Comparative pharmacokinetic study of two mycophenolate mofetil formulations in stable kidney transplant recipients

Generic Medicinal Products in Immunosuppressive Therapy-Should It be a Challenge for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring?

ABSTRACT

Immunosuppressants have a narrow therapeutic index (NTIDs). Indisputably cyclosporine, tacrolimus, everolimus, and sirolimus have NTIDs, and only in the case of mycophenolic acid, a scientific discussion has not been yet concluded. Their specificities highlight the implications for generics introduced into the drug market, more precisely, with bioequivalence testing. In the European Union, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released the "Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence." The bioequivalence (BE) of the generic (tested, T) versus original (reference, R) product should be confirmed by obtaining a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the T:R ratio of each of the 2 decisive pharmacokinetic parameters, namely, the area under the curve (AUC) between 90.00% and 111.11%. A similar approach (90.00%-112.00%) for AUC was adopted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for NTIDs; however, the US Food and Drug Administration is still based on classic acceptance criteria: 90% CI between 80.00% and 125.00% but with special requirements of BE testing. A discussion about long-expected global consensus was performed in this study based on the literature concerning BE testing in the case of NTIDs. The narrow acceptance criteria reduce the potential mean difference in bioavailability between generic and original products by a few percent. To identify this problem, special attention has been paid to switching drugs (generic-generic, original-generic) and therapeutic drug monitoring after conversion (TDM). There is no global consensus on the acceptance criteria for the BE of generic drugs; therefore, consensus and harmonization are strictly necessary. This study presents a review of the generic drug market and its classification by manufacturers, drug agencies, and dates of marketing authorization. Guidelines for TDM optimization (during switching/conversion) have been proposed. Physicians and clinical pharmacists should pay special attention to switching immunosuppressive drugs between original versus generic formulations, and generic versus generic formulations. Patients and their families should be educated on the risks associated with uncontrolled conversion.

Important considerations for drugs, nutritional, and herbal supplements in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients

Pediatric transplant recipients are on multiple prescription and non-prescription drugs. Many patients also use dietary, nutritional, and herbal supplements. This manuscript researched formulations of immunosuppressive drugs currently available and presents information on generic immunosuppressive drugs, commonly used non-prescription medications, dietary supplements, and herbal supplements. Immunosuppressive drugs are available in various formulations. Not all formulations are interchangeable. A number of FDA-approved generic formulations are available commercially in the United States. Generally generic formulations produce similar blood concentration vs time profiles compared to brand name products in adults and are considered to be bioequivalent. NSAID should be avoided in transplant patients due to potential drug interactions and increased risk associated with NSAID use; and appropriate doses of acetaminophen should be used for treatment of pain. Over-the-counter medications, such as guaifenesin and dextromethorphan, antihistamine medications, including diphenhydramine, loratadine, cetirizine, and fexofenadine, can be safely used in pediatric solid organ transplant population. Many safe and effective over-the-counter options exist for stool softening and as laxative. Diarrhea can lead to an increase in calcineurin inhibitor levels. Food can alter the absorption of immunosuppressive drugs. Several herbal products can alter immune status of the patients or alter the blood concentration of immunosuppressive drugs or may produce renal or hepatic toxicities and should be avoided in pediatric transplant recipients. It is important to educate pediatric transplant recipients and their families about not only immunosuppressive drug therapy but also about non-prescription drugs, dietary, and herbal supplement use.

Investigating a Modified Apparatus to Discriminate the Dissolution Capacity In Vitro and Establish an IVIVC of Mycophenolate Mofetil Tablets in the Fed State

In this study, a modified dissolution apparatus was developed by equipping a USP apparatus Ⅰ with an open-loop system to discriminate the dissolution capacity in vitro and establish an in vitro and in vivo correlation (IVIVC) for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) tablets. MMF had strong pH-dependent solubility that could influence the dissolution rate in vivo after the meal. Dissolution tests involving reference (Cellcept®) and test formulations (F1 and F2) were conducted using pH 4.5 acetate buffer to simulate gastric fluids in the fed state. The dissolution profiles of the reference and test formulations were distinguished by using the modified dissolution apparatus and compared with those determined using the USP apparatuses Ⅱ and Ⅳ, and the dissolution capacities of the formulations were discriminated at different sampling time-points. The results of human bioequivalence (BE) studies in the fed state were consistent with in vitro evaluations that the maximum concentrations (C_max,in vivo) of both F1 and F2 fell below the acceptable range (80.00%). A level A IVIVC between the absorption fraction in vivo and dissolution in vitro, and a level C correlation between C_max,in vivo and C_{max,in vitro}, were established to guide the optimization of the tablet formulation containing MMF.

Generics in transplantation medicine: Randomized comparison of innovator and substitution products containing mycophenolate mofetil

Objective: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is widely used as an immunosuppressant for the prophylaxis of acute organ rejection in recipients of solid organ transplants. Materials and methods: We have compared, in healthy subjects, the pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid when MMF was administered in the form of the innovator product CellCept (F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.) or one of three commercially available generics, Renodapt (Biocon Ltd.), Mycept (Panacea Biotec), or Cellmune (Cipla Ltd.). The study was powered to detect a 20% difference in mean formulation performance measures, but not to formally evaluate bioequivalence. Geometric mean ratios of maximum concentrations (C_max) and areas under plasma concentration-time curves were calculated. Results: Comparing generics against each other, the differences in point estimates of the geometric mean ratios of C_max of two of the comparisons were either borderline within (Renodapt/Cellmune) or clearly outside (Mycept/Cellmune) a region of 80 – 125% around the reference mean, indicating that bioequivalence between these generics may be difficult to show. Conclusion: Physicians in the field of transplantation should be aware of the potential risk of altering the therapeutic outcome when switching from one preparation of MMF to another. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02981290.

