The clinical impact of 1:1 conversion from Neoral to a generic cyclosporine (Gengraf) in renal transplant recipients with stable graft function

Comparative safety of generic versus brand calcineurin inhibitors in solid organ transplant patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although generic ciclosporin-A (CsA) and tacrolimus (TAC) have been used for the prophylaxis of organ rejection in transplant patients for decades, evidence in their safety profile compared to reference listed drugs (RLDs) in real-world transplant patients remains limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare safety outcomes of generic CsA and TAC with the reference-listed drugs in solid organ transplant patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception until March 15, 2022, to select randomized and observational studies comparing safety profiles of generic versus brand CsA and TAC in de novo and/or stable solid organ transplant patients. Primary safety outcomes were changes in serum creatinine (Scr) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Secondary outcomes included incidences of infection, hypertension, diabetes, other serious adverse events (AEs), hospitalization, and death. Mean difference (MD) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Of 2612 publications identified, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies had a moderate risk of bias. Scr was statistically significantly lower in patients using generic CsA compared to brand at 1 month (MD = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.11, -0.04), while there were no statistically significant differences at 4 months, 6 months, and 12 months. No differences were detected in Scr (MD = -0.04; 95% CI: -0.13, 0.04) and estimated GFR (MD = -2.06; 95% CI: -8.89, 4.77) between patients using generic and brand TAC at 6 months. No statistically significant differences between generic CsA and TAC with their RLDs were observed for secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Findings support similarity in safety outcomes between generic and brand CsA and TAC in real-world solid organ transplant patients.

Treatment optimization of maintenance immunosuppressive agents in pediatric renal transplant recipients

Introduction: Graft survival in pediatric kidney transplant patients has increased significantly within the last three decades, correlating with the discovery and utilization of new immunosuppressants as well as improvements in patient care. Despite these developments in graft survival for patients, there is still improvement needed, particularly in long-term care in pediatric patients receiving grafts from deceased donor patients. Maintenance immunosuppressive therapies have narrow therapeutic indices and are associated with high inter-individual and intra-individual variability.Areas covered: In this review, we examine the impact of pharmacokinetic variability on renal transplantation and its association with age, genetic polymorphisms, drug-drug interactions, drug-disease interactions, renal insufficiency, route of administration, and branded versus generic drug formulation. Pharmacodynamics are outlined in terms of the mechanism of action for each immunosuppressant, potential adverse effects, and the utility of pharmacodynamic biomarkers.Expert opinion: Acquiring abetter quantitative understanding of immunosuppressant pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic components should help clinicians implement treatment regimens to maintain the balance between therapeutic efficacy and drug-related toxicity.

[The use of generics in transplantation: Towards rational and safe solutions!]

Generic immunosuppressive drugs are available in Europe Canada and the United States. Between countries, there are large differences in penetration of generic drugs in general, and for immunosuppressive drugs in particular. The registration for generic immunosuppressive drugs are slightly different, but the criteria for registration of narrow therapeutic index drugs and bioequivalence studies, performed only in healthy volunteers, will remain in the medical landscape. About 50 studies compare the clinical efficacy and bioequivalence of the generic immunosuppressive drugs in patients with solid organ transplants. To allow for safe substitution, a number of criteria need to be fulfilled. Consensus statements were made by most transplant organizations. Authorities and payers should refrain from forcing pharmacists to dispense generic drugs in patients on maintenance immunosuppressive treatment. Generic substitution could be safe if realized by the treating physician, for a well-informed patient. Substitution must be followed by control visits to check if the patient is taking the medication correctly and if the drug exposure, through a close monitoring, remains stable. Substitution from one generic to another generic should be avoided, in all cases.

Generic immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and bioequivalence of generic immunosuppressive drugs in patients with solid organ transplants.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies comparing generic with innovator immunosuppressive drugs.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase from 1980 to September 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

A literature search was performed for all studies comparing a generic to an innovator immunosuppressive drug in solid organ transplantation. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality of studies. Meta-analyses of prespecified outcomes were performed when deemed appropriate. Outcomes included patient survival, allograft survival, acute rejection, adverse events and bioequivalence.

