`trations were measured by HPLC/MS.
`Results: Achieved 0.5—-0.6h after oral administration, peak concentra-
`tion (Cyax) averaged (geometric mean) 5608 pg/mL and 21242pg/mL.
`after 3mg and 10mg orally, respectively, compared with 21425pg/mL
`after 1-h TV infusion. Areas under the concentration-time curve (AUC)
`with 3mg and 10mg orally were 20159h-pg/mL and 76690h-pg/mL,
`respectively, and $852&h-pgymL following IV infusion. Mean absolute
`bioavailability was 35% and 34% followmg 3mg and 1Umg orally,
`respectively. Variability was well controlled, with a coefficient-of-
`variance of < 20% imtra-patient and 30-35%imter-patient, on AUC.
`There was uo evidence of clinically imporiau, pharnmacokineuc
`nonlinearity after oral cladribine at either dose. Tolerability was
`good: the only reported adverse events occurred alter 3mg orally: a
`mild headache in one patient, moderate headache and vomiting in a
`second; none were considered treatment-related.
`Conclusion: Oral cladiibine bas favourable pharmacokinetic aud salety
`profiles following administration of a single dose in MS patients: a
`Phase III tnal with oral cladnbine is underway.
`
`0494
`Influence of Immunomodulatory Therapies on Anti-Mlyelin-Antibodies
`in Multiple Sclerosis (MIS)
`
`Khalil, M’, Egg, R’, Reindl, M’, Lutterotti, A’, Ehling, R’, Geiss, C’,
`Kuenz, B', Deisenhammer, F', Berger, T’. ’Cfinical Denartment af
`Neurology, danstruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Ausiriu
`
`Background: Antimyclin antibodics scom to play a role in RRMS
`patients. Qwn previous data suggested an mfluence of mterferon-beta
`on those antibodies, measured at a single time point, in 261 MS
`patients.
`Objectives: This prospective study investigated the fluence of disease
`modifyimng-drugs (DMD) on the antibodyresponse against MOG and
`MBPafter ong year of treatment.
`Methods: We have analyzed IgG, IgM and IgA serum antibodies
`against MOG and MBP in 49 RRMSpatients recerving various DML
`(16 Betaferon, 11 Avonex, 6 Rebif, 7 glatiramer acetate, 9 Intravenous
`immunoglobulins) before and after one year of therapy. 14 RRMS
`patients withoul DMD served as controls. None ol the pauieuts had a
`relapse or received corticosteroids within one month before blood
`sampling. EDSS was assessed every three months for
`two years,
`relapses Lad io be confined. Antibodies were detected by seuuquan-
`titative Westernblet.
`Results: We found a signiticant mfluence of DMD on anti-MBP IgM
`antibodies after one year of treatment (p = 0.035). The change of the
`relapse rate after
`two years of treatment with DMD differed
`significantly im patients positive for anti-MBP [gM antibodies
`comparedto anti-MBP TgM negative parents measured at month 12
`of treatment fp = 0.002).
`Conclusion: MBP is quantitatively the major myelin protem. Antibody
`responses to this antigen might reflect the extent of inflammation and
`
`‘luesday, November 8, 2005
`
`$225
`
`tissue destruction in MS patients. Although number of patients and
`the follow up period have ta be extended we suggest that anti MBP
`aulibodies may serve as a biomarker for moutloriug indirectly the
`effectiveness of DMD.
`
`0495
`The critical role of pro- and anti-apoptotic mediators in patients with
`muliiple sclerosis
`
`Fl Beshlawy, W.F', Abd Allah, M?, Hawas, S?, Ghoname, NF.
`Neuropsychiatry; “Clinical Pathology; *Microbiology Tanta University,
`and Medical Immunclogy Mansoura University, Egypt
`Background: Multiple sclerosis
`(MS)
`is a chrome neurological
`disorder characterized by myclin destruction and a variable degree of
`oligodendrocyte death. Programmedcall death (apoptosis) is critical
`for the normal development and homeostasis cf the immune system.
`Apoptosis of autoreactive T cells in the CINS is likely to be important
`in preventing the development of MS. CD95/CD95L interaction
`results in activation-induced apoptosis and their abnormal expression
`together with NI-kB and Bel-2 may be involved m the pathogenesis
`and the clinical course of MS.
`Aim: To study the role of pro- and anti-apoptotic mediators in MS
`patients.
`Methods: we studied the level and expression of Fas, Fa-L, NF-kB
`and Hol-2 using R1-PCR, morphological changes of apoptosis im
`peripheral blood mononuclearcells, DNA fragmentation in 16 patients
`with MS divided into 3 groups, relapsing, remitting and chronic cases.
`Tu addition, a group of 16 healtly cases served as controls.
`Results: we found that Fas & Fas-L were significantly decreased in
`patients with MS compared with healthy contrels. While NF-kB and
`Bel-2 were significantly mereased in patients compared with controls.
`Conclusion: Fas, Fas-L, Nf-kB and Bel-2 play an importantrole in the
`pathogenesis of MS.
`
`0496
`Cognitive dysfunctions and fatigue in newly diagnosed multiple
`sclerosis patients and in the eaxly stage of the disease
`
`Engel, C’, Greim, B’, Zettl, UK". /University of Rostock, Department
`of Newology, Germany
`Backeround: Cognitive dysfunctions and fatigue are frequent symp-
`toms in the course of multiple sclerosis (MS). There are some long-
`term studies which showstability or slow progression at any time of
`the course. No study investigated cognitive dysfunctions a3 well as
`fatigue at the ime of diagnosis.
`Method: The cognitive performance of 50 patients with newly
`diagnosed multiple sclerosis was compared with that of 33 control
`subjects, matched for sex, age and education. The test-battery included
`tests of reasoning, verbal and nonverbal memory, alertness, divided
`and focused attention. Tests were applied at diagnosis, a half, one and
`three years later. Fatigue was measured subjectively by the Modified
`Fatigus Lmpact Scale and objectively by a test of vigilance. Physical
`disability (EDSS) and depression (BDI) were controlled.
`Results: Patients had an average age of 35 years, a mean EDSS-score of
`1.5. 92%sullered (tom a relapsing-renutiug MS. Al baseline 50% of
`the patients were cognitively unimpaired, 38% showed mild and 12%
`moderate cognitive deterioration. Patients performed significantly
`poorer
`than controls in uouverbal memory aud reactiou-lume.
`Wo differences were found in reasoning and verbal memory. Three
`years later no improvement m cogmtive performance was found.
`Fatigue was reported im 63%at baseline and one year later. After three
`years only 47%suffered from it. Throughout testing the BDI-score
`was significantly correlated with subjective fatigue.
`frequent.
`Concinsion: Cognitive dysfunctions
`and
`fatigues were
`symptoms already in newly diagnosed MS patients. After three years
`the cognitive performance as well as the reported fangue did not
`imcrease.
`
`Hopewell EX1072
`Hopewell v. Merck
`IPR2023-00481
`
`Hopewell EX1072
`Hopewell v. Merck
`IPR2023-00481
`
`1
`
`

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