Bioequivalence testing of immunosuppressants: concepts and misconceptions

Predicting disruptions to drug pharmacokinetics and the risk of adverse drug reactions in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis patients

The liver plays a central role in the pharmacokinetics of drugs through drug metabolizing enzymes and transporters. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) causes disease-specific alterations to the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) processes, including a decrease in protein expression of basolateral uptake transporters, an increase in efflux transporters, and modifications to enzyme activity. This can result in increased drug exposure and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Our goal was to predict drugs that pose increased risks for ADRs in NASH patients. Bibliographic research identified 71 drugs with reported ADRs in patients with liver disease, mainly non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 54 of which are known substrates of transporters and/or metabolizing enzymes. Since NASH is the progressive form of NAFLD but is most frequently undiagnosed, we identified other drugs at risk based on NASH-specific alterations to ADME processes. Here, we present another list of 71 drugs at risk of pharmacokinetic disruption in NASH, based on their transport and/or metabolism processes. It encompasses drugs from various pharmacological classes for which ADRs may occur when used in NASH patients, especially when eliminated through multiple pathways altered by the disease. Therefore, these results may inform clinicians regarding the selection of drugs for use in NASH patients.

Parametric Population Pharmacokinetics of Linezolid: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Linezolid is often used for infections caused by drug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria. Recent studies suggest that large between-subject variability (BSV) and within-subject variability could alter drug pharmacokinetics (PK) during linezolid therapy due to pathophysiological changes.

OBJECTIVE

This review synthesized information on linezolid population PK studies and summarized the significant covariates that influence linezolid PK.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from their inception to 30 September 2021. Published studies were included if they contained data analyzing linezolid PK parameters in humans using a population approach with a nonlinear mixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies conducted in adults and five in pediatrics were included. One- and two-compartment models were the commonly used structural models for linezolid. Body size (weight, lean body weight, and body surface area), creatinine clearance (CLcr), and age significantly influenced linezolid PK. The median clearance (CL) values (ranges) in infants [0.128 L/h/kg (0.121-0.135)] and children [0.107 L/h/kg (0.088-0.151)] were higher than in adults [0.098 L/h/kg (0.044-0.237)]. For patients with severe renal impairment (CLcr ≤ 30 mL/min), the CL was 37.2% (15.2-55.3%) lower than in patients with normal renal function.

CONCLUSION

The optimal linezolid dosage should be adjusted based on the patient's body size, renal function, and age. More studies are needed to explore the exact mechanism of linezolid elimination and evaluate the PK characteristics in pediatric patients.

Separation Methods in Biomedical Analysis, a Booming Field

Many scientific endeavors are dependent upon the accurate quantification of drugs and endogenous substances, such as pharmacokinetics [...]

Personalized Therapy for Mycophenolate: Consensus Report by the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology

ABSTRACT

When mycophenolic acid (MPA) was originally marketed for immunosuppressive therapy, fixed doses were recommended by the manufacturer. Awareness of the potential for a more personalized dosing has led to development of methods to estimate MPA area under the curve based on the measurement of drug concentrations in only a few samples. This approach is feasible in the clinical routine and has proven successful in terms of correlation with outcome. However, the search for superior correlates has continued, and numerous studies in search of biomarkers that could better predict the perfect dosage for the individual patient have been published. As it was considered timely for an updated and comprehensive presentation of consensus on the status for personalized treatment with MPA, this report was prepared following an initiative from members of the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology (IATDMCT). Topics included are the criteria for analytics, methods to estimate exposure including pharmacometrics, the potential influence of pharmacogenetics, development of biomarkers, and the practical aspects of implementation of target concentration intervention. For selected topics with sufficient evidence, such as the application of limited sampling strategies for MPA area under the curve, graded recommendations on target ranges are presented. To provide a comprehensive review, this report also includes updates on the status of potential biomarkers including those which may be promising but with a low level of evidence. In view of the fact that there are very few new immunosuppressive drugs under development for the transplant field, it is likely that MPA will continue to be prescribed on a large scale in the upcoming years. Discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects is relatively common, increasing the risk for late rejections, which may contribute to graft loss. Therefore, the continued search for innovative methods to better personalize MPA dosage is warranted.