A Study of the Pharmacokinetic Comparison between the Generic and Original Form of Mycophenolate Mofetil Among Thai Renal Transplant Patients

BACKGROUND

Mycophenolic acid (MPA) is one of the main immunosuppressive regimens used after kidney transplantation (KT). The less expensive, generic form of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Immucept^®) is recently available in Thailand. Comparisons of the pharmacokinetic profiles between the original and generic forms of MMF among post-KT patients are limited.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study recruited KT patients receiving stable doses of MMF 1000 mg daily along with tacrolimus and steroids. All participants were prescribed CellCept^® 500 mg every 12 hours for at least 2 weeks before measuring the MPA area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC_0-12). CellCept^® was switched to Immucept^® 500 mg every 12 hours for 2 weeks and MPA AUC_0-12 was remeasured.

RESULTS

Twenty patients with a median follow-up time of 35.4 (11.13-198.83) months were enrolled. Mean MPA AUC_0-12 of Immucept^® was higher than CellCept^® without statistical significance (48.27 ± 2.31 μg⋅hr/mL vs 42.19±15.20 μg⋅hr/mL; P value = .59). No difference was revealed regarding the minimum measured concentration, maximum measured concentration, and time point with maximum concentration between both drugs. While on CellCept^®, 5 patients (25%) had an MPA AUC_0-12 < 30.0 μg⋅hr/mL, but 3 patients (15%) had MPA AUC_0-12 < 30.0 μg⋅hr/mL when receiving Immucept^®. However, 3 (15%) and 6 (30%) patients had MPA AUC_0-12 > 60.0 μg⋅hr./mL when treated with CellCept^® and Immucept^®, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Generic MMF exhibited a comparable pharmacodynamic profile as the original formulation. MPA AUC_0-12 was more than 30.0 μg⋅hr/mL among most patients receiving MMF 1000 mg/day.

The adoption of generic immunosuppressant medications in kidney, liver, and heart transplantation among recipients in Colorado or nationally with Medicare part D

The transplant community is divided regarding whether substitution with generic immunosuppressants is appropriate for organ transplant recipients. We estimated the rate of uptake over time of generic immunosuppressants using US Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event (PDE) and Colorado pharmacy claims (including both Part D and non-Part D) data from 2008 to 2013. Data from 26 070 kidney, 15 548 liver, and 6685 heart recipients from Part D, and 1138 kidney and 389 liver recipients from Colorado were analyzed. The proportions of patients with PDEs or claims for generic and brand-name tacrolimus or mycophenolate mofetil were calculated over time by transplanted organ and drug. Among Part D kidney, liver, and heart beneficiaries, the proportion dispensed generic tacrolimus reached 50%-56% at 1 year after first generic approval and 78%-81% by December 2013. The proportion dispensed generic mycophenolate mofetil reached 70%-73% at 1 year after generic market entry and 88%-90% by December 2013. There was wide interstate variability in generic uptake, with faster uptake in Colorado compared with most other states. Overall, generic substitution for tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil for organ transplant recipients increased rapidly following first availability, and utilization of generic immunosuppressants exceeded that of brand-name products within a year of market entry.

Generic immunosuppressants

Immunosuppressive drugs for solid organ transplantation are critical dose drugs with a narrow therapeutic index. Many of the most commonly used innovator drugs are off patent and have been replicated by generic counterparts, often at substantial cost-savings to the patient. However, serious adverse events caused by the transition from innovator to generic medications, specifically in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients, have questioned these autosubstitutions. The purpose of this review is to summarize the criteria set forth by the regulatory bodies, and to examine how major immunosuppressive drugs conform to these recommendations. Regulatory bodies have established inconsistent criteria to demonstrate bioequivalence between innovator and generic medications, causing approved generic variations to have varying levels of equivalence with the innovator drugs. In order to minimize the risk for under-immunosuppression, the following recommendations have been concluded. Brand prescribing of cyclosporine and tacrolimus are recommended due to evidence of adverse events after conversion to generic formulations and differences in dissolution parameters. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) shows better bioequivalence between innovator and generic formulations, however caution should be advised when switching between formulations. The institution of 'innovator only' policies may be appropriate at this time in order to minimize the risk of under-immunosuppressing patients until the evidence of more stringent bioequivalence has been established.

[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.

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.

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.

Safety and efficacy of the switch to generic mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus in heart transplant patients

BACKGROUND

Generic immunosuppressants may offer economic advantages, but their use is still controversial. At our center, 55 heart transplant patients were switched from CellCept(®) to Myfenax Teva(®) (MT) (n = 51, 18% female, 8.1 ± 6.6 yr post-transplantation) and/or Prograf(®) to Tacrolimus Sandoz(®) (TS) (n = 17, 41% female, 6.6 ± 5.8 yr post-transplantation).

METHODS

We conducted an acute monitoring and a retrospective follow-up with regard to safety and efficacy. Acute cellular rejections (ACRs) on endomyocardial biopsies (EMBs) four wk after the MT switch were specifically compared to a matched retrospective control group.

RESULTS

Tacrolimus C0 levels (TS switch) as well as hemoