throbber
Downloaded from
`
`http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/
`
` at Pennsylvania State University on March 4, 2014
`
`Nephrol Dial Transplant (2005) 20: 1438–1442
`doi:10.1093/ndt/gfh811
`Advance Access publication 19 April 2005
`
`Original Article
`
`Benchmarking iron dextran sensitivity: reactions requiring
`resuscitative medication in incident and prevalent patients
`
`Brian A. J. Walters1 and David B. Van Wyck2
`
`1Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL and
`2Department of Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, USA
`
`Abstract
`Background. Reliable information on the incidence
`of
`severe
`reactions
`to iron dextran is
`limited.
`Administration of agents of resuscitation in acute
`anaphylaxis may serve as a marker to quantify life-
`threatening adverse drug reactions.
`Methods. To determine the incidence of the most
`serious reactions to intravenous (i.v.) iron dextran, we
`searched the Gambro Healthcare US medical database
`for evidence of same-day administration of both i.v.
`iron dextran and parenteral adrenaline, corticosteroids
`or antihistamines. We confirmed each case as an iron
`dextran sensitivity reaction by direct inquiry. We also
`determined the total reported number of suspected
`adverse iron dextran reactions.
`Results. During the 16 month study period, we
`determined that 1 066 099 doses of i.v. iron dextran
`were given to 48 509 patients, including 20 213 patients
`who had not previously received iron dextran (iron
`dextran naı¨ ve). We identified seven patients who
`experienced reactions requiring resuscitative agents,
`all in response to a test dose (five patients) or first
`therapeutic dose (two patients), and therefore all in
`the iron-naı¨ ve (incident) group. Thus, we found the
`incidence of iron dextran reactions requiring resusci-
`tative agents to be 0.035% (7 out of 20 213). No
`reaction was fatal. In a combined group of incident
`and prevalent patients, we found 337 total reports of
`suspected adverse reactions to iron dextran, without
`regard to severity of reaction, yielding an overall per
`patient adverse drug event (ADE) rate of 0.69% (337
`out of 48 509) and per exposure rate of 0.03% (337 out
`of 1 066 099).
`to iron
`reactions
`incidence of
`Conclusions. The
`dextran requiring resuscitative medications, per expo-
`is 0.035%. Reactions of this
`sure or per patient,
`
`Correspondence and offprint requests to: David B. Van Wyck, MD,
`Kidney Health Institute, LLC, 6720 North Nanini Drive, Tucson,
`AZ 85704-6128, USA. Email: dvanwyck@sprynet.com
`
`severity occur after either the test dose or first dose
`of iron dextran.
`
`Keywords: adverse reactions; anaemia; anaphylaxis;
`chronic renal failure; iron dextran; iron deficiency
`
`Introduction
`
`iron
`for
`Agents administered intravenously (i.v.)
`deficiency consist of
`colloidal
`iron–carbohydrate
`compounds distinguished structurally by differences
`in core size and carbohydrate chemistry, and clinically
`by differences in pharmacokinetics, maximum dose
`size and maximum rate of infusion [1]. That members
`of the iron–carbohydrate family are also distinguished
`by the rate of adverse reactions is frequently pro-
`posed but incompletely supported by the literature.
`No direct comparative studies have been performed
`among agents available in the USA and Europe,
`including iron dextran,
`ferric gluconate and iron
`sucrose. Recent prospective clinical trials have reported
`adverse drug events (ADEs) after ferric gluconate [2]
`and after iron sucrose [3]. Iron dextran reaction rates
`are frequently cited as a benchmark against which non-
`dextran iron agents are compared [2,4]. However,
`existing iron dextran benchmarks remain unreliable
`because available reports of iron dextran reaction
`rates lack crucial
`information required to calculate
`the true incidence and prevalence. Specifically, key
`studies fail to report the total number of iron dextran
`doses administered [5], the number of patients treated
`[6,7] or whether patients had been exposed to iron
`dextran previously [6–8].
`Adverse reactions to parenteral iron agents range
`from minor to life-threatening. Although the clini-
`cal features of reactions to iron agents have been
`reviewed extensively and listed in the literature [5,9,10],
`information on the incidence of the most severe reac-
`tions is limited, in part because reactions described as
`
`ß The Author [2005]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.
`For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org
`
`