Converting immunosuppression from an oral suspension to a granule formulation of tacrolimus in pediatric renal transplant recipients

OS of tacrolimus prepared from tacrolimus powder is not licensed for children. A licensed GF for OS allows flexibility for body weight-based dose adjustments. This study aimed at exploring the efficacy of conversion from OS to the GF of tacrolimus in stable pediatric renal transplant recipients. Records of 25 pediatric renal transplant recipients aged under 18 years who were switched from an unlicensed tacrolimus OS to GF were reviewed. At day 0, 1 week, and 4-8 weeks post-conversion, there were no differences regarding daily tacrolimus dose (3.4 ± 3 vs 3.5 ± 2.9 vs 3.5 ± 2.9 mg/day), trough tacrolimus levels (4.5 ± 2.7 vs 4.2 ± 2.7 vs 4.4 ± 3.1 ng/mL), dose-normalized trough tacrolimus levels (1.7 ± 1.1 vs 1.5 ± 1.0 vs 1.7 ± 1.3 ng/mL/mg), PCr (65.6 ± 29.4 vs 67.9 ± 30.4 vs 69.8 ± 27.9 μmol/L), and eGFR (73 ± 24.9 vs 68.7 ± 20.2 vs 65.5 ± 18.2 mL/min/1.73 m² ) (P > .05). GF dose adjustment was required in 52% of participants. Eighty-eight percent of patients had to return for repeat tacrolimus levels following dose modifications, generating 33 extra visits (≥2 extra visits for 1/3 of subjects). No rejection episodes occurred in the year after conversion. In conclusion, conversion from tacrolimus OS to GF in stable pediatric renal transplant recipients is safe and efficacious. However, close therapeutic drug monitoring in the immediate post-conversion period is necessary.

Bioequivalence between innovator and generic tacrolimus in liver and kidney transplant recipients: A randomized, crossover clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Although the generic drug approval process has a long-term successful track record, concerns remain for approval of narrow therapeutic index generic immunosuppressants, such as tacrolimus, in transplant recipients. Several professional transplant societies and publications have generated skepticism of the generic approval process. Three major areas of concern are that the pharmacokinetic properties of generic products and the innovator (that is, "brand") product in healthy volunteers may not reflect those in transplant recipients, bioequivalence between generic and innovator may not ensure bioequivalence between generics, and high-risk patients may have specific bioequivalence concerns. Such concerns have been fueled by anecdotal observations and retrospective and uncontrolled published studies, while well-designed, controlled prospective studies testing the validity of the regulatory bioequivalence testing approach for narrow therapeutic index immunosuppressants in transplant recipients have been lacking. Thus, the present study prospectively assesses bioequivalence between innovator tacrolimus and 2 generics in individuals with a kidney or liver transplant.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

From December 2013 through October 2014, a prospective, replicate dosing, partially blinded, randomized, 3-treatment, 6-period crossover bioequivalence study was conducted at the University of Cincinnati in individuals with a kidney (n = 35) or liver transplant (n = 36). Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) data that included manufacturing and healthy individual pharmacokinetic data for all generics were evaluated to select the 2 most disparate generics from innovator, and these were named Generic Hi and Generic Lo. During the 8-week study period, pharmacokinetic studies assessed the bioequivalence of Generic Hi and Generic Lo with the Innovator tacrolimus and with each other. Bioequivalence of the major tacrolimus metabolite was also assessed. All products fell within the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) average bioequivalence (ABE) acceptance criteria of a 90% confidence interval contained within the confidence limits of 80.00% and 125.00%. Within-subject variability was similar for the area under the curve (AUC) (range 12.11-15.81) and the concentration maximum (Cmax) (range 17.96-24.72) for all products. The within-subject variability was utilized to calculate the scaled average bioequivalence (SCABE) 90% confidence interval. The calculated SCABE 90% confidence interval was 84.65%-118.13% and 80.00%-125.00% for AUC and Cmax, respectively. The more stringent SCABE acceptance criteria were met for all product comparisons for AUC and Cmax in both individuals with a kidney transplant and those with a liver transplant. European Medicines Agency (EMA) acceptance criteria for narrow therapeutic index drugs were also met, with the only exception being in the case of Brand versus Generic Lo, in which the upper limits of the 90% confidence intervals were 111.30% (kidney) and 112.12% (liver). These were only slightly above the upper EMA acceptance criteria limit for an AUC of 111.11%. SCABE criteria were also met for the major tacrolimus metabolite 13-O-desmethyl tacrolimus for AUC, but it failed the EMA criterion. No acute rejections, no differences in renal function in all individuals, and no differences in liver function were observed in individuals with a liver transplant using the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) test for multiple comparisons. Fifty-two percent and 65% of all individuals with a kidney or liver transplant, respectively, reported an adverse event. The Exact McNemar test for paired categorical data with adjustments for multiple comparisons was used to compare adverse event rates among the products. No statistically significant differences among any pairs of products were found for any adverse event code or for adverse events overall. Limitations of this study include that the observations were made under strictly controlled conditions that did not allow for the impact of nonadherence or feeding on the possible pharmacokinetic differences. Generic Hi and Lo were selected based upon bioequivalence data in healthy volunteers because no pharmacokinetic data in recipients were available for all products. The safety data should be interpreted in light of the small number of participants and the short observation periods. Lastly, only the 1 mg tacrolimus strength was utilized in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an innovative, controlled bioequivalence study design, we observed equivalence between tacrolimus innovator and 2 generic products as well as between 2 generic products in individuals after kidney or liver transplantation following current FDA bioequivalence metrics. These results support the position that bioequivalence for the narrow therapeutic index drug tacrolimus translates from healthy volunteers to individuals receiving a kidney or liver transplant and provides evidence that generic products that are bioequivalent with the innovator product are also bioequivalent to each other.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01889758.

