throbber

`

`114
`
`N.N. SarkarlEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 101 (2002) 113-120
`
`suggested that mifepristone may be partly pooled in the
`enterohepatic cycle [13]. Three metabolites of mifepristone
`have been identified. This compound undergoes deme(cid:173)
`thylation to produce mono-demethylated (RU42633) and
`di-demethylated (RU42848) derivatives as well as hydro(cid:173)
`xylation of the propynyl group to yield hydroxylated meta(cid:173)
`bolite (RU42698). The study showed that metabolism
`of RU486 to RU42633 and RU24698 was rapid but remo(cid:173)
`val of the second methyl group leading to formation of
`RU42848 occurred much more slowly and to much lesser
`extent than removal of the first [5]. Like mifepristone, these
`metabolites are immunologically and biologically active
`and retain anti-progestational and anti-glucocorticoid prop(cid:173)
`erties [5,14]. Elimination of mifepristone and its metabo(cid:173)
`lites from the body is mainly through feces (83%) and urine
`(8.8%) within 6-7 days after administration of a single
`oral dose [12].
`The study in women showed that concentrations of
`mifepristone were 344 ± 195 and 1040 ± 444 pmol/g in
`myometrial and abdominal adipose tissues, respectively,
`at 12-15 h after oral administration of200 mg RU486, while
`its concentration in serum was 921 ± 603 nmoi/l. In these
`women, the non-protein bound fraction of RU486 varied
`from lA to 3.1 % (mean 2.3%). There was a lot of individual
`variation in concentration of RU486 in serum and adipose
`tissues. In these subjects, concentration of combined mono(cid:173)
`and di-demethylated metabolites were approximately lA,
`3.1 and 5.2 times higher in adipose tissues, myometrium
`and serum, respectively, than those of the parent compound
`mifepristone [13]. However, concentration of mifepristone
`in cerebrospinal fluid was relatively low, about 4% of plasma
`concentration, perhaps in consequence of relatively low
`amount of protein in cerebrospinal fluid [12]. The above
`results indicate that the pattern of uptake ofmifepristone and
`its metabolites by adipose and myometrial tissues is similar
`after oral administration of mifepristone.
`
`4. Plasma concentration
`
`4.1. Low dose (1-50 mg)
`
`Daily oral administration of mifepristone for one men(cid:173)
`strual cycle yielded steady plasma RU486 levels that ranged
`from 65 nmol/l with 1 mg per day to 1000 nmolll with
`10 mg per day [15]. However, peak plasma concentrations
`of 0.36 ± 0.1,1.2 ± 0.1 and 6.7 ± 3A /lmolll were reached
`within 0.5-2 h after oral administration of 2, 8 and 25 mg
`mifepristone, respectively [16]. After oral doses, twice a day
`for 4 days in nonnal subjects, plasma concentration of
`mifepristone was found up to day 5, to be steady-state
`ranging from 1-1.5, 1.6-2.6 and 2.2-3.1/lmolll with
`12.5, 25 and 50 mg per dose, respectively [8]. It was also
`demonstrated that daily oral administration of 25 mg mife(cid:173)
`pristone for 14 days produced a steady-state plasma con(cid:173)
`centration of approximately 1 /lmolll [17]. In another study,
`
`steady plasma level of RU486 and its metabolites was found
`to be 2.9 /lmolll after daily ingestion of 50 mg RU486 for 4
`days [6]. No cumulative increase in serum concentration was
`found with prolonged daily administration of low doses of
`mifepristone [6,8,16]. Thus, the findings suggest the possi(cid:173)
`bility of the low-dose mifepristone to be a potential drug for
`various clinical applications.
`The time required to reach the peak plasma concentration
`after single oral dose of 50 mg or less ranges from 0.5 to 2 h
`[5,6,18]. The maximum plasma concentration of mifepris(cid:173)
`tone was found to be 1.9 ± 0.8 and 1.7 ± OA /lmol in non(cid:173)
`pregnant and pregnant women, respectively, after oral dose
`of 50 mg RU486. This difference was not statistically sig(cid:173)
`nificant [5]. The peak plasma concentration of two active
`metabolites along with the parent compound was also
`reached approximately to 3.5-4.0 /lmolll in both pregnant
`and non-pregnant women after oral administration of 25 or
`50 mg mifepristone [6]. With 50 mg oral dose, peak plasma
`level of RU486 was 2.2 ± 1.0 /lmol/l in both Chinese and
`non-Chinese women, indicating there was no ethnic varia(cid:173)
`tion regarding bioavailability of mifepristone [18]. However,
`high individual variations in plasma concentration virtually
`rendered similar dose response effect with 25 or 50 mg dose
`of mifepristone. Overall, these findings have shown no
`significant difference in the plasma concentrations or phar(cid:173)
`macokinetic parameters of mifepristone and its metabolites
`between non-pregnant and pregnant women [5].
`
`4.2. Medium dose (100-200 mg)
`
`Following repeated oral administration of 100 and 200 mg
`RU486 daily for 4 days, maximum plasma levels reached to
`4.5 and SA /lmol/l, respectively, in both pregnant and non(cid:173)
`pregnant women. The increase in plasma levels was not
`directly proportional to the increase in the dose [6]. In a
`similar dose schedule with 100 mg, the steady plasma level
`of mifepristone ranged from 2.3 ± 0.5 to 2.5 ± OA /lmol/l
`[8]. The discrepancies in the values were probably due to use
`of different assay system for measurement.
`After a single oral dose, the peak plasma concentrations
`were 3.8 ± 1.4 and 3.8 ± 0.9 /lmol/l for 100 and 200 mg
`RU486, respectively, within 1-2 h after ingestion, in non(cid:173)
`pregnant women; whereas, the value for 100 mg dose was
`relatively low (3.0 ± 0.9 /lmolll) in pregnant women [5].
`The peak plasma binding equivalent of RU486 measured by
`radioreceptor assay was 9.3 /lmolll after 200 mg oral dose in
`pregnant women [10]. This value was comparable to the
`findings of another study in which peak plasma concentra(cid:173)
`tion of mifepristone was 4.6 /lmol/l within 1 h after oral
`administration of 100 mg single dose in nonnal subjects
`[14]. These values have shown that differences in plasma
`concentration of mifepristone after 100 and 200 mg dose is
`not significant.
`The above findings have shown that dose-response effects
`of 25, 50 and 200 mg mifepristone are widely studied and
`are found to be equally effective as 600 mg recommended
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.
`PGR2019-00048
`Corcept Ex. 2050, Page 2
`
`

`

`N.N. Sarkari European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 101 (2002) 113-120
`
`J 15
`
`dose. However, a standard reduced dose of mifepristone for a
`particular clinical application is yet to be determined.
`
`5. AUe, half-life and clearance rate
`
`4.3. High dose (400-600 mg)
`
`The peak plasma concentrations of mifepristone were
`4.8 ± 1.3 and 5.3 ± 1.3 !lmolll in non-pregnant women
`and 4.0 ± 0.8 and 4.4 ± 0.8 !lmol/l in pregnant women after
`oral administration of 400 and 600 mg RU486, respectively
`[5). Following oral dose of 100-800 mg mifepristone in
`women, peak plasma concentration reached 4.6-5.8 !lmol/l
`within I h and after distribution phase, this was not sig(cid:173)
`nificantly affected by the dose but remained in the same
`range throughout 48 h [9). In another study, peak plasma
`equivalent of RU486 were 10.65 and 12.30 ~lmolll in preg(cid:173)
`nant women after intake of 400 and 600 mg dose, respec(cid:173)
`tively [10). This showed plasma levels did not increase
`proportionately with the high doses given. However, sig(cid:173)
`nificant differences were found in peak plasma values
`(P < 0.05) between 200 and 400 mg doses [10,19).
`After a single oral dose, plasma concentration of RU486
`at 1 and 24 h increased in proportion to log dose. The ratio of
`the 1 :24 h concentration for the doses of RU486 decreased
`with increase in doses (25 mg, 5.8; 100 mg, 3.5; 200 mg,
`2.9; 400 mg, 2.6; 600 mg, 2.4) suggesting that the rate of
`metabolism decreased with increase in dose. This discre(cid:173)
`pancy arose because the time for elimination (Tel) increased
`three- to four-fold with dose. This change resulted from
`changes in volume of distribution (Vd) and clearance (CI)
`which detennine Tel. The increase of Vd with dose suggests
`that mifepristone binds weakly to plasma glycoprotein and
`that this binding is of limited capacity. Clearance appeared
`to reach limiting value at doses above 200 mg and this was
`probably the major factor in determining the elevated
`plasma levels of mifepristone over a long duration [5,17).
`The pharmacokinetic parameters also suggest retention of
`mifepristone in tissues from which the drug is slowly
`released [5,13,18). Elimination from the body is mainly
`through feces and urine [12).
`The plasma concentration of mono-demethylated metabo(cid:173)
`lite (RU42633) reached peak levels that were similar to those
`of parent compound, RU486 but the peak was attained more
`slowly. The peak plasma levels of di-demethylated and hydro(cid:173)
`xylated metabolites were only about 25% of those of RU486
`and mono-demethylated metabolite and occurred much later
`[5). Mifepristone and its metabolites maintained high plasma
`levels up to 48 h for low dose and 72 h for medium or high
`dose of RU486 [5,14,18,20). No significant difference was
`found in plasma concentrations of mifepristone and its meta(cid:173)
`bolites between pregnant and non-pregnant women [5,6).
`The finding that increasing dose of mifepristone from 200
`to 600 mg produces little increase in its plasma concentra(cid:173)
`tions for up to 72 h suggests that clinically, the lower dose is
`as effective as the higher dose and little, if anything, may
`probably be gained by giving multiple doses of mifepristone
`instead of a single dose [5).
`
`After rapid absorption, there was also rapid distribution
`of mifepristone with the mean !X-half life 1.4 h, fitting the
`equation for a two-compartment open model [18). The
`mean apparent volume of distribution was also reported
`to be 1.47 ± 0.25 I/kg [7). Significant difference was found
`between area under curve (AUC) for 200 and 600 mg doses
`(P < 0.01) or 400 and 600 mg doses (P < 0.05) in pregnant
`women [10,19). Values for AUC were consistently higher
`in the non pregnant than in the pregnant women for
`similar doses, whereas, the reverse was the case for clear(cid:173)
`ance values. However, the differences were not statistically
`significant. Difference between mean AUC values for 25
`and 600 mg doses was about lO-fold [5). Elimination
`of mifepristone was rather slow. The elimination or
`~-half-life ranged from 20 to 30 h in most of the subjects
`[6,8,9,16,18,21). However, it was approximately 45-55 or
`80-90 h in some subjects [7,10,16,17). The metabolic clear(cid:173)
`ance rate was also low ranging from 1.04 to 3.0 IIh [7,18).
`The serum transport protein, !Xl-acid glycoprotein (oro so(cid:173)
`mucoid) regulates the serum kinetics of mifepristone. The
`steroid does not bind to sex-honnone-binding globulin
`or cortisol-binding globulin [2). The binding to !Xl-acid
`glycoprotein limits the tissue availability of mifepristone
`explaining the low metabolic clearance rate and low volume
`of distribution. Thus, similar serum concentrations follow(cid:173)
`ing ingestion of single doses exceeding 100 mg could also be
`explained by saturation of binding capacity of serum !X l-acid
`glycoprotein [21).
`
`6. Mechanism of action
`
`Progesterone receptor (PR) contains well defined func(cid:173)
`tional domains: the N-terminal transcription domain, the
`central DNA binding domain, the hinge region and the C(cid:173)
`terminal honnone binding domain. The DNA binding
`domain of PR contains invariant cysteine repeats that form
`two "zinc finger" structure with four cysteines in each finger
`for binding to DNA [22). The nature of the crystal structure
`of progesterone-bound ligand-binding domain of the human
`PR explains the receptors selective affinity for progesterone
`and establishes a common mode of recognition of 3-oxy
`steroids by the cognate receptors. Although the overall fold
`of PR is similar to that found in related receptors, the PR has
`a quite different mode of dimerization. A hormone-induced
`stabilization of the C-terminal secondary structure of the
`ligand-binding domain of PR accounts for stereo-chemical
`properties of this distinctive dimer, and explains the recep(cid:173)
`tor's characteristic pattern of ligand-dependent protease
`resistance and its loss of regression and also indicates
`how anti-progestin, RU486 works as contraceptive [23).
`The binding of both progesterone and mifepristone pro(cid:173)
`duces conformational changes in the form ofPR that permits
`it to bind to DNA [24). The activation ofPR by progesterone
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.
`PGR2019-00048
`Corcept Ex. 2050, Page 3
`
`

`

`116
`
`N.N. Sarkari European Journal o.f Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 101 (2002) 113-120
`
`or mifepristone is accommodated by a loss of associated heat
`shock proteins and dimerization. Human PR has two iso(cid:173)
`forms (A and B) that form in solution homo andlor hetero(cid:173)
`dimers as intermediate step in the transcription activation
`process. The activated receptor dimers (A:A, B:B or A:B)
`bind to progesterone response elements in the promoter
`region of progesterone genes. The extent of binding is
`proportional to the extent of dimerization [25,26]. In the
`case of progesterone, this binding increases the transcription
`of these genes, producing progesterone effects. In contrast, a
`receptor climer complex that has been activated by mife(cid:173)
`pristone also binds to progesterone response elements, but
`an inhibitory function in the C-terminal region of hormone
`binding domain renders this DNA-bound receptor transcrip(cid:173)
`tion inactive. This is the basis of the progesterone antag(cid:173)
`onistic action of mifepristone underlying its abortifacient
`and contraceptive actions [4]. The study also suggests that
`RU486 bound A-receptor homodimers are functionally
`silent, whereas, RU486-bound B-receptor homodimers
`can activate transcription but RU486 bound A:B heterodi(cid:173)
`mers act to dominantly suppress transcriptional activation
`and it is this activity that is typically seen in progesterone
`responsive cells [12].
`
`7. Binding affinity
`
`The relative binding affinity of mifepristone for human
`uterine PR in vitro was higher (100%) than that of proges(cid:173)
`terone (43%), mono-demethylated (21 %), hydroxylated
`(15%) and di-demethylated (9%) metabolites. Thus, the
`pool of certain metabolites of RU486 may contribute to a
`significant extent to the anti-progesterone (23-30%) and
`even greater extent to the anti-glucocorticoid (47-61 %)
`effects of RU486 [14].
`In fact, all receptors that bind mifepristone have a glycine
`at the corresponding position in hormone binding domain.
`Substitution of this glycine by cysteine in human PR abro(cid:173)
`gated binding of mifepristone but not that of an agonist. It is
`suggested that the hormone binding domain of human PR
`may at least or in part correspond to the so-called "llP(cid:173)
`pocket" of the receptor and glycine722 is at a critical position
`in the 11 p-pocket. The glycine at 722 position is a critical
`amino acid without side chain, for binding of bulky aliphatic
`and aromatic IIp-substitutes, because the maturation of
`glycine722 to cysteine results in 40,000-fold lower affinity
`for mifepristone [27].
`
`8. Clinical applications
`
`8.1. Abortifacient potentiality
`
`Use of 600 mg mifepristone for termination of pregnancy
`up to 7 weeks of gestation was approved by the French
`authority [28]. In a multi centre clinical study, women
`
`(n = 1018) with gestation up to 9 weeks were given
`600 mg oral mifepristone followed 48 h later by 1 mg
`vaginal gemeprost for termination of pregnancy. There
`was 94.8% complete abortion and 5.2% required surgical
`evacuation. No significant relationship was found between
`outcome and age of gestation or the day mifepristone was
`given. Seven women were given blood transfusion. Narcotic
`analgesia was administered after gemeprost treatment to
`38.1 % nullipara and 10.7% of multipara. The findings
`suggested that mifepristone and prostaglandin combination
`was an effective and acceptable alternative (not replace(cid:173)
`ment) to surgical method for termination of early pregnancy
`[29]. However, a need to explore the efficacy of reduced
`doses was felt by investigators to be an important issue.
`In a similar study with 1182 women, pregnant for 1-4
`weeks, the rate of complete abortion was 93.8, 94.1 and
`94.3% with a single dose of 200, 400 and 600 mg mifepris(cid:173)
`tone followed 48 h later by vaginal pessary of 1 mg geme(cid:173)
`prost, respectively, with overall 3.7% incomplete and 0.3%
`missed abortion. About 50% of those who had incomplete
`abortion underwent emergency uterine curettage usually for
`hemostatic purpose, besides blood transfusion to three
`women. The number of reported complaints such as bleed(cid:173)
`ing patterns, changes in blood pressure and hemoglobin
`concentration were similar with the three treatment doses.
`Thus, for termination of early pregnancy, a single dose of
`200 mg mifepristone was reported to be as effective as the
`recommended dose of 600 mg when used in combination
`with a vaginal pessary of 1 mg gemeprost [30]. This clinical
`finding also correlates well with plasma mifepristone levels
`up to 72 h after a single oral dose.
`In a WHO sponsored study, treatment with 25 mg mife(cid:173)
`pristone five times at 12 h intervals to women (n = 192)
`pregnant for ::;49 days, or 600 mg as a single dose (n = 193)
`followed by 1 mg gemeprost 60 h after start of mifepristone
`showed complete abortion rate of 92.7%. Frequency of
`complaints such as bleeding patterns and changes in hemo(cid:173)
`globin, p-hCG, estradiol and progesterone levels were simi(cid:173)
`lar in both groups. However, levels of cortisol at 12 and 36 h
`and prolactin at 12 h after administration of mifepristone
`were significantly higher in 600 mg dose group [31]. The
`findings suggest that a lower dose of mifepristone may
`suffice for termination of early pregnancy.
`In another multicentre trial in China, treatment with initial
`dose of 50 mg RU486 followed by 25 mg every 12 h up to a
`total dose of 150 mg plus a single oral dose of 600 J-tg
`misoprostol in the morning of the third day was given to
`women of group I (n = 301) pregnant for ::;49 days. The
`group II women (n = 155) received the same dose of
`mifepristone plus 1 mg vaginal suppository of PG05
`inserted on the third day and group III (n = 149) was given
`a single dose of 200 mg RU486 plus 600 J-tg misoprostol as
`in group 1. No significant difference was found in the rate of
`complete, incomplete abortion and treatment failure among
`group I (94.4, 3 and 1.7%), group II (97.3, 2 and 0.7%) and
`group III (94.6, 2.7 and 2%), respectively. Lower abdominal
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.
`PGR2019-00048
`Corcept Ex. 2050, Page 4
`
`

`

`N.N. SarkarlEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 101 (2002) 113-120
`
`117
`
`pain was the main complaint reported by 82% of women
`after PG05 administration. Incidence of diarrhea in PG05
`group II (38.7%) was significantly higher than that in group I
`(21.6%) and group III (20.1 %) (P < 0.001) and so was
`vomiting [32]. The clinical findings confirm abortifacient
`potentiality of repeated doses of 25 or 50 mg or single dose
`of 200 mg mifepristone as well as conform with kinetic and
`metabolic outcome of low and medium dose of mifepristone.
`Even a single oral dose of 50 mg mifepristone plus 0.5 mg
`gemeprost yielded 82% complete abortion [33].
`The medical abortion with mifepristone plus prostaglan(cid:173)
`din analogue had more side effects such as cramping,
`nausea, vomiting, and particularly bleeding, than surgical
`abortion but very few serious side effects [34,35]. The
`average blood loss due to medical abortion with RU486
`plus prostaglandin was found to be 136.8 ml but this did not
`adversely affect the hemoglobin level in volunteers. They
`described it as a heavy period [36].
`In the comparative study of blood loss or side effects,
`between surgical and medical abortion with 600 mg RU486
`plus 400 Ilg misoprostol, an oral regimen in women
`(n = 1373) pregnant for ::;56 days in China, Cuba and India,
`the medical group perceived their bleeding to be heavier
`than did the surgical group. However, their perception did
`not prevent them from having higher satisfaction levels [37].
`The medical group experienced more side effects than the
`surgical group. Disparity between these two groups was
`more pronounced for bleeding and pain but reports of well(cid:173)
`being and satisfaction were similar in both groups [38]. In
`the similar study in the US women (n = 269), pregnant for
`::;63 days, the median time delay for therapeutic curettage
`was significantly longer in the medical group, 35 versus 8
`days. They also experienced significantly longer bleeding.
`No significant change in hemoglobin occurred in either
`group. However, the medical group reported significantly
`greater pain and nausea or vomiting [39].
`In the US multicentre trial (n = 2015), pregnancies were
`terminated in 92, 83 and 77% women, pregnant for ::;49, 50-
`56 and 57-63 days, respectively, with 600 mg mifepristone
`and 400 Ilg misoprostol (p < 0.001). This occurred within
`4 h in 49% women and within 24 h in 75% women after
`administration of misoprostol. The failure rate increased
`with increasing duration of pregnancy, I % in ::;49 days
`group to 9% in 57-63 group (P < 0.001). Abdominal pain,
`nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and vaginal bleeding also
`increased with advancing gestational age [40]. However,
`no difference in efficacy or side effects was found during the
`treatment with 600 mg mifepristone and 1 mg gemeprost,
`whether latter was administered 24 or 48 h after mifepris(cid:173)
`tone intake, suggesting that the treatment period could be
`reduced from conventional 48 to 24 h [41].
`Women received 200 mg mifepristone orally followed
`36-48 h later by 800 Ilg misoprostol vaginally for termina(cid:173)
`tion of pregnancy up to 63 days (n = 2000). The rates of
`complete, incomplete and missed abortion were 97.5, 1.4
`and 0.4%, respectively. This regimen appeared effective in
`
`term of high complete abortion rate and low continuing
`pregnancy rate (0.6%) and was also less costly as the dose of
`mifepristone was lower and misoprostol was less expensive,
`easy for transport and storage [42]. With the same treatment
`regimen, 80% of women (n = 933), pregnant for 8 weeks
`bled within 4 hand 98% within 24 h of using misoprostol.
`The success rate was 97%. Side effects were acceptable to
`85% and 94% women found procedure acceptable. The
`findings suggested that low-dose mifepristone plus vaginal
`misoprostol was highly effective as an abortifacient [43].
`In the WHO sponsored trial, 1589 women, pregnant for
`::;35 days received a single dose of 200 or 600 mg mife(cid:173)
`pristone followed 48 h by 400 Ilg oral misoprostol. The
`complete abortion rates were 89.3 and 88.1% for lower
`and higher doses, respectively. This finding suggests that
`the same outcome can be achieved by reducing the dose of
`mifepristone from 600 to 200 mg [44].
`In a multicentre trial, 200 mg mifepristone followed by
`800 Ilg vaginal misoprostol was received by 827 women,
`pregnant for ::;56 days, and 308 women, pregnant for 57-63
`days, for termination of pregnancy. Complete medical abor(cid:173)
`tion occurred in 97% of women in the former group and 96%
`in the latter group. However, side effects were less in the
`fOlmer group [45].
`The results of mifepristone-misoprostol clinical trials have
`shown that the dose of mifepristone can be reduced from 600
`to 200 mg when followed by vaginal misoprostol without loss
`of efficacy. In fact, vaginal misoprostol extends efficacy to 56
`days' LMP and associated with less nausea and vomiting
`[46,47]. The studies have also shown that efficacy decreases
`with increasing gestational age (P < 0.001), and difference
`by regimens are not statistically significant, except at gesta(cid:173)
`tional age 257 days [48].
`The vaginal misoprostol, 800 Ilg is found to be more
`effective than oral misoprostol, 400 Ilg for uterine evacua(cid:173)
`tion of early pregnancy failure [49]. The regular uterine
`contraction developed slowly in all women treated vaginally,
`irrespective of the dose of misoprostol. However, this was
`not the case after oral treatment. Only 20 and 50% of women
`treated orally with 200 and 400 Ilg of misoprostol, respec(cid:173)
`tively, developed such an effect [50].
`A significant difference in the pharmacokinetics of mis(cid:173)
`oprostol administered by vaginal and oral routes was
`observed. The mean AUC of misoprostol was much higher
`when administered through the vaginal than oral route. This
`discrepancy may explain the difference observed in clinical
`efficacy [51]. The long lasting and continuously increasing
`uterine contractility after vaginal administration may be
`explained, only in part by the direct effect and the longer
`period of elevated plasma level of misoprostol [50].
`No significant difference was observed in serum levels of
`mifepristone or its metabolites and concentration of serum
`binding protein, IXracid glycoprotein, between responders
`and non-responders. This suggested that failure to abort in
`response to mifepristone therapy was not associated with
`altered pharmacokinetics or metabolism of mifepristone
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.
`PGR2019-00048
`Corcept Ex. 2050, Page 5
`
`

`

`118
`
`N.N. Sarkari European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 101 (2002) 113-120
`
`[52]. Approximately 1 % of women do not respond to the
`antagonistic action of mifepristone but respond normally to
`progesterone [53]. In these cases, a maturation at position
`722 in the PR might be responsible for the failure of
`mifepristone to induce abortion [27].
`
`8.2. Emergency contraception
`
`Emergency contraception (EC) means prevention of preg(cid:173)
`nancy after unprotected sexual intercourse. This is also
`called post-coital contraception (PCC). High doses of estro(cid:173)
`gen or progestogen or a combination of both may be used as
`PCC within 72 h after unprotected intercourse. Use of
`mifepristone as EC has also shown promising effect.
`In another study with women and adolescents who had
`unprotected sexual intercourse and requested EC, one group
`(n = 398) received 0.1 mg ethinyl estradiol and 1 mg nor(cid:173)
`gestrel, each given twice 12 h apart (Yuzpe method) and the
`other group (n = 402) was given 600 mg mifepristone. None
`of the subjects treated with mifepristone became pregnant as
`compared with four of those who received the combination
`regimen. The number of pregnancy in each group was
`significantly lower than the number expected according to
`calculation based on the day of the cycle during which
`intercourse had taken place (P < 0.001). The volunteers
`treated with mifepristone showed less nausea (40%), vomit(cid:173)
`ing (3%) on the day of treatment as well as lower rate of
`other side effects than those treated with the combination
`therapy, but the mifepristone group had delay in onset of
`next menstrual cycle (42%). Thus, mifepristone has been
`proven to be a highly effective post-coital contraceptive
`agent which if used widely, could help reduce the unplanned
`and unwanted pregnancies [54].
`In a comparative study to evaluate effectiveness and
`acceptability (n = 616), the raw pregnancy rate for Yuzpe
`method, danazol (600 mg) and RU486 (600 mg) were 2.6,
`4.6 and 0.0%, respectively. Overall, the rates differed sig(cid:173)
`nificantly (P = 0.011). Side effects were more common and
`more severe in the Yuzpe group (70%) than in either danazol
`group (30%) or the RU486 group (37%). The study sug(cid:173)
`gested that RU486 was effective in reducing the expected
`pregnancy rates, the Yuzpe method also had clinical effect
`but danazol had little or no effect [55].
`Recent clinical studies showed that a single dose of
`600 mg RU486 within 72 h of a single act of unprotected
`sexual intercourse could be used successfully for post-coital
`contraception. This treatment was found to be highly effec(cid:173)
`tive and to have a more favorable side effect profile in
`comparison with estrogen-progestogen regimen [56,57].