`

`Downloaded from
`
`http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/
`
` at Pennsylvania State University on March 4, 2014
`
`Incidence of severe iron dextran reactions
`
`anaphylactic include manifestations that are relatively
`benign [5], the severity of reactions described as serious
`is difficult to assess objectively, and the study popula-
`tions upon which estimates are based have been
`relatively small. Moreover, because the pathogenesis
`of parenteral iron reactions is unknown [11], labora-
`tory markers to distinguish degrees of severity are
`absent. Thus, reliable incidence information on the
`most severe reactions is critically needed to determine
`the proper role of iron dextran in anaemia management
`and to evaluate and compare the safety of parenteral
`iron agents.
`Large medical databases provide powerful tools to
`elucidate iron dextran reactions in dialysis patients.
`Analysis of clinical variance reports for haemodialysis
`patients in the Fresenius Medical Care North America
`(FMCNA) database in the 6 month period October
`1998–March 1999 yielded 165 suspected ADEs among
`841 252 i.v. iron dextran administrations [6]. Among
`the 165 cases identified, 43 required emergency depart-
`ment evaluation, 11 were hospitalized and one died;
`113 reactions occurred after the first dose in a series
`(maintenance or a planned course of injections); and
`50% of patients with ADEs had received iron dextran
`safely in the past. However, because this study did
`not identify the total number of patients administered
`i.v. iron dextran, information on the incidence and
`prevalence of iron dextran sensitivity per patient at
`risk was not available, and direct comparison with
`results of previous reports was not possible.
`life-
`To determine the incidence of
`the most
`threatening reactions
`to iron dextran in dialysis
`patients, we examined a large medical database
`containing the pharmacological treatment history of
`>48 000 dialysis patients who received iron dextran
`during a 16 month period from January 1999 to April
`2000. Using medication entry fields in the database,
`we identified patients who received iron dextran and
`either adrenaline, corticosteroids or antihistamines
`parenterally during the same dialysis day. We reasoned
`that same-day administration of iron dextran and
`one or more of these i.v. resuscitative agents should
`serve as an objective marker for the most severe iron
`dextran reactions. We confirmed each identified epi-
`sode by direct clinical
`inquiry and compared the
`number of identified episodes with the total number
`of i.v. iron doses given during the study period.
`
`Patients and methods
`
`Study design
`
`searched the
`study. We
`retrospective
`a
`This was

`Gambro Healthcare database (RIMS
`—Renal Information
`Management System, Gambro Healthcare, Denver, CO) for

`each record of
`i.v.
`iron dextran [INFeD
`; Watson
`Pharmaceuticals, Corona, CA (available in Europe as

`Cosmofer
`; Nebo A/S, Denmark
`and
`Vitaline
`Pharmaceuticals, Long Crendon, Buckinghamshire, UK) or

`Dexferrum
`; American Regent, Inc., Shirley, NY (available
`
`1439
`

`
`in Canada as DexIron
`; Genpharm, Inc, Etobicoke, Ontario,
`Canada] administration in the period between January 1,
`1999 and April 30, 2000. Among resulting records, we
`distinguished patients who had received iron dextran at any
`time prior to the study period from those who received iron
`dextran during the study period. Among patients in both
`groups, we then identified individuals who received i.v.,
`subcutaneous (s.c.) or intramuscular (i.m.) administration of
`adrenaline, corticosteroid or antihistamine agents during a
`dialysis day in which iron dextran was also administered. In
`each resulting patient, we contacted the patient-care team
`directly to confirm whether the identified resuscitative agents
`were administered for a suspected iron dextran reaction. We
`also determined whether the reaction occurred after the test
`dose, first therapeutic dose or subsequent therapeutic doses.
`To exclude the possibility that pre-treatment with either
`form of iron dextran would influence reactions to the other,
`we identified all records which included administration of
`both agents during the study period.
`To determine the prevalence of all reactions to iron,
`without regard to severity, we searched for the term ‘iron’
`or ‘iron dextran’ including trade names in the allergy field
`of the patient record. Entries in the allergy field, a component