Clinical Evaluation of Modified Release and Immediate Release Tacrolimus Formulations

The science of drug delivery has evolved considerably and has led to the development of multiple sustained release formulations. Each of these formulations can present particular challenges in terms of clinical evaluation and necessitate careful study to identify their optimal use in practice. Tacrolimus is an immunosuppressive agent that is widely used in organ transplant recipients. However, it is poorly soluble, has an unpredictable pharmacokinetic profile subject to important genetic polymorphisms and drug-drug interactions, and has a narrow therapeutic index. For these reasons, it represents an agent that could benefit from modified release formulations to overcome these limitations. The objective of this review is to discuss the clinical evaluation of immediate and modified release tacrolimus formulations in renal transplant recipients. Clinical trials from early development of immediate release tacrolimus to formulation-specific post-marketing trials of modified release tacrolimus formulations are reviewed with an emphasis on key elements relating to trial design end endpoint assessment. Particular elements that can be addressed with formulation alterations, such as pharmacokinetics, pharmacogenomics, and toxicity and corresponding clinical evaluations are discussed. In addition, current knowledge gaps in the clinical evaluation of immediate and modified release tacrolimus formulations are discussed to highlight potential avenues for the future development of different tacrolimus formulations with outcomes relevant to the regulators, the transplant community, and to transplant recipients. This review shows that new formulations may alter tacrolimus bioavailability, alleviate certain adverse events while potentially enhancing patient convenience.

Is There Evidence to Support Brand to Generic Interchange of the Mycophenolic Acid Products?

The uptake of generic immunosuppressants lags comparatively to other drug classes, despite that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses identical bioequivalence standards for all drugs. Transplant societies acknowledge the cost savings associated with generic immunosuppressants and support their use following heart, lung, kidney, or bone marrow transplantation. Seven studies of the pharmacokinetics or clinical efficacy of generic mycophenolate mofetil compared to the innovator product are published; all studies and products were ex-United States. Three studies did not demonstrate any pharmacokinetic differences between generic and innovator products in healthy subjects, achieving FDA bioequivalence requirements. Two studies in renal allograft recipients demonstrated no difference in area under the curves between generic and innovator products, and in one, the maximum concentration (Cmax) fell outside the FDA regulatory range. Two studies revealed no difference in acute organ rejection or graft function in renal allograft recipients. Patient surveys indicate that cost is a barrier to immunosuppressant adherence. Generics present a viable method to reduce costs to payers, patients, and health care systems. Adherence to immunosuppressants is crucial to prevent graft failure. An affordable regimen potentially confers greater adherence. Concerns regarding the presumed inferiority of generic immunosuppressants should be assuaged by regulatory requirements for bioequivalency testing, transplant society position statements, and pharmacokinetic and clinical studies.

Investigation into the interchangeability of generic formulations using immunosuppressants and a broad selection of medicines

Purpose

To date, the interchangeability of generic drugs has only been investigated for a limited number of medicines. The objective of this study was to investigate generic-generic drug interchangeability in a large subset of generic formulations in order to cover a broad spectrum of drugs.

Methods

Orally administered drugs for investigation in this study were selected using strict, predefined criteria, with the purpose to avoid bias. This selection procedure yielded atorvastatin, bicalutamide, naratriptan, olanzapine, perindopril, and venlafaxine. Further, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil were investigated as test immunosuppressants. Adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted between generic drugs containing the same active substance, and the 90 % confidence interval (CI) for AUC and C_max was calculated.

Results

In total, 120 bioequivalence studies were identified in the Dutch medicine regulatory agency’s database, allowing 292 indirect comparisons between generic drugs. The indirect comparison results indicated that in the vast majority of cases, i.e., 80.5 %, the 90 % CIs for both AUC_t and C_max fell within the bioequivalence criteria (in 90.1 and 87.0 % for AUC_t and C_max, respectively). In 1 % of the 292 indirect comparison for AUC_t and 3 % for C_max, a wider range of 75–133 % (or 80–125 %) was exceeded.

Conclusions

Overall, our study suggests that exposure-related risks associated with the exchange of different generic drugs in clinical practice are not increased to a relevant extent compared to the situation in which a generic is exchanged with the innovator.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00228-015-1878-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Case report: Inability to achieve a therapeutic dose of tacrolimus in a pediatric allogeneic stem cell transplant patient after generic substitution

Background

Tacrolimus is an immunosuppressive drug that is used to lower the activity of the patient’s immune system to prevent organ rejection. Unfortunately, there is limited data regarding the therapeutic equivalency of generic tacrolimus formulations especially in children. We report the case of a pediatric patient having an inability to achieve a therapeutic trough level for tacrolimus after conversion from brand name to the generic formulation.

Case presentation

A 17-month-old male patient diagnosed with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The patient initially received intravenous (IV) tacrolimus for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis and achieved therapeutic levels. The patient was then switched to an oral brand formulation of tacrolimus, and was able to maintain trough levels within the therapeutic range. After being discharged, the patient received the generic formulation of tacrolimus from an outside pharmacy and the care team was unable to reach therapeutic levels despite multiple dose escalations. Returning to brand name tacrolimus resulted in prompt achievement of therapeutic levels.

Conclusions

A likely etiology for the inability to achieve therapeutic trough levels in this patient is the change in formulation from brand formulation to generic version. Other factors including drug-drug interaction, preparation of the medication by a different pharmacy, drug-food interaction and genetic factors were also considered. Physicians and pharmacists must be aware of the inability to achieve targeted therapeutic concentrations of tacrolimus resulting from the conversion of brand name to the generic formulation until these generic formulations are tested in clinical trials in a pediatric population.

Is it ethical to prescribe generic immunosuppressive drugs to renal transplant patients?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

This review was conducted to determine the ethical acceptability of prescribing generic immunosuppressive drugs to renal transplant patients.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The literature search was conducted using Pubmed and Google Scholar.

FINDINGS

The use of generic immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs) in transplantation is a controversial topic. There is a consensus among transplant societies that clinical data is lacking and that caution should be exercised. The reluctance to use generic ISDs in organ transplantation is partly related to the fact that most are "critical dose drugs", and that either low dosing or overdosing could have serious adverse consequences for both patients and society (i.e., the loss of scarce organs). In this paper, we examine the various ethical issues involved such as distributive justice, physician duties, risks versus benefits, conflict of interest, informed consent, and logistical and economic issues.

LIMITATIONS

Our analysis was limited by the paucity of clinical data on generic ISDs and the absence of health economics studies to quantify the benefits of prescribing generic ISDs.

IMPLICATIONS

Our study led us to conclude that it would be ethical to prescribe generic ISDs provided certain conditions were met. These include regulatory safeguards to minimize the risks of substitution; education of patients; and further clinical and health economics studies to better inform clinicians, patients and society of the risks and costs related to drug substitution.

Immunosuppression and allograft rejection following lung transplantation: evidence to date

The enduring success of lung transplantation is built on the use of immunosuppressive drugs to stop the immune system from rejecting the newly transplanted lung allograft. Most patients receive a triple-drug maintenance immunosuppressive regimen consisting of a calcineurin inhibitor, an antiproliferative and corticosteroids. Induction therapy with either an antilymphocyte monoclonal or an interleukin-2 receptor antagonist are prescribed by many centres aiming to achieve rapid inhibition of recently activated and potentially alloreactive T lymphocytes. Despite this generic approach acute rejection episodes remain common, mandating further fine-tuning and augmentation of the immunosuppressive regimen. While there has been a trend away from cyclosporine and azathioprine towards a preference for tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil, this has not translated into significant protection from the development of chronic lung allograft dysfunction, the main barrier to the long-term success of lung transplantation. This article reviews the problem of lung allograft rejection and the evidence for immunosuppressive regimens used both in the short- and long-term in patients undergoing lung transplantation.

Systematic conversion to generic tacrolimus in stable kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Tacrolimus (Prograf^®) is a key drug in the immunosuppressive treatment of renal transplant patients. Since the expiration of the patent for Prograf^®, generic preparations have been approved in Europe as bioequivalence has been shown in healthy volunteers. However, few studies have investigated whether patients can be successfully converted from Prograf^® to generic tacrolimus. Tacrolimus drug costs are by far the largest single item in the total drug expenditure for patients with renal disease in the Stockholm area. Considerable reductions in drug costs could be achieved if generic tacrolimus were to be used. The aim of this quality assurance study was to evaluate whether a switch from Prograf^® to generic tacrolimus (Tacrolimus Sandoz^®) could be safely performed in renal transplant patients. It further aimed to investigate changes of renal function (measured in estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR), need for dose changes and to calculate potential drug cost savings as a result of the conversion.

METHODS

We planned to recruit at least 50 patients. Plasma creatinine levels and trough concentrations of tacrolimus were collected from patients with renal transplants at three occasions during treatment with Prograf^® and three times after conversion to Tacrolimus Sandoz^®. The eGFR was calculated before and after the conversion.

RESULTS

Sixty-three of 67 enrolled patients (69% males, age 28-80 years) are included in this analysis. The ratio of mean trough concentrations of tacrolimus after comparison with before conversion was 1.02 (90% confidence interval 0.95-1.09). Fourteen patients experienced a change in tacrolimus levels >20% compared with baseline, no patients changed >20% in eGFR. The drug cost saving per daily dose was 33.40 SEK (∼€3.60, -23%).

CONCLUSIONS

Stable kidney transplant patients treated with Prograf^® can be converted to Tacrolimus Sandoz^® if trough concentrations of tacrolimus and plasma creatinine levels are closely monitored. The conversion brought savings, despite costs for extra monitoring.

Conversion from twice- to once-daily tacrolimus in pediatric kidney recipients: a pharmacokinetic and bioequivalence study

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this study were to investigate pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic parameters during the conversion on a 1:1 (mg:mg) basis from a twice-daily (Prograf) to once-daily (Advagraf) tacrolimus formulation in pediatric kidney transplant recipients.

METHODS

Twenty-four-hour pharmacokinetic profiles were analyzed before and after conversion in 19 stable renal transplant recipients (age 7-19 years). Tacrolimus pharmacokinetic parameters [area under the concentration-time curve (AUC0-24), minimum whole-blood concentration (Cmin), maximum whole-blood concentration (Cmax), and time to achieve maximum whole-blood concentration (tmax)] were compared between Tac formulations and between CYP3A5 and MDR1 genotypes after dose normalization.

RESULTS

Both AUC0-24 and Cmin decreased after conversion (223.3 to 197.5 ng.h/ml and 6.5 to 5.6 ng/ml; p = 0.03 and 0.01, respectively). However, the ratio of the least square means (LSM) for AUC0-24 was 90.8 %, with 90 % CI limits of 85.3 to 96.7 %, falling within bioequivalence limits. The CYP3A5 genotype influences the dose-normalized Cmin with the twice-daily formulation only.

CONCLUSIONS

Both tacrolimus formulations are bioequivalent in pediatric renal recipients. However, we observed a decrease in AUC0-24 and Cmin after the conversion, requiring close pharmacokinetic monitoring during the conversion period.

Bioequivalence and tolerability assessment of a novel intravenous ciclosporin lipid emulsion compared to branded ciclosporin in Cremophor ® EL

BACKGROUND

Ciclosporin is used as an immunosuppressant in current clinical practice but recent research implies novel indications for the drug, such as neuro- and cardioprotection. The intravenous formulation currently on the market, Sandimmune(®) Injection (Sandimmune(®)), uses Cremophor(®) EL as emulsifying excipient. Cremophor(®) EL is known to cause hypersensitivity reactions in some patients, ranging from skin reactions to potentially fatal anaphylactic shock.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess if CicloMulsion(®), a Cremophor(®) EL-free lipid emulsion of ciclosporin for intravenous administration, is bioequivalent to Sandimmune(®), and the secondary objective was to compare the tolerability profiles of the two preparations.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, open-label, subject-blind, laboratory-blind, single-dose, randomized, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence crossover study of the pharmacokinetics of two formulations of intravenous ciclosporin. Fifty-two healthy volunteer subjects were administered 5 mg/kg of each of the two formulations of ciclosporin as a 4-h intravenous infusion. The last blood sample was acquired 48 h after the end of the infusion. Bioequivalence assessments according to current guidelines were performed.

RESULTS

The geometric mean ratios for CicloMulsion(®)/Sandimmune(®) (90 % confidence interval [CI]) were 0.90 (0.88, 0.92) for AUC(0-last) (area under the blood concentration-time curve from time zero to time of last measurable concentration) and 0.95 (0.92, 0.97) for C(max) (maximum blood concentration). For all additional variables analysed, the 90 % CIs were also within the accepted bioequivalence range of 0.80-1.25. One anaphylactoid and one anaphylactic reaction, both classified as serious adverse events, were reported after treatment with Sandimmune(®). No serious adverse events were recorded after treatment with CicloMulsion(®).

CONCLUSION

We have assessed the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of a new Cremophor(®) EL-free lipid emulsion of ciclosporin, CicloMulsion(®), compared to Sandimmune(®). The proportion of adverse events was significantly higher for the Cremophor(®) EL-based product Sandimmune(®). We conclude that CicloMulsion(®) is bioequivalent to Sandimmune(®) and exhibits fewer adverse reactions.

The once-daily formulation of tacrolimus: a step forward in kidney transplantation?

Nonadherence is a critical issue in transplantation. Recently, Astellas designed a once-daily-extended release formulation of tacrolimus (Tac). Despite initial reports showing bioequivalence of Tac once-daily (Advagraf) with the original formulation requiring twice-daily intake (Tac twice-daily, Prograf), several groups have now shown a sustained decrease in Tac exposure upon conversion from Prograf to Advagraf. Here, we discuss the possible reasons for this observation and how it could affect the expected benefits of Advagraf, and we comment on the fact that a similar lack of bioequivalence might prevail with generic immunosuppressive drugs.

Cyclosporine: A Commentary on Brand versus Generic Formulation Exchange

The evidence for conversion from brand name to generic equivalent cyclosporine is conflicting. Cyclosporine is a narrow therapeutic-range drug for which small variations in exposure may have severe clinical consequences for transplant patients. There is currently a lack of comparative outcome data relating to the pharmacokinetics of the reference formulation, Neoral, and generic formulations in transplant recipients. A major common concern is the potential inability to attain similar trough levels, an issue that can be easily corrected by ongoing therapeutic drug monitoring to ensure that the new steady state falls within an intended target range. Prospective clinical studies investigating the efficacy and safety of generic formulations in both de novo and long-term transplant patients are also awaited. Until further evidence is available on the conversion of transplant patients to or between generic formulations of cyclosporine, any transfer to a different cyclosporine formulation should be undertaken with close supervision. The best available information to date, however, does not support the frequently held but unsubstantiated belief that generic preparations of immunosuppressive drugs are not as effective as brand names or that conversion from brand to generic is associated with significant danger. This paper attempts to initiate a discussion of these issues.