RESULTS

1679 citations were screened, of which 50 studies met eligibility criteria (17 randomized trials, 15 non-randomized interventional studies, and 18 observational studies). Generics were compared with Neoral (cyclosporine) (32 studies), Prograf (tacrolimus) (12 studies), and Cellcept (mycophenolate mofetil) (six studies). Pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials in patients with kidney transplants that reported bioequivalence criteria showed that Neoral (two studies) and Prograf (three studies) were not bioequivalent with generic preparations according to criteria of the European Medicines Agency. The single Cellcept trial also did not meet bioequivalence. Acute rejection was rare but did not differ between groups. For Neoral, the pooled Peto odds ratio was 1.23 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 2.36) for kidney randomized controlled trials and 0.66 (0.40 to 1.08) for observational studies. For kidney observational studies, the pooled Peto odds ratios were 0.98 (0.37 to 2.60) for Prograf and 0.49 (0.09 to 2.56) for Cellcept. Meta-analyses for non-renal solid organ transplants were not performed because of a lack of data.There were insufficient data reported on patient or graft survival. Pooling of results was limited by inconsistent study methods and reporting of outcomes. Many studies did not report standard criteria used to determine bioequivalence. While rates of acute rejection seemed similar and were relatively rare, few studies were designed to properly compare clinical outcomes. Most studies had short follow-up times and included stable patients without a history of rejection.

CONCLUSIONS

High quality data showing bioequivalence and clinical efficacy of generic immunosuppressive drugs in patients with transplants are lacking. Given the serious consequences of rejection and allograft failure, well designed studies on bioequivalence and safety of generic immunosuppression in transplant recipients are needed.

Drug- not carrier-dependent haematological and biochemical changes in a repeated dose study of cyclosporine encapsulated polyester nano- and micro-particles: size does not matter

Biodegradable nanoparticles are being considered more often as drug carriers to address pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic issues, yet nano-product safety has not been systematically proven. In this study, haematological, biochemical and histological parameters were examined on 28 day daily dosing of rats with nano- or micro-particle encapsulated cyclosporine (CsA) to confirm if any changes observed were drug or carrier dependent. CsA encapsulated poly(lactide-co-glycolide) [PLGA] nano- (nCsA) and micro-particles (mCsA) were prepared by emulsion techniques. CsA (15, 30, 45 mg/kg) were administered by oral gavage to Sprague Dawley (SD) rats over 28 days. Haematological and biochemical metrics were followed with tissue histology performed on sacrifice. Whether presented as nCsA or mCsA, 45 mg/kg dose caused significant loss of body weight and lowered food consumption compared to untreated control. Across the doses, both nCsA and mCsA produce significant decreases in lymphocyte numbers compared to controls, commensurate with the proprietary product, Neoral(®) 15. Dosing with nCsA showed higher serum drug levels than mCsA presumably owing to the smaller particle size facilitating absorption. The treatment had no noticeable effects on inflammatory/oxidative stress markers or antioxidant enzyme levels, except an increase in ceruloplasmin (CP) levels for high dose nCsA/mCsA group. Further, only subtle, sub-lethal changes were observed in histology of nCsA/mCsA treated rat organs. Blank (drug-free) particles did not induce changes in the parameters studied. Therefore, it is extremely important that the encapsulated drug in the nano-products is considered when safety of the overall product is assessed rather than relying on just the particle size. This study has addressed some concerns surrounding particulate drug delivery, demonstrating safe delivery of CsA whilst achieving augmented serum concentrations.

Sex- and smoke-related differences in gastrointestinal transit of cyclosporin A microemulsion capsules

The aim of this work was to study the effect of the sex and the smoking status on the pharmacokinetics and the bioequivalence assessment of a branded and a generic cyclosporine A microemulsion formulation in soft-gelatin capsule. Sixteen healthy volunteers (eight women and eight men) participated in a CyA bioequivalence study, with nine of the volunteers being smokers. Sandimmun Neoral® (brand formulation; Reference) and Sigmasporin Microral® (generic formulation; Test) were administered under fasting conditions. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated through non compartmental analysis. Bioequivalence was declared based on the 90% confidence intervals (90% CI) for the T/R ratio of the geometric means for each parameter. In vitro determination of the capsules opening time was performed in simulated gastric fluid without enzyme with USP Apparatus 2. The extent of absorption was similar between both products for all subjects or each sex-group. The absorption rate was similar for both products when considering all subjects, whereas a significant difference in the TMAX between the two products was observed for the male subjects only, which relates to its slower capsule opening time observed in vitro (12.4 versus 6.0 min). No differences were observed in women that could relate to their slower gastric emptying. Differences in drug exposure were observed between smokers and non-smokers. Sex- and smoke-related differences in the gastrointestinal transit should be considered when the on-set time would be determinant for the treatment success of a drug.

Clinical outcomes associated with conversion from brand-name to generic tacrolimus in hospitalized kidney transplant recipients

PURPOSE

The safety of converting kidney transplant recipients on brand-name tacrolimus to generic tacrolimus during hospitalization was evaluated.

METHODS

A single-center observational study compared tacrolimus dosages and trough tacrolimus levels in kidney transplant recipients who had a kidney transplant more than 90 days before hospital admission. Patients in the "brand" group were maintained on brand-name tacrolimus throughout the entire study period. Patients in the generic group were maintained on brand-name tacrolimus before hospital admission, converted to the generic formulation during hospitalization, and returned to the brand-name product at discharge. Tacrolimus dosages were converted on a milligram-per-milligram basis and adjusted, if needed. Outcomes evaluated included the percentage of patients requiring a dosage change, absolute change in average tacrolimus trough level, and frequency of biopsy-proven acute rejection within six months of discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were evaluated for inclusion in the brand group, with 42 meeting study criteria; 98 patients were evaluated in the generic group, with 36 qualifying for the study. There were no significant differences between the brand and generic groups with respect to dosage adjustments required or trough tacrolimus levels at any point in the transition of care. Mean trough concentrations were similar between groups during all periods of care. The only occurrence of new-onset acute rejection within six months after admission occurred in the brand group.

CONCLUSION

Substitution of a generic formulation of tacrolimus for the innovator product during hospitalization of kidney transplant recipients was safely implemented. Tacrolimus dosage adjustments were common throughout the transitions of care, regardless of the formulation used.

[Special considerations in generic substitution of immunosuppressive drugs in transplantation]

Long-term success in solid organ transplantation strongly depends on the optimal use of maintenance immunosuppressive treatment. Cyclosporin and tacrolimus are the most frequently administered immunosuppressants and they are designed to narrow therapeutic index drugs. The substitution of the branded formulation by their generic counterparts may lead to economic benefit only if equivalent clinical outcomes can be achieved. There is no published evidence to date on the guarantee of their long-term therapeutic equivalence and cases of therapeutic failures have been reported due to inadvertent drug conversion. The disadvantageous clinical consequences of a non medical, mechanistic forced switch from the original to generic formulation of tacrolimus and the estimated loss of the payer's presumed savings are presented in a kidney transplant recipient population. Special problems related to pediatric patients, drug interactions with concurrent medications and the burden of additional therapeutic drug monitoring and follow up visits are also discussed. The authors are convinced that the implementation of the European Society of Organ Transplantation guidelines on generic substitution may provide a safe way for patients and healthcare payers.

Generic immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation: a Canadian perspective

The introduction of generic immunosuppressant medications may present an opportunity for cost savings in solid organ transplantation if equivalent clinical outcomes to the branded counterparts can be achieved. An interprofessional working group of the Canadian Society of Transplantation was established to develop recommendations on the use of generic immunosuppression in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) based on a review of the available data. Under current Health Canada licensing requirements, a demonstration of bioequivalence with the branded formulation in healthy volunteers allows for bridging of clinical data. Cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and sirolimus are designated as "critical dose drugs" and are held to stricter criteria. However, whether this provides sufficient guarantee of therapeutic equivalence in SOTR remains controversial, and failure to maintain an appropriate balance of immunosuppression may have serious consequences, including rejection, graft loss, and death. Published evidence supporting therapeutic equivalence of generic formulations in SOTR is lacking. Moreover, in the setting of multiple generic formulations the potential for uncontrolled product switching is a major concern, since generic preparations are not required to demonstrate bioequivalence with each other. Although close monitoring is recommended with any change in formulation, drug product switches are likely to occur without prescriber knowledge and may pose a significant patient safety risk. The advent of generic immunosuppression will require new practices including more frequent therapeutic drug and clinical monitoring, and increased patient education. The additional workload placed on transplant centers without additional funding will create challenges and could ultimately jeopardize patient outcomes. Until more robust clinical data are available and adequate regulatory safeguards are instituted, caution in the use of generic immunosuppressive drugs in solid organ transplantation is warranted.

Generic immunosuppression: deciphering the message our patients are receiving

BACKGROUND

The introduction of generic immunosuppressants elicited controversy within the transplant community and it is unknown whether patient attitudes mirror the ambiguity of provider perceptions. With the current health care economic crisis, it is necessary to consider generic immunosuppression as an option. A greater understanding of patient perceptions would enhance vital communication between providers and patients to facilitate education and appropriate monitoring.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate transplant recipients' perceptions of generic versus brand immunosuppressants based on experience with these agents and the willingness of patients to convert treatment from brand to generic formulations based on socioeconomic variables and baseline demographics.

METHODS

Key informant interviews were conducted to inform the development of the survey instrument. The survey was distributed to solid organ transplant recipients at a large, academic medical center from October to December 2010.

RESULTS

Nine patients participated in key informant interviews. Financial considerations and provider recommendations were the most commonly identified factors to influence perceptions of generic immunosuppressants. A total of 255 patients completed the survey; treatment in 81 (32%) participants had been converted to a generic immunosuppressant. Those currently receiving a generic immunosuppressant expressed higher beliefs of generic and brand equivalency (75% vs 54%, p = 0.006) and an increased willingness to convert treatment to a generic given equivalent cost (51% vs 32%, p = 0.024). African American participants were found to have a decreased belief of generic and brand equivalency compared to other ethnicities (60% vs 75%, p = 0.013). Participants with an annual income of less than $30,000 had higher beliefs of generic and brand equivalency (60% vs 40%, p = 0.0001). Education level and age did not impact beliefs of generic efficacy or willingness to convert therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient ethnicity, income, and experience with generic immunosuppressants appear to contribute to perceptions of generic immunosuppressants. The prevalence of generic immunosuppressant use supports the importance of communication of this issue between providers and patients.

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.

Next level of immunosuppression: drug/immune monitoring

1. Current immunological monitoring relies heavily on clinical judgment and therapeutic drug levels and does not adequately assess the functional or donor-specific immunosuppression (IS) status of recipients of liver transplantation (LT). 2. Trough levels of drugs are arbitrary and are more clinically relevant for preventing supratherapeutic or subtherapeutic dosing and blood concentrations and for more closely monitoring at-risk populations (children, the elderly, and patients with organ dysfunction). The AUC or the post-dose levels may be more precise, but they have not been used extensively by transplant centers. 3. Data on drug/immune monitoring specific to LT are fairly limited; therefore, clinical practice is often borrowed from experiences with nonhepatic transplantation (mainly renal transplantation). 4. The monitoring of drug levels in patients taking generic immunosuppressants is challenging because the formulations may change with each prescription. The monitoring of drug or antibody levels is not yet clinically available for biological therapies (induction, lymphocyte-depleting, and maintenance agents). 5. Polymorphisms in drug metabolism (cytochrome P450 and P-glycoprotein) may be useful in selecting the initial and maintenance dosages of immunosuppressants and in preventing complications from over or underimmunosuppression. 6. Future immune monitoring assays should be focused on genomic or immunological predispositions and on specific reactivities to donor antigens to guide the appropriate dosing and minimization of IS after LT.

Healthcare costs in renal transplant recipients using branded versus generic ciclosporin

BACKGROUND

Generic ciclosporin A modified (CsA) does not have an equivalent pharmacokinetic profile to branded CsA in some transplant populations, potentially leading to negative clinical consequences and increased long-term costs.

OBJECTIVE

To assess direct healthcare costs for de novo renal transplant recipients in the US receiving branded versus generic CsA in the first month after transplantation.

METHODS

Administrative claims data from eight private US health plans were linked to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data. A total of 227 renal transplant cases between 1996 and 2004 were included: 183 were dispensed branded CsA and 44 received generic CsA. Log transformed multiple linear regression was used to model total first-year healthcare costs after the initial CsA claim, controlling for both patient demographics and clinical characteristics and clustering at the transplant centre level.

RESULTS

After controlling for patient factors and pre-CsA costs, total healthcare costs were significantly higher (p = 0.04) for patients receiving generic CsA versus branded CsA. The main driver for the difference was the cost associated with immunosuppressants other than CsA (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Despite initial perceived cost savings associated with generic CsA, de novo renal transplant recipients incurred greater total healthcare costs than those treated with branded CsA. Patients receiving generic CsA may need higher doses or other immunosuppressants to maintain the transplanted kidney than patients receiving branded CsA. Providers and payers need to be aware of potential differences in total healthcare costs between formulations of bioequivalent critical-dose drugs to make the best choice for patient care.

Neoimmun versus Neoral: a bioequivalence study in healthy volunteers and influence of a fat-rich meal on the bioavailability of Neoimmun

In two crossover studies with 12 (6 males/6 females) healthy young volunteers each, we compared the bioavailability of Neoimmun capsules with the microemulsion Neoral and the influence of a fat-rich breakfast on the bioavailability of Neoimmun. Each volunteer received a single dose of 200 mg cyclosporine A in each period. Blood samples were taken up to 24 h and analysed for cyclosporine A by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and photometric detection. The pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by non-compartmental analysis. The treatments were tested for bioequivalence and significant differences. The bioavailability of Neoimmun was significantly lower compared to Neoral, albeit Neoimmun met the bioequivalence criterion (90% confidence interval of AUC 0.80-0.94) or missed the criterion only marginally (90% confidence interval of c (max) 0.75-0.91). The bioavailability of Neoimmun as determined by area under the blood concentration-time curve (AUC) increased by nearly 20% after a fat-rich breakfast. However, mean peak concentrations after food were only higher in male subjects, whereas mean peak concentrations in female subjects were lower compared to fasting administration. In conclusion, our data show that Neoimmun exhibits a lower bioavailability than the microemulsion Neoral and that food has a significant but variable and sex-dependent impact on the bioavailability of Neoimmun capsules.

Therapeutic monitoring of calcineurin inhibitors for the nephrologist

The calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) cyclosporine and tacrolimus remain the backbone of immunosuppression for most kidney transplant recipients. Despite many years of experience, protocols that optimize efficacy with minimal toxicity remain a subject of debate. Nevertheless, studies of the pharmacokinetic properties of the CNI, particularly cyclosporine, have led to improved dosing strategies. The purpose of this article is to review the current understanding of CNI pharmacokinetics and its relevance to proper dosing and monitoring of these medications. This article also reviews the trials that have helped to define the optimal dosages and discusses the effect of adjunctive immunosuppressive agents on CNI pharmacokinetics and dosing.