`of the patient medical history file in RIMS
`, are generated
`by allergic reactions experienced by the patient within a
`Gambro dialysis facility, suffered outside the facility or
`reported by the patient from previous medical history.
`To shed light on the incidence of all reactions to iron
`dextran without regard to degree of severity, we determined
`the total number of patients in whom adverse iron dextran
`reactions were reported for the first time during the study
`period. The search strategy specifically sought the word
`‘iron’ or ‘iron dextran’ including trade names in the adverse
`events field of each record. We divided the result by the
`total number of patients who received iron dextran for the
`first time during the study period. We made no attempt to
`validate each adverse reaction report.
`To assess the overall prevalence of iron dextran sensitivity
`in the study population, we searched the allergy field in every
`patient record, whether or not the patient received iron
`dextran during the study period, determined the number
`of records containing the word ‘iron’ and medications
`containing iron dextran in the allergy field, and divided the
`result by the total number of patients in the database.
`
`Medical database
`
`The Gambro Healthcare database contains the electronic
`medical record for every dialysis patient being treated at each
`out-patient Gambro facility in the USA and has several
`different levels of security to maintain patient confidentiality.
`The electronic medical record contains additional
`inter-
`active functions in a relational database format propagated
`through Informix 7.20 (Merlo Park, CA). The resulting

`architecture forms the basis of
`the proprietary RIMS
`software, which links data elements from patient demo-
`graphics, medical history, clinical
`laboratory test results,
`medications, medical
`interventions and hospitalizations.
`Medication history includes the dose, time and date of
`medication administration, as well as a listing of prescribed
`ongoing medications. Allergies and adverse reactions are
`reported in distinct fields in separate components of the
`database: allergies as a component of the medical history,
`and adverse reactions to i.v. medications administered as
`
`

`

`Downloaded from
`
`http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/
`
` at Pennsylvania State University on March 4, 2014
`
`1440
`
`a component of the medication history or event reporting
`management system. Thus, a record of iron dextran allergy
`may reflect
`information from distant medical history
`obtained by interviewing the patient, and may include infor-
`mation on iron dextran reactions experienced either inside
`the Gambro facility, or at previous facilities or hospitals.
`Adverse reaction reports, on the other hand, include infor-
`mation only on those reactions that were experienced
`within Gambro facilities. Since adverse reaction reporting
`is encouraged, no attempt is made to screen serious from
`minor reactions.
`
`Statistical analysis
`
`We examined the statistical significance of the form of iron
`dextran used and the presence or absence of angiotensin-
`converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor therapy using Poisson
`regression modelling (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
`
`Results
`
`The Gambro Healthcare database from January 1,
`1999 to April 30, 2000 contains information on a total
`of 61 950 dialysis patients. Our retrospective analysis
`yielded 1 066 099 episodes of iron dextran administra-
`tion in 48 509 patients, including 28 296 patients who
`had received iron dextran prior to the study period
`(prevalent patients) and 20 213 who had not previously
`received iron dextran (incident patients). We identified
`seven episodes, in seven patients, in which i.v. iron
`dextran administration coincided with i.v administra-
`tion of resuscitative agents. There were no deaths.
`All seven episodes were confirmed as iron dextran
`reactions upon direct clinical inquiry. Thus, the overall
`per exposure rate of adverse reaction requiring resus-
`citative i.v. medication was 7 out of 1 066 099
`(0.0007%). However, clinical inquiry determined that
`all seven reactions occurred after either the test dose
`(five patients) or first dose (two patients). Thus, among
`prevalent patients, there were no reactions requiring
`resuscitative medications. Among incident patients,
`where the meaningful exposures were effectively the
`test or first dose, the per exposure rate was equivalent
`to the per patient rate, or 7 out of 20 213 (0.035%).

