throbber
March 22, 2007
`
`
`
`
`
`Interim Analysis of Phase 2 Study of VEGF Trap in AMD patients
`
`Patients treated with 5 different dosing regimens, and compared to their own baseline over the course of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`three months, using change in retinal thickness at three months as the primary endpoint, with
`
`
`
`
`changes in visual acuity as the key secondary endpoint
`
`Patients treated with 0.5 mg, 2.0 mg and 4.0 mg doses, with cohorts in which each patient was treated just
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`once with these doses and evaluated over the ensuing three months, as well as cohorts in the
`0.5 and 2.0 doses were given monthly
`
`
`
`Study achieved its pre-specified primary endpoint, of decrease in retinal thickness in all treated patients (all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cohorts combined) at 12 weeks, with p < 0.0001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`>>> The average decrease in retinal thickness across all five cohorts was 135 microns
`
`Study also achieved key pre-specified secondary endpoint, of improvement in visual acuity in all treated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patients (all cohorts combined) at 12 weeks, with p < 0.0001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 8 weeks, and 5.9 letters at 12 weeks
`
`>>> The average increase in visual acuity across all five cohorts was 6.0 letters at 4 weeks, 5.8 letters
`
`Statistical analyses did not show significant differences across the treatment groups, for changes in either
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`retinal thickness or visual acuity, regardless of whether patients were treated with a single
`
`
`dose or received monthly treatments
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`>>> The improvements in visual acuity in the different cohorts ranged from 3 to 10 letters at 12 weeks
`
`Patients treated with a single dose, at all three dose levels, maintained a decrease in retinal thickness as well
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as a gain in visual acuity (2.8 to 5.1 letters), at 12 weeks
`
`Only a single patient in the entire study did not at least maintain their vision, as defined by loss of 3 or more
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lines of vision at three months
`
`Quote:
`"In this 12 week study, the VEGF Trap caused statistically significant improvements in both retinal swelling
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and visual acuity. Moreover, the VEGF Trap may prove unique in that a single dose may be able to maintain
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a beneficial effect on retinal swelling, as well as improve visual acuity, for at least twelve weeks. We look
`
`
`
`
`
`forward to the required Phase 3 studies to define the doses and intervals that will provide the most benefit
`
`
`
`and most desirable treatment options for patients."
`
`
`
`Key Background Comparisons to Lucentis:
`
`
`
`
`
`Mean change in VA at lm, 3m and 1 year in Lucentis pivotal studies:
`
`
`
`
`
`l m 3m
`
`12m
`
`0.3
`6.5
`Marina
`-3.55.1
`(2mETDRS)
`7.2
`0.5
`-4 5.9
`
`Anchor
`
`5.96.8
`0.3
`8.5
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`RGN-EYLEA-MYLAN-00525766
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2006 Page 1
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2006 Page 2
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`

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