throbber
Volume 30, no. 7
`The Journal of Rheumatology
`Toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and dose-finding study of repetitive treatment with the
`Phasehumanized anti-interleukin 6 receptor antibody MRA in rheumatoid arthritis.
`
`I/II clinical study.
`Norihiro Nishimoto, Kazuyuki Yoshizaki, Keiji Maeda, Taro Kuritani, Hitoshi Deguchi, Bunzo
`Sato, Nobuyuki Imai, Masaki Suemura, Takahiro Kakehi, Nobuhiro Takagi and Tadamitsu
`Kishimoto
`J Rheumatol 2003;30;1426-1435
`http://www.jrheum.org/content/30/7/1426
`http://www.jrheum.org/alerts 1. Sign up for TOCs and other alerts
`
`
`http://jrheum.com/faq 2. Information on Subscriptions
`http://jrheum.com/reprints_permissions 3. Information on permissions/orders of reprints
`
` is a monthly international serial edited by Earl D.The Journal of Rheumatology
`
`Silverman featuring research articles on clinical subjects from scientists working in
`rheumatology and related fields.
`
`
`Downloaded from Downloaded from
`
`RheumatologyRheumatology
`
`
`
`www.jrheum.orgwww.jrheum.org
`
`
`
`The Journal of on July 18, 2019 - Published by The Journal of on July 18, 2019 - Published by
`
`
`
`
`
`Lassen - Exhibit 1023, p. 1
`
`

`

`Toxicity, Pharmacokinetics, and Dose-Finding
`Study of Repetitive Treatment with the Humanized
`Anti-Interleukin 6 Receptor Antibody MRA in
`NORIHIRO NISHIMOTO, KAZUYUKI YOSHIZAKI, KEIJI MAEDA, TARO KURITANI, HITOSHI DEGUCHI,
`BUNZO SATO, NOBUYUKI IMAI, MASAKI SUEMURA, TAKAHIRO KAKEHI, NOBUHIRO TAKAGI, and
`Rheumatoid Arthritis. Phase I/II Clinical Study
`TADAMITSU KISHIMOTO
`ABSTRACT. Objective.To evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of multiple infusions of a humanized anti-
`interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antibody, MRA, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
`Methods.In an open label trial, 15 patients with active RAwere intravenously administered 3 doses
`(2, 4, or 8 mg/kg) of MRAbiweekly for 6 weeks, and pharmacokinetics were assessed. Patients
`continued on MRAtreatment for 24 weeks, and were then assessed for safety and efficacy.
`Results.The treatment was well tolerated at all doses with no severe adverse event. Increased total
`serum cholesterol was detected as an MRArelated reaction in 10/15 (66%) patients. There was no
`statistically significant difference in the frequency of adverse events among the 3 dose groups. There
`were no new observations of antinuclear antibody or anti-DNAantibody, and no anti-MRAantibody
`was detected. The T1/2increased with repeated doses and as the dose increased. T1/2after the 3rd dose
`of 8 mg/kg reached 241.8 ± 71.4 h. In 12/15 (80%) patients whose serum MRAwas detectable
`during the treatment period, objective inflammatory indicators such as C-reactive protein, erythro-
`cyte sedimentation rate, and serum amyloid Awere completely normalized at 6 weeks, although
`there was no statistically significant difference in efficacy among the 3 dose groups. Nine of 15
`patients achieved ACR 20 at 6 weeks. At 24 weeks, 13 patients achieved ACR 20 and 5 achieved
`ACR 50.
`Conclusion.Repetitive treatment with MRAwas safe and normalized acute phase response in
`patients with RA. Optimal dosing schedule was not defined in this small study, but maintenance of
`serum MRAconcentration seemed important to achieve efficacy. (J Rheumatol 2003;30:1426–35)
`Key Indexing Terms:
`RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS INTERLEUKIN 6 THERAPY
`HUMANIZED ANTI-IL-6 RECEPTOR ANTIBODY
`Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease
`understood, many cytokines with inflammatory and joint
`characterizedby persistent synovitis and progressive
`destructive properties are involved in the development of
`destruction of cartilage and bone with the presence of
`RA1-3.These inflammatory cytokines are thought to be a
`rheumatoid factors. RAis also associated with systemic
`potential therapeutic target for treatment.
`inflammatory manifestations in addition to local inflamma-
`Interleukin 6 (IL-6) was originally identified as an
`tion of multiple joints. Although the causes are not fully
`antigen-nonspecific B cell differentiation factor produced
`by activated mononuclear cells4, and it has been shown to be
`produced from RAsynovial fibroblasts stimulated by tumor
`necrosis factor (TNF) or IL-13. Most clinical abnormalities
`From the Department of Medical Science I, School of Health and Sport
`in RAcan be accounted for by the unregulated hyperpro-
`Sciences, Osaka University, Osaka; NTTWest Osaka Hospital, Osaka;
`duction of IL-61. It may induce activation of autoreactive T
`Nissei Hospital, Osaka; Labor Welfare Corporation Kansai Rousai
`cells and polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia and emer-
`Hospital, Hyogo; and Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.
`gence of autoantibodies as a result of B cell differentia-
`Supported by Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.
`tion5–7. IL-6, as a hepatocyte-stimulating factor, may induce
`N. Nishimoto, MD; K. Yoshizaki, MD, M. Suemura, MD; T. Kishimoto,
`MD, Osaka University; K. Maeda, MD; T. Kuritani, MD, NTTWest
`acute phase proteins,resulting in elevation of serum
`Osaka Hospital; H. Deguchi, MD; B. Sato, MD, Nissei Hospital; N. Imai,
`fibrinogen, C-reactive protein (CRP), and amyloid A(SAA)
`MD, Labor Welfare Corporation Kansai Rousai Hospital; T. Kakehi, BSc;
`concentrations, and a decrease in serum albumin8-11. Further,
`N. Takagi, MSc, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
`Address reprint requests to Dr. N. Nishimoto, Department of Medical
`hyperproduction of IL-6 may cause bone absorption through
`Science I, School of Health and Sport Sciences, Osaka University,
`activation of osteoclasts, resulting in osteoporosis and bone
`2-1 Yamada-oka, Suita-city, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
`destruction12. IL-6 may induce thrombocytosis by acting as
`E-mail: norihiro@imed3.med.osaka-u.ac.jp
`Submitted August 12, 2002; revision accepted December 10, 2002.
`Downloaded from
`www.jrheum.org
`
`The Journal of on July 18, 2019 - Published by
`Rheumatology
`Personal, non-commercial use only. The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright © 2003. All rights reserved.
`The Journal of Rheumatology 2003; 30:7
`1426
`
`Lassen - Exhibit 1023, p. 2
`
`

`

`to produce
`a megakaryocyte differentiation factor
`tinued at least 4 weeks before the initial MRAadministration. Stable doses
`platelets13,14. Indeed, elevation of IL-6 concentrations has
`of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and prednisolone (10 mg daily
`been observed in both serum and synovial fluid of patients
`maximum) were allowed. Use of parenteral and/or intraarticular steroid
`with RA15,16. Correlation has been observed between serum
`within 4 weeks before the initial MRAadministration and during the study
`IL-6 levels and clinical and laboratory indices of RA17.
`period were not permitted. Written informed consent was obtained from
`Wendling, et alreported that administration of mouse mono-
`each patient before enrollment. The study was approved by the Ministry of
`Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan and the local ethics committees.
`clonal anti-IL-6 antibody to 5 patients with RAfor 10
`Patients were indemnified by the sponsor of the study, Chugai
`consecutive days resulted in clinical and biological (CRP)
`Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., Tokyo.
`improvement although the improvement was transitory18.
`Study medication and administration.MRAis a humanized anti-human IL-
`Therefore, interference with the action of IL-6 may consti-
`6R Mab of the IgG1 subclass. The antibody was produced by Chugai
`tute a new therapeutic strategy for RA.
`Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. by continuous fermentation of Chinese hamster
`The IL-6 signal is mediated via the 80 kDa IL-6 receptor
`ovary cells, which had been transfected with cloned DNAcoding for MRA,
`(IL-6R) molecule on the cell surface or the soluble form of
`and was purified from culture supernatant by a series of column chro-
`matography steps. The MRAretains specificity for human IL-6R and is of
`IL-6R (sIL-6R), followed by dimerization of the 130 kDa
`high affinity.The antibody was stored at 4°C in 50 ml vials containing 2.5
`signal transducer gp130, which is bound to the IL-6/IL-6R
`mg MRA/ml.
`complex19,20. MRAis a humanized anti-human IL-6R mono-
`The appropriate amount of MRAwas diluted to a total volume of 500
`clonal antibody (Mab) that inhibits the binding of IL-6 to
`ml in sterile saline and administered intravenously with a 0.2 µm in-line
`IL-6R or sIL-6R. The effect of MRAwas examined in the
`filter.The drug was infused at a rate of about 0.3 ml/min over the first 15
`min of infusion, while the patient’s condition was closely monitored. If
`collagen induced arthritis model with cynomolgus monkeys,
`there was no sign of anaphylactic reaction, the rate of infusion was
`because MRAcrossreacts with monkey IL-6R but not with
`increased. The infusion was performed over a period of 2 h. To ensure
`rodent IL-6R. MRAinhibited the development of arthritis
`safety, patients were carefully monitored during infusion and for at least 1
`and improvedsuch inflammatoryindicatorsas CRP,
`h after completion. During the first 3 doses, patients were under supervi-
`fibrinogen, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)21. In a
`sion of the investigator or coinvestigator for at least 24 h after MRAinfu-
`sion.This was an open label, dose-ascending study with 3 dose groups, 2, 4,
`SCID mouse model into which synovial tissues from RA
`patients were implanted, MRAtreatment
`resultedin
`and 8 mg/kg. For each dose, MRAwas administered biweekly for 6 weeks,
`shrinkage of the implanted tissue and significant reductions
`and pharmacokinetics and safety data were collected up to 6 weeks after the
`in the numbers of inflammatory cells and osteoclasts22.
`first dose. The study was started from the lowest dose, 2 mg/kg. Escalation
`With patients’informed consent and approval of the
`to the next dose level was permitted if the previous dose level was satis-
`factory in terms of safety and tolerance as determined by the sponsor after
`Ethical Committee and the Advanced Medical Treatment
`discussion with the sponsor’s medical expert and the investigators or coin-
`Review Board of Osaka University, we treated some
`vestigators. The next higher dose was examined with a group of newly
`patients with refractoryRAwith MRA. The patients
`recruited patients. With patients’consent and if MRAtreatment was well
`received MRAwith stepwise dose escalation, mostly up to
`tolerated and showed an improvement of CRPor ESR compared to base-
`50 mg/patient twice a week, with monitoring for safety.The
`line, patients were allowed to continue MRAtreatment until 24 weeks and
`were then further assessed for safety and efficacy.
`results showed a rapid decrease in CRPto the normal range,
`Assessment of safety and efficacy.Safety was monitored until 4 weeks after
`and alleviation of joint swelling and tenderness23.
`the last dose. Frequency and severity of adverse effects and adverse drug
`Based on these findings, we performed a phase I/II open
`reactions were observed. Clinical and laboratory tests were performed at
`label, dose-ascending trial to evaluate the safety, pharmaco-
`screening, at baseline, on dosing day, at 1 week after every dose, and at 4
`kinetics, and efficacy of repetitive intravenous treatment
`weeks after last dose. For the first 3 doses, clinical and laboratory tests were
`with MRAin patients with established and active RA.
`also performed on the day after each dose and 2 days after each dose.
`Laboratory measurements including a complete blood cell count and ESR
`were performed at each study site. Other laboratory tests were undertaken
`MATERIALS AND METHODS
`by the central laboratory, SRLCo., Ltd. Serum levels of MRAwere
`measured with an enzyme immunoassay using MT18 Mab specific for
`Patients.The study began in August 1999 and ended in August 2000.
`another binding site on IL-6R than that detected by MRAin combination
`Sixteen patients (median age 55 yrs, range 32–72), diagnosed with RAin
`with the sIL-6R. The captured MRAwas detected using a biotinylated Mab
`accord with the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria
`specific for an epitope in the variable region of MRA, at a dose that does
`and with a history of disease activity for more than 6 months, were enrolled
`not inhibit the binding of IL-6R. The lowest concentration that could be
`(Table 1). They had failed to respond to at least one of the disease-modi-
`reliably detected was 1.0 µg/ml.
`fying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) or immunosuppressants, or were
`The primary efficacy measurements were the changes in CRPand ESR
`unable to continue the treatments due to adverse reactions. We required
`over time, up to 6 weeks after the first infusion. Other efficacy measures
`patients to have at least 3 swollen joints and at least 6 tender joints, ESR ‡
`were ACR 20, 50, and 70 improvement25and the change over time in ACR
`30 mm/h, serum CRP ‡ 2.0 mg/dl, a white blood cell count ‡ 3500/µl, and
`components up to 4 weeks after the last dose.
`platelet count ‡ 105/µl. Pregnant women, nursing women, and women of
`Statistical methods.For safety analysis, the number of patients who
`childbearing potential not using an effective method of contraception were
`reported adverse events and number of adverse events were recorded for
`excluded. Patients were also excluded if they had severe disability
`each adverse event for each dose group. Incidence rates of adverse events
`(Steinbrocker Class IV)24, a history of a serious allergic reaction, any other
`were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Pharmacokinetic parame-
`concurrent collagen disease, significant cardiac, blood, respiratory, neuro-
`ters were calculated from serum MRAconcentration data, based on the
`logical, endocrine, renal, hepatic or gastrointestinal disease, or an active
`non-compartment analysis method.
`intercurrent infection. DMARD and immunosuppressants were discon-
`Downloaded from
`www.jrheum.org
`The Journal of on July 18, 2019 - Published by
`
`Rheumatology
`Personal, non-commercial use only. The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright © 2003. All rights reserved.
`Nishimoto, et al: Clinical study of MRA
`1427
`
`Lassen - Exhibit 1023, p. 3
`
`

`

`Table 1. Characteristics of the patients at entry.
`MRADose, mg/kg
`2
`Total
`8
`4
`5
`No. of patients
`15
`5
`5
`55 (40–61)
`Age, yrs, median (range)
`55 (32–72)
`54 (40–63)
`55 (32–72)
`1:4
`Sex, M:F
`4:11
`2:3
`1:4
`10 (4–16)
`Duration of disease, yrs, median (range)
`7 (1–25)
`6 (1–8)
`4 (2–25)
`5 (3–7)
`No. of failed DMARD, median (range)
`4 (2–7)
`4 (2–6)
`4 (2–6)
`26 ± 17
`Tender joint counts, mean ± SD*
`24 ± 14
`26 ± 16
`20 ± 11
`19 ± 10
`Swollen joint counts, mean ± SD*
`21 ± 10
`23 ± 12
`19 ± 9
`92 ± 24
`ESR, mm/h, mean ± SD
`92 ± 27
`76 ± 24
`87 ± 25
`6.9 ± 4.5
`CRP, mg/dl, mean ± SD
`5.3 ± 2.4
`5.4 ± 1.8
`5.9 ± 3.0
`WBC, per µl, mean ± SD
`8646 ± 3068 10722 ± 161910506 ± 2853
`9958 ± 2587
`Platelets, 104/µl, mean ± SD
`30.8 ± 4.5
`32.8 ± 11.5
`48.0 ± 13.7
`37.2 ± 12.7
`*Tender joint count was assessed with 49 joints (maximum joint count was 49). Swollen joint count was assessed
`with 46 joints (maximum joint count was 46). All values were mean ± SD. DMARD: disease modifying anti-
`rheumatic drugs, ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate (Westergren); CRP: C-reactive protein, WBC: white blood
`cell count.
`withdrawn. Atotal of 15 patients were included in the
`For the efficacy analysis, changes in each of the ACR components, such
`analysis. Demographic and clinical data at the entry period
`as CRP, ESR, swollen joint counts, tender joint counts, modified Health
`are summarized in Table 1. The median age was 55 years
`Assessment Questionnaire score, physician’s global assessment, patient’s
`(range 32–72 yrs) and the median duration of RAwas 7
`global assessment, and patient’s pain assessment, from baseline for each
`years (range 1–25). The patients had a mean of 24 tender
`dose group were analyzed by paired t tests, and mean changes from base-
`joints (range 8–41) and 21 swollen joints (range 10–35).
`line among the dose groups were analyzed by t tests. The dose relationship
`was analyzed by appropriate statistical procedures such as Jonckheere’s test
`There were no clinically significant differences among all
`for trends. Significance was set at p < 0.05.
`the dose groups.
`RESULTS
`Safety.Treatment tolerance of MRAwas good. Atotal of
`Patients.Sixteen patients were enrolled in the study; their
`132 adverse events were reported in all 15 patients analyzed
`disposition is illustrated in Figure 1. After enrollment, one
`for safety (Table 2 describes adverse events appearing in
`patient in the 8 mg/kg group was found to have a chest
`more than 2 patients). In the 2, 4, and 8 mg/kg groups, there
`radiograph abnormality and was thus ineligible and was
`
`Figure 1.Disposition of patients through the stages of the study. *Patient was found to be ineligible for study
`because of a chest radiograph abnormality and was withdrawn before dosing.
`
`The Journal of on July 18, 2019 - Published by
`Downloaded from
`www.jrheum.org
`Rheumatology
`Personal, non-commercial use only. The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright © 2003. All rights reserved.
`The Journal of Rheumatology 2003; 30:7
`
`1428
`
`Lassen - Exhibit 1023, p. 4
`
`

`

`Table 2. Adverse events (reported in more than 2 patients in this study).
`MRADose, mg/kg
`Total
`8
`2
`4
`5
`No. of patients
`5
`5
`Blood and lymphatic system disorder
`2
`1
`Iron deficiency anemia
`0
`1
`General disorder and administration site condition
`3
`2
`0
`1
`Pyrexia
`Infection and infestations
`5
`0
`3*
`2**
`Nasopharyngitis
`4
`2*
`Tinea blanca
`0
`2*
`2
`1
`Blister
`0
`1*
`Metabolism and nutrition disorder
`6
`2
`Iron metabolism disorder
`1
`3
`Musculoskeletal connective tissue and bone disorder
`2
`1*
`Back pain
`1
`0
`Skin/subcutaneous tissue disorder
`2
`2*
`Contact dermatitis
`0
`0
`2
`1
`Dermatitis NOS
`1*
`0
`2
`0
`Urticaria NOS
`2**
`0
`Investigation
`3
`0
`Alanine aminotransferase increased
`2
`1
`2
`0
`Aspartate aminotransferase increased
`1
`1
`10
`4*
`Blood cholesterol increased
`4*
`2*
`6
`0
`Blood glucose increased
`4
`2
`2
`0
`Blood iron decreased
`0
`2
`5
`0
`Blood LDH increased
`2
`3
`2
`0
`Blood pressure increased
`1*
`1
`3
`0
`Blood thrombin abnormal
`1
`2
`5
`2*
`Blood triglyceride increased
`2
`1
`3
`0
`Blood urea increased
`2
`1
`2
`0
`Glycosuria present
`1
`1
`3
`1
`Hematuria present
`1
`1
`1
`2
`7
`Low density lipoprotein increased
`4
`1
`0
`2
`Leukocyte count decreased
`1
`0
`0
`2
`Leukocyte count increased
`2**
`1
`0
`2
`White blood cells in urine
`1
`* Severity was moderate. ** Severity of one of 2 events was moderate. NOS: not otherwise specified, LDH:
`lactate dehydrogenase.
`In the abnormal laboratory findings, lipid metabolism
`were 55, 51, and 26 adverse events, respectively.All adverse
`events were mild or moderate in severity.Asingle serious
`related reactions such as an increase in blood total choles-
`adverse event, herpes zoster, was reported in one patient.
`terol, low density lipoprotein (LDL), and triglyceride were
`This was resolved by medication, and the patient continued
`frequently observed, although they became stable at a
`the study.
`certain level and did not continue to increase (Figure
`Atotal of 70 adverse events for which a causal relation-
`2E–2G). The total cholesterol and LDLcholesterol levels
`ship with MRAcould not be ruled out (i.e., adverse reaction)
`decreased at 24 weeks in the 2 mg/kg group, but there was
`were observed in 14 of the 15 patients. During the study
`no statistically significant difference. There was no observa-
`period, 37, 20, and 13 adverse reactions were reported in the
`tion of cardiovascularcomplicationsduring the study
`2, 4, and 8 mg/kg groups, respectively. Some of the clinical
`period. Leukocyte and neutrophil counts decreased after
`laboratory tests showed dose-dependent changes, but no
`MRAadministration in all dose groups, but most were
`clear relationship between dose and frequency of adverse
`within normal range. Two patients showed decrease in
`reaction was observed. There were 13 adverse events related
`leukocyte counts below the normal range, and one of them,
`to skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (dermatitis, etc.),
`in the 2 mg/kg group, had transient, grade 3 neutropenia
`but no reactionsat the injectionsite were reported.
`(neutrophil count < 1000/µl) a day after MRAinfusion.
`Symptoms associated with the common cold were reported
`There were no serious infections associated with transient
`in 5 patients.
`neutropenia. The patient did not show neutropenia again
`Downloaded from
`www.jrheum.org
`The Journal of on July 18, 2019 - Published by
`
`Rheumatology
`Personal, non-commercial use only. The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright © 2003. All rights reserved.
`Nishimoto, et al: Clinical study of MRA
`1429
`
`Lassen - Exhibit 1023, p. 5
`
`

`

`Figure 2.Change of ACR components (A–D) and laboratory variables (E–H) in MRAtreated
`RApatients. Values are mean ± SD.
`detected, although most of the patients had circulating
`during the treatment period. Adecrease in serum ferritin
`concentration was described as iron metabolism disorder,
`concentrations of MRA, which made it difficult to detect
`but it was associated with an increase in hemoglobin
`anti-MRAantibodies. Antinuclear antibody and anti-DNA
`concentrations, thus indicating effective utilization of iron to
`antibody were not observed in any patient.
`hemoglobin synthesis. An increase in blood lactate dehy-
`Pharmacology.The individual serum MRAconcentrations
`drogenase was noted in 4 patients. The abnormal laboratory
`of this study are shown in Figure 3. Serum MRAconcentra-
`findings did not always persist, and the majority of them
`tion was always detectable during the study period in 4 out
`spontaneously returned to normal range during the study
`of 5 patients in the 2 mg/kg group, and 3 out of 5 patients in
`period.No allergic reaction related to MRAinjection was
`the 4 mg/kg group. In the 8 mg/kg group, serum MRA
`concentration could be detected in all periods in all patients.
`observed in any patient. Anti-MRAantibodies were not
`The mean area-under-the-curve (AUC) and T1/2values
`Downloaded from
`www.jrheum.org
`The Journal of on July 18, 2019 - Published by
`
`Rheumatology
`Personal, non-commercial use only. The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright © 2003. All rights reserved.
`The Journal of Rheumatology 2003; 30:7
`1430
`
`Lassen - Exhibit 1023, p. 6
`
`

`

`Figure 3.MRAconcentration in the sera of patients. MRAwas administered intravenously at
`Weeks 0, 2, and 4. Serum samples were collected before each infusion, at 1 hour after the end
`of each infusion, at 2 days after each infusion, at 1 week after each infusion, and at 6 weeks
`after initial infusion. The lowest level that could be reliably detected was 1.0 µg/ml. All values
`are mean ± SD.
`objective markers improved markedly in the patients whose
`are shown in Figure 4. The AUC for the first dose increased
`serum MRAat the trough levels was detectable, whereas
`as the dose increased and the values (mean ± SD) were 3.44
`± 8.22, 4.66 ± 2.18, and 10.66 ± 4.07 mg*h/ml in the 2, 4,
`CRP, SAA, and fibrinogen were not completely normalized
`and 8 mg/kg groups, respectively.The serum MRAconcen-
`in the patients whose serum MRAconcentrations at trough
`tration decreased in a nonlinear manner with the dose range
`levels were below the quantification limit throughout the
`from 2 to 8 mg/kg. The T1/2for the first dose increased as the
`study period.
`dose increased; the values (mean ± SD) were 74.4 ± 18.3,
`The baseline serum albumin values were below low-
`96.9 ± 50.2, and 160.2 ± 34.3 h in the 2, 4, and 8 mg/kg
`normal range (< 4.0 g/dl) in 12 out of 15 patients, and also
`groups, respectively. Multiple infusion also prolonged the
`at a low limit (4.1 or 4.2 mg/dl) in the remaining 3. This
`T1/2, and after the 3rd dose in the 8 mg/kg group reached
`variable showed marked increases, and normalized at 14
`241.8 ± 71.4 h.
`weeks at all doses (Figure 2H).
`Rheumatoid factors also decreased, from 448.8 ± 431.7
`Clinical efficacy.The mean values of inflammatory indica-
`IU/ml at baseline to 176.4 ± 250.4 IU/ml at 14 weeks in the
`tors such as CRPand ESR are shown in Table 3 and Figures
`8 mg/kg group (p = 0.043 vs baseline).
`2Aand 2B. Baseline CRPvalues were 6.9 ± 4.5, 5.3 ± 2.4,
`The decrease in disease activity is shown in Table 3 and
`and 5.4 ± 1.8 mg/dl (mean ± SD) in the 2, 4, and 8 mg/kg
`Figures 2C and 2D. The baseline swollen joint counts were
`groups, respectively.At 2 weeks after the initial MRAdose,
`19 ± 10, 23 ± 12, and 19 ± 9 (mean ± SD) in the 2, 4, and 8
`these values decreased to 1.0 ± 0.9 (p = 0.041 vs baseline),
`mg/kg groups, respectively.At 14 weeks, these values
`2.2 ± 3.0 (p = 0.028 vs baseline), and 0.2 ± 0.2 mg/dl (p =
`decreased to 12 ± 10, 8 ± 6 (p = 0.009 vs baseline), and 8 ±
`0.002 vs baseline), respectively. In the 8 mg/kg group, CRP
`4 (p = 0.045 vs baseline); and at 24 weeks, to 10 ± 8 (p =
`was normal 2 weeks after initial MRAdose. The baseline
`0.049 vs baseline), 7 ± 6 (p = 0.028 vs baseline), and 5 ± 4
`ESR values were 92 ± 24, 92 ± 27, and 76 ± 24 mm/h,
`(p = 0.017 vs baseline), respectively (Figure 2C). The base-
`respectively.At 2 weeks, these values decreased to 49 ± 18
`line tender joint counts were 26 ± 16, 26 ± 16, and 20 ± 11
`(p = 0.004 vs baseline), 48 ± 34 (p = 0.003 vs baseline), and
`in the 2, 4, and 8 mg/kg groups, respectively.These values
`15 ± 12 mm/h (p = 0.002 vs baseline), respectively. Similar
`decreased to 13 ± 13, 11 ± 14, and 8 ± 5 at 14 weeks; and to
`changes were observed in other inflammatory measures. At
`12 ± 14, 9 ± 10, and 8 ± 4 at 24 weeks (Figure 2D). During
`24 weeks, these inflammatorymeasureswere further
`these periods, the decrease in tender joint counts was statis-
`improved.
`Interestingly,
`fibrinogen
`concentrations
`tically significant in the 8 mg/kg group (p = 0.030 and p =
`decreased only to the low-normal range (data not shown).
`0.028 vs baseline, respectively). Other ACR components
`Figure 5 shows individual change from baseline in each
`also improved with the MRAtreatment. No significant
`inflammatory measure 6 weeks after initial dose. These
`Downloaded from
`www.jrheum.org
`The Journal of on July 18, 2019 - Published by
`
`Rheumatology
`Personal, non-commercial use only. The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright © 2003. All rights reserved.
`Nishimoto, et al: Clinical study of MRA
`1431
`
`Lassen - Exhibit 1023, p. 7
`
`

`

`complications. Thus, repetitive treatment with MRAat up to
`8 mg/kg biweekly intravenous administration was well
`tolerated. In the abnormal laboratory data, lipid metabolism
`abnormalities such as total blood cholesterol, LDL, and
`triglycerideincreaseswerefrequentlyobserved.T h i s
`finding supports reports that serum cholesterol decreased
`following administration of recombinant human IL-6 in
`patients with breast cancer and those with lung cancer26,27.
`E t t i n g e r,et alalso reported that IL-6 might suppress
`apolipoprotein synthesis or secretion28.The inhibition of IL-
`6 action in the lipid metabolism by MRAmight activate
`apolipoprotein synthesis or secretion, and consequently
`increase total serum cholesterol and LDL. Another possible
`explanation is that an increase in total cholesterol may be
`due to improvement in nutrition or to excessive food intake
`in response to the decrease in their disease activity.
`Recently, IL-6 deficient mice were reported to show mature-
`onset obesity — an increase in body fat and in triglyceride
`and very low density lipoprotein in the blood — due to
`suppressed energy expenditure and increased food intake29.
`Therefore, IL-6 must be an important regulator for lipid
`metabolism. To date, we do not know whether this phenom-
`enon is specific to IL-6 inhibition in RA. Since high total
`cholesterol is a risk factor for ischemic heart diseases,
`longterm followup of patients will be required to define the
`safety of MRAtreatment. The hypoalbuminemia observed
`as an acute phase reaction was also ameliorated by MRA
`administration. Considered together with the increase in
`apolipoprotein, the inhibition of IL-6 action may alleviate
`the malnutrition due to cachexia in which constitutive over-
`production of IL-6 is thought to play an important role30.
`With repetitive treatment, MRAaccumulated in patients’
`sera and the T1/2was prolonged at all doses. Thus, it should
`be possible to extend the interval of MRAadministration in
`repetitive treatment for RA. Further, the advantage of a
`Figure 4.Pharmacokinetic variables in MRAtreated RApatients. Values
`are mean ± SD. There was no significant difference between each dose or
`humanized antibody was emphasized in the repetitive treat-
`dosing time.
`ment, because there were no allergic reactions related to
`difference among the treatment groups was observed in the
`MRAinjection and no anti-MRAantibodies were detected
`changes of the ACR components.
`in any patient, none of whom were taking immunosuppres-
`Improvement rates of the ACR criteria are illustrated in
`sive agents such as methotrexate.
`Figure 6. Nine out of 15 patients achieved the ACR 20 at 6
`Strong therapeutic efficacy of MRAfor established RA
`weeks. Two out of 15 patients achieved ACR 50 at 6 weeks.
`was demonstrated in terms of the ACR criteria as outcome
`No patient achieved the ACR 70 at 6 weeks in any dose
`measures. The improvement rate for ACR 20 during the
`group. At 24 weeks, 13 of 15 patients (> 80%) reached ACR
`entire study period was more than 80% and that of ACR 50
`20, 5 of 15 patients (33%) achieved ACR 50, and 2 of 15
`was 33%. Although this was an open label study, the
`patients (13%) achieved ACR 70. There was no evidence of
`improvement in the inflammatory markers such as CRPand
`a statistically significant difference in efficacy among the 3
`ESR clearly indicates the efficacy of MRA.
`dose groups.
`Other inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-aand IL-1ß
`reportedly induce the acute phase proteins in vitro. But
`DISCUSSION
`neither T N F -ainhibitornor IL-1 receptorantagonist
`This is the first report of repetitive dosage with MRAfor the
`completely normalized CRPand ESR concentrations in vivo
`treatment of RA. Although a total of 70 adverse reactions
`in patients with RA31-35. In this study, MRAcompletely
`were reported in the 14 patients during the 24 week treat-
`normalized CRP, SAA, and fibrinogen in the RApatients as
`ment, none was severe and there were few infectious
`long as their serum MRA concentrations
`remained
`Downloaded from
`www.jrheum.org
`The Journal of on July 18, 2019 - Published by
`
`Rheumatology
`Personal, non-commercial use only. The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright © 2003. All rights reserved.
`The Journal of Rheumatology 2003; 30:7
`1432
`
`Lassen - Exhibit 1023, p. 8
`
`

`

`Table 3. Mean values of ACR component at baseline, Week 2, Week 14, and Week 24 after MRAtreatment.
`Variable
`Baseline
`Week 2
`Week 14
`Week 24
`CRP, mg/dl
`2 mg/kg dose
`6.9 ± 4.5
`1.0 ± 0.9*
`0.6 ± 1.2*
`0.7 ± 0.9*
`4 mg/kg
`5.3 ± 2.4
`2.2 ± 3.0*
`1.3 ± 1.9*
`0.3 ± 0.5*
`8 mg/kg
`5.4 ± 1.7
`0.2 ± 0.2*
`0.1 ± 0.1*
`0.1 ± 0.1*
`ESR, mm/h
`2 mg/kg dose
`92 ± 24
`49 ± 18*
`19 ± 12*
`22 ± 9*
`4 mg/kg
`91 ± 27
`48 ± 34*
`34 ± 27*
`23 ± 15*
`8 mg/kg
`76 ± 24
`15 ± 12*
`10 ± 6*
`10 ± 6*
`Swollen joint count
`2 mg/kg dose
`19 ± 10
`16 ± 12
`12 ± 10
`10 ± 8*
`4 mg/kg
`23 ± 12
`17 ± 13*
`8 ± 6*
`7 ± 6*
`8 mg/kg
`19 ± 9
`19 ± 8
`8 ± 8*
`5 ± 4*
`Tender joint count
`2 mg/kg dose
`26 ± 16
`22 ± 17
`13 ± 13*
`12 ± 14
`4 mg/kg
`26 ± 16
`22 ± 16
`11 ± 14
`9 ± 10
`8 mg/kg
`20 ± 11
`19 ± 10
`8 ± 5*
`8 ± 4*
`Physician global assessment**
`2 mg/kg dose
`7.9 ± 1.3
`6.2 ± 2.5*
`3.0 ± 1.1*
`2.6 ± 1.4*
`4 mg/kg
`7.4 ± 2.0
`6.0 ± 2.0
`4.0 ± 2.0
`4.2 ± 2.2
`8 mg/kg
`8.2 ± 1.7
`6.8 ± 2.3
`5.0 ± 1.7*
`3.7 ± 2.6*
`Disability index (MHAQ†)
`2 mg/kg dose
`1.0 ± 0.6
`1.7 ± 0.7
`0.7 ± 0.4*
`0.7 ± 0.5
`4 mg/kg
`1.3 ± 0.8
`1.1 ± 0.7
`0.6 ± 0.4
`0.6 ± 0.4
`8 mg/kg
`1.0 ± 0.6
`0.7 ± 0.3
`0.6 ± 0.4
`0.4 ± 0.3
`Pain**2 mg/kg dose
`7.1 ± 2.0
`5.8 ± 3.7
`2.7 ± 1.6*
`2.9 ± 1.8*
`4 mg/kg
`7.1 ± 1.6
`6.2 ± 1.5
`4.0 ± 2.3
`3.1 ± 1.4*
`8 mg/kg
`6.5 ± 2.0
`5.3 ± 2.3
`3.6 ± 2.4*
`3.2 ± 2.3*
`Patient global assessment**
`2 mg/kg dose
`8.1 ± 1.8
`6.3 ± 2.9
`2.8 ± 1.2*
`3.1 ± 2.0*
`6.2 ± 1.7
`4.0 ± 1.8*
`2.9 ± 1.5*
`4 mg/kg
`7.8 ± 1.9
`5.4 ± 2.4*
`3.6 ± 2.3*
`3.4 ± 2.6*
`8 mg/kg
`7.1 ± 1.9
`* p < 0.05 (paired t test) vs baseline of each assessment. ** Visual analog scale (0 = best, 10 = worst). †Modified
`Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 = best, 3 = worst). All values were mean ± SD. CRP: C-reactive protein,
`ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate.
`complex in sera before treatment. Since MRAbinds to IL-
`detectable. These results indicate that IL-6 is a major
`cytokine responsible for acute phase protein production in
`6R, and the immune complex of MRAand IL-6R is cleared
`vivoin patients with RA. At the same time, MRAwas shown
`by the complement pathway, these patients may rapidly
`to be useful for the treatment of secondary amyloidosis, an
`clear immune complexes. However, they also showed
`important complication in Oriental patients, because only a
`significant improvement when they received treatment with
`therapy that successfully reduces the supply of amyloid
`8 mg/kg MRAbiweekly after the study periods (data not
`fibril protein precursors results in substantial regression of
`shown).We need to address the question whether MRAcan
`amyloid36.
`The optimal dosing sc

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