`(five episodes in 317 097
`Patients receiving INFeD
`exposures to 13 765 patients) were no more likely to
`experience life-threatening reactions than those receiv-

`(two episodes in 123 309 exposures
`ing Dexferrum
`to 6448 patients; P¼ 0.9733). Patients receiving ACE
`inhibitor therapy were more likely to suffer a life-

`threatening reaction to iron dextran (either INFeD

`or Dexferrum
`)
`than patients not receiving ACE
`inhibitors (P¼ 0.0082).
`There were 337 reports of adverse reactions to
`iron dextran during the study period. Thus the inci-
`dence of all reported adverse iron reactions during
`the study period without regard to degree of severity
`of reaction or history of previous exposure was (337
`reports out of 48 509 patients) 0.6947%. The overall
`per exposure adverse reaction rate was therefore
`(337 events out of 1 066 099 exposures) 0.0316%.
`
`B. A. J. Walters and D. B. Van Wyck
`
`We separately analysed records in patients who


`and Dexferrum
`during the
`received both INFeD
`study period. Among these 2075 patients, we found
`no episodes of i.v. resuscitative medication adminis-
`tration in 76 474 iron dextran exposures.
`
`Discussion
`
`This report represents the second use of a large-scale
`medical database to elucidate iron dextran reactions,
`the first to determine the per patient incidence of
`adverse reactions to iron dextran, and the first to assess
`risk in incident compared with prevalent patients.
`The potential advantage of the current report resides
`in its scale, the ability to distinguish previously exposed
`from previously unexposed patients, and the use
`of an objective definition of serious iron dextran
`ADEs:
`same-day administration of
`iron dextran
`and either parenteral adrenaline, corticosteroids or
`antihistamines.
`Our findings suggest that the most severe reactions
`to iron dextran are seen in naı¨ ve patients, that success-
`ful administration of a test dose does not preclude
`a life-threatening reaction to a first therapeutic dose,
`and that successful administration of a first dose
`seems to render the risk of developing a life-threatening
`reaction to subsequent doses of either form of iron
`dextran substantially less likely.
`We used another feature of the database, the record
`of adverse reactions to medications, to determine the
`total number of iron dextran reactions serious enough
`to prompt withdrawal from further drug exposure.
`We found that adverse reactions serious enough to
`be reported to the database occurred in 0.7% of
`48 509 dialysis patients receiving iron dextran. Previous
`studies conducted on a smaller scale found serious
`reactions in 0.7% of 573 dialysis patients [5] and
`0.6% of 481 non-uraemic patients [12] examined
`retrospectively after iron dextran injection. The con-
`cordance between our findings and previously pub-
`lished results of per patient reaction rates suggests
`that reporting of serious adverse events to the Gambro
`database is relatively complete. Since the purpose
`of reporting to the Gambro database is to prevent
`further administration of iron dextran, we can con-
`sider the adverse event report rate to be equivalent to
`an iron dextran intolerance rate. Thus, in our mixed
`patient population (58% previously exposed, 42%
`previously unexposed), 0.7% of patients developed
`iron dextran intolerance over 16 months, yielding
`an intolerance incidence of 0.5% per year.
`We chose same-day administration of resuscitative
`agents as an objective marker for life-threatening
`reactions because broader definitions lack precision,
`consistency and reproducibility. Many adverse reac-
`tions to iron dextran,
`including rashes that satisfy
`published definitions of anaphylaxis, are not serious,
`and not all serious reactions meet criteria for ana-
`phylaxis [5]. Some but not all patients were with-
`drawn from further iron dextran administration after
`
`

`

`Downloaded from
`
`http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/
`
` at Pennsylvania State University on March 4, 2014
`
`Incidence of severe iron dextran reactions
`
`reactions that were not serious. Some patients who
`have experienced reactions described as serious, ana-
`phylactic, anaphylactoid or allergic have not been
`withdrawn from further iron dextran therapy but
`have subsequently received multiple doses of i.v. iron
`dextran without adverse events [13]. Finally, some
`patients have experienced serious reactions to iron
`dextran despite successfully receiving a test dose and
`multiple previous therapeutic doses [5]. These observa-
`tions and the paucity of information to support a
`single pathogenesis for all iron dextran reactions [11]
`argue persuasively for a single, objective standard to
`quantify the most serious iron dextran reactions. Our
`finding that resuscitative agents are required after the
`test dose or first dose in 0.035% of patients provides
`the first information on such a standard, helps to assess
`the role of i.v. iron dextran in the management of
`iron deficiency and provides a benchmark against
`which other parenteral
`iron preparations can be
`compared.
`Our results support and extend previous findings
`arising from the use of a large medical database [6].
`Although design differences between the two studies
`make direct comparison difficult, both the current and
`previous study show that iron dextran ADEs after
`iron dextran administration can be life-threatening.
`The previous study included one fatal ADE. Though
`both studies showed that most ADEs follow adminis-
`tration of a test dose or first dose, the previous study
`identified serious ADEs in patients who had success-
`fully received previous test or treatment doses. The
`majority of those non-naı¨ ve patients who experienced
`ADEs after iron dextran administration did so at the
`time of the first dose of a planned series, suggesting
`that the risk of first-dose ADEs may recur in prev-
`alent patients after an interval free from iron dextran
`exposure. The results of our analysis of adverse
`reaction reports without regard to degree of severity
`or previous iron dextran exposure (337 reports out
`of 1 066 099 exposures, or 0.0316%) closely approxi-
`mate the results of the previous report (165 events
`in 841 252 exposures, rate 0.0196%) [6], which used
`similar ADE reports and a mixed population of
`incident and prevalent patients. Again, concordance
`between our results and those previously reported for
`per exposure reaction rates provide further evidence
`that reporting to large medical databases is relatively
`complete.
`Assessing the quality of published evidence on
`the safety of i.v.
`iron agents requires considerable
`caution. Few retrospective studies provide informa-
`tion on a history of previous exposure [12,14], and
`many lack information on the number of exposures [5]
`or the number of patients [6]. Prospective trials may
`include only incident patients [3,4], only prevalent
`patients [15,16] or higher i.v.
`iron doses than are
`generally given [17]. We found not only that the rate
`of i.v. iron dextran ADEs requiring resuscitative medi-
`cation is 0.035% (seven events out of 20 213 patients
`or exposures) but also that this risk is confined to
`incident patients. We conclude the obvious,
`that
`
`1441
`
`in the absence of specific
`evidence of iron safety,
`information on numbers of doses, prevalent patients
`and incident patients,
`is unreliable and may be
`misleading.
`Investigators recently examined the safety of iron
`dextran using the large voluntary reporting database
`of the World Health Organization [7]. Their finding
`that serious ADE rates for iron dextran range from
`11.6 to 57.9 per million exposures is higher than
`that of our current study (7 per 1 066 099 actual
`exposures) and those of others [5,6]. Either an under-
`estimate of exposures or an increased proportion
`of naive patients could explain the higher results.
`In the WHO study, the number of doses administered
`was projected and the method for calculating the
`projection was not completely described. Since the
`study period included agents new to the market,
`the results could also reflect a high proportion of
`incident patients who would therefore be at increased
`risk for ADEs.
`for current
`Our studies provide strong support
`European Best Practice Guidelines [18] and NKF-K/
`DOQI [19] recommendations regarding administration
`of a test dose of iron dextran. These evidence-based
`clinical practice guidelines recommend administration
`of a single 25 mg test dose. Though no further test
`doses are required, our findings suggest that special
`precautions should also be taken with administration
`of the first therapeutic dose, and, as the previous
`report confirmed [6], with administration of the first
`dose of each newly planned series. The dispropor-
`tionate risk born by incident patients suggests that
`introduction of
`i.v.
`iron dextran to a previously
`unexposed population is likely to provoke more life-
`threatening reactions than would be expected on the
`basis of previous experience with mixed populations
`of incident and prevalent patients. In the current
`study, for example, 58% of the study population
`consisted of prevalent patients previously exposed to
`iron dextran. Thus,
`if the entire study population
`had been iron dextran naı¨ ve, the projected number
`of life-threatening reactions encountered would have
`been 2- to 3-fold higher. Taken together, our findings
`and those of others prompt
`the conclusion that
`caution and, in particular, ready access to resuscitative
`medication, should attend each administration of iron
`dextran.
`
`Acknowledgements. This
`supported by Luitpold
`study was
`Pharmaceuticals and American Regent, Inc.
`
`Conflict of interest statement. D.B.V.W. has served as investigator,
`consultant and speaker, and B.A.J.W. as an investigator,
`for
`American Regent, Inc.
`
`References
`
`1. Danielson BG. Structure, chemistry, and pharmacokinetics
`J Am Soc Nephrol
`of
`intravenous
`iron agents.
`2004;
`15 [Suppl 2]: S93–S98
`2. Michael B, Coyne DW, Fishbane S et al. Sodium ferric gluconate
`complex in hemodialysis patients: adverse reactions compared
`to placebo and iron dextran. Kidney Int 2002; 61: 1830–1839
`
`