Conversion from Prograf to Advagraf among kidney transplant recipients results in sustained decrease in tacrolimus exposure

BACKGROUND

Advagraf is a slow release form of tacrolimus with once-daily formulation. The potential advantages of Advagraf are better adherence and a safer profile by avoiding toxic peak concentrations. In this study, we evaluated the required daily doses of tacrolimus and subsequent blood levels on conversion from Prograf to Advagraf among kidney transplant recipients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 55 patients for whom a switch from Prograf to Advagraf was identified. Tacrolimus daily doses and concomitant blood levels were analyzed at several time points ranging from 3 months before to 6 months after conversion.

RESULTS

We observed a significant increase in tacrolimus daily doses, starting with a dose of 0.063 mg/kg of Prograf, increasing up to 0.081 mg/kg of Advagraf at 6 months (P<0.0001). After conversion, we observed a quick and sustained decrease in trough tacrolimus levels, decreasing from 8.05 ng/mL at day 0 to 6.30 ng/mL at day 180 (P=0.0009). At 6 months, 35% of patients experienced a decrease in trough levels of more than 30%. Creatinine values remained stable over time, and no patient experienced an acute rejection episode.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to the manufacturer instructions, we found a significant decrease in tacrolimus exposure after switching to Advagraf. Therefore, the switch from Prograf to Advagraf should be performed under close medical supervision.

Pharmacokinetics in stable heart transplant recipients after conversion from twice-daily to once-daily tacrolimus formulations

BACKGROUND

A prolonged-release formulation of tacrolimus for once-daily administration (tacrolimus QD) has been developed. This phase II, open-label, multicenter, prospective single-arm study compared the pharmacokinetics (PK) of tacrolimus in stable heart transplant patients before and after conversion from twice-daily tacrolimus (tacrolimus BID) to tacrolimus QD.

METHODS

Heart transplant recipients (≥6 months after transplant), previously maintained on tacrolimus BID-based therapy, received tacrolimus BID from Days 1 to 7 and were converted on a 1:1 (mg/mg) basis to tacrolimus QD. Five 24-hour PK profiles were collected (Days 1, 7, 8, 14, 21). Safety parameters were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 85 patients, 45 (50.6%) completed all 5 evaluable PK profiles. Steady-state tacrolimus area under the curve, 0 to 24 hours (AUC(0-24)) and minimum concentration (C(min)) were comparable for both formulations, with treatment ratio means of 90.5% (90% confidence intervals [CI], 86.4%-94.6%) and 87.4% (95% CI, 82.9%-92.0%), respectively (acceptance interval, 80%-125%). There was good correlation between AUC(0-24) and C(min) for tacrolimus QD (r = 0.94) and BID (r = 0.91). The relationship between these 2 parameters was also similar.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence for successful conversion from tacrolimus BID to QD on a 1:1 (mg/mg) total daily dose basis. Approximately one-third of patients may require dose adjustments. Both formulations were well tolerated, with stable renal function during the study. Adverse events were reported by approximately one-tenth of patients receiving tacrolimus BID and a quarter of those who received QD.

Comparison of generic tacrolimus and Prograf drug levels in a pediatric kidney transplant program: brief communication

A generic version of tacrolimus was approved for use in the USA in August 2009. These narrow therapeutic index generics are tested for bioequivalence only in adults. No data are available on generic tacrolimus levels in children with allografts. Four patients with stable renal allografts in our pediatric program were inadvertently switched to generic tacrolimus. We retrospectively analyzed pre- and post-switch trough tacrolimus and serum creatinine levels. Twelve-h trough tacrolimus levels (mean ± s.e.) were (i) patient 1 (12-yr-old girl): 7.0 ± 0.69 and 9.7 ± 3.5 (p =NS); (ii) patient 2 (eight-yr-old boy): 4.7 ± 0.68 and 3.4 ± 0.84 (p = 0.04); (iii) patient 3 (22-yr-old woman): 6.8 ± 0.17 and 6.6 ± 0.4 (p = NS); (iv) patient 4 (20-yr-old woman): 5.4 ± 0.25 and 4.9 ± 1.4 (p = NS). Creatinine levels were similar pre- and post-switch (eGFR > 75 mL/min/1.73 m²) in the first three. Patient 4 experienced a biopsy proven acute rejection immediately after switching. Mean creatinine rose from 1.15 ± 0.05 to 2.168 ± 0.07 after switch (p < 0.001). Given our mixed picture with the early data, we suggest careful monitoring of pediatric patients who get switched to generic tacrolimus.