`Even administration of 25 mg mifepristone twice 12 h apart
`(n = 100) or a single dose of 25 mg to women (n
`99)
`within 72 h after unprotected sexual intercourse showed 100
`or 83% contraceptive efficacy, respectively. The overall
`menstrual disturbance and other side effects were low
`[58]. This suggests that both 25 and 50 mg mifepristone
`regimens are also effective for EC. These clinical findings
`
`also conform with the outcome of the pharmacokinetic and
`metabolic studies of mifepristone.
`In the WHO multicentre trial, a dose of 600, 50 and 10 mg
`mifepristone was given
`to
`three groups of women
`(n = 1717) who requested EC within 120 h of unprotected
`intercourse. The failure rates were 1.3, 1.1 and 1.2% in 600,
`50 and 10 mg group, respectively. The treatment delay did
`not appear to influence the effectiveness. Not major side
`effects occurred except a delay in onset of the next menstrual
`cycle significantly (P < 0.001) related to the dose of mife(cid:173)
`pristone. The lowering of the dose of mifepristone to 60-fold
`did not decrease its effectiveness. This finding suggested that
`the dose of mifepristone may be reduced from 600 to 10 mg
`without altering its efficacy as EC [59].
`There is a risk of congenital malformations, especially of
`the limbs after unsuccessful use of EC. Patients should be
`informed about this risk in an ongoing pregnancy.
`Occasional use of EC to prevent unwanted pregnancies
`may reduce the number of therapeutic abortions. However,
`the frequency and extent of side effects of EC do not allow
`for repeated post-coital use after every act of unprotected
`intercourse. Obviously, development of an effective and safe
`EC requires further basic and clinical research [56].
`
`8.3. Contraceptive potentiality
`
`The possible contraceptive use of mifepristone has been
`evaluated in both clinical and experimental studies [60-62]
`Administration of mifepristone during the follicular phase
`has an inhibitory effect on follicular development and
`ovulation, whereas, endometrial development and function
`is affected if administered during the luteal phase of the
`menstrual cycle [63]. Thus, mifepristone administered
`immediately following ovulation is highly effective in pre(cid:173)
`venting implantation, most likely due to an effect on endo(cid:173)
`metrial receptivity. It seems that endometrium is more
`sensitive to mifepristone than is the ovulatory process
`[63]. Administration of 25 mg mifepristone once a week
`interfered with normal follicular development and function
`but inhibition of ovulation was not consistent in women [64].
`However, weekly dose of 2.5-5 mg and daily dose of 0.5-
`1 mg mifepristone did not inhibit ovulation but significant
`inhibitory effects on endometrial development and function
`were demonstrated [60,61,65,66].
`Twenty-one women were treated with once-a-month,
`200 mg mifepristone on day 2 of LH surge over 157
`ovulatory cycles for testing contraceptive efficacy. One
`pregnancy occurred. Women did not complain about any
`side effects apart from slight bleeding for 2-3 days starting a
`few days after the day of treatment in 35% of the cycles [67].
`A low dose of mifepristone which does not inhibit ovula(cid:173)
`tion reduced fertility significantly by affecting endometrial
`development and function [66]. Anti-nidatory effect ofluteal
`phase administration of RU486 is said to be associated with
`changes in endometrial prostaglandins during the implanta(cid:173)
`tion window in primates [62]. These show that there is a
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.
`PGR2019-00048
`Corcept Ex. 2050, Page 6
`
`

`

`N.N. SarkarlEllropeall Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 101 (2002) 113-120
`
`119
`
`strong probability for use of mifepristone as a low-dose
`(luteal phase) oral contraceptive.
`Recent clinical studies have shown that once-a-month
`treatment with mifepristone in the early luteal phase is an
`effective contraceptive method and that the endometrium is
`more susceptible to mifepristone than are the hypothalamic
`and pituitary regions.
`Therefore, it may be possible to develop a new contra(cid:173)
`ceptive method based on low daily or once weekly doses of
`mifepristone that does not influence ovarian function [57].
`Mifep

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