`

`Downloaded from
`
`http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/
`
` at Pennsylvania State University on March 4, 2014
`
`1442
`
`B. A. J. Walters and D. B. Van Wyck
`
`3. Charytan C, Levin N, Al Saloum M, Hafeez T, Gagnon S,
`Van Wyck DB. Efficacy and safety of iron sucrose for iron
`deficiency in patients with dialysis-associated anemia: North
`American clinical trial. Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 37: 300–307
`4. Coyne DW, Adkinson NF, Nissenson AR et al. Sodium
`ferric gluconate complex in hemodialysis patients. II. Adverse
`reactions in iron dextran-sensitive and dextran-tolerant patients.
`Kidney Int 2003; 63: 217–224
`5. Fishbane S, Ungureanu VD, Maesaka JK, Kaupke CJ, Lim V,
`Wish J. The safety of intravenous iron dextran in hemodialysis
`patients. Am J Kidney Dis 1996; 28: 529–534
`6. Fletes R, Lazarus JM, Gage J, Chertow GM. Suspected iron
`dextran-related adverse drug events in hemodialysis patients.
`Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 37: 743–749
`7. Chertow GM, Mason PD, Vaage-Nilsen O, Ahlmen J. On the
`iron formulations. Nephrol Dial
`relative safety of parenteral
`Transplant 2004; 19: 1571–1575
`8. Fishbane S, Kowalski EA, Imbriano LJ, Maesaka JK. The
`evaluation of iron status in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc
`Nephrol 1996; 7: 2654–2657
`9. Bailie GR, Johnson CA, Mason NA. Parenteral iron use in
`the management of anemia in end-stage renal disease patients.
`Am J Kidney Dis 2000; 35: 1–12
`10. Sunder-Plassmann G, Horl WH. Safety aspects of parenteral
`iron in patients with end-stage renal disease. Drug Safety 1997;
`17: 241–250
`
`Intravenous
`
`iron–dextran complex. Blood
`
`11. Van Wyck DB. Value of a test dose of iron dextran. Semin
`Dialysis 1999; 12: 53
`12. Hamstra RD, Block MH, Schocket AL. Intravenous iron dex-
`tran in clinical medicine. J Am Med Assoc 1980; 243: 1726–1731
`13. Hamstra RD, Block MH, Schocket AL. Intravenous iron
`dextran in clinical medicine. J Am Med Assoc 1980; 243:
`1726–1731
`14. Wallerstein RO.
`1968; 32: 690–695
`15. Folkert VW, Michael B, Agarwal R et al. Chronic use
`of sodium ferric gluconate complex in hemodialysis patients:
`safety of higher-dose (> or ¼250 mg) administration. Am J
`Kidney Dis 2003; 41: 651–657
`16. Michael B, Coyne DW, Folkert VW, Dahl NV, Warnock DG.
`Sodium ferric gluconate complex in haemodialysis patients:
`long-term safety. Nephrol Dial
`a prospective evaluation of
`Transplant 2004; 19: 1576–1580
`17. McCarthy JT, Regnier CE, Loebertmann CL, Bergstralh EJ.
`Adverse events
`in chronic hemodialysis patients
`receiving
`intravenous iron dextran—a comparison of two products. Am J
`Nephrol 2000; 20: 455–462
`18. SECTION III. Treatment of renal anaemia. Nephrol Dial
`Transplant 2004; 19: II16–II31
`19. IV. NKF-K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Anemia of
`Chronic Kidney Disease: update 2000. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;
`37: S182–S238
`
`Received for publication: 1.7.04
`Accepted in revised form: 8.3.05
`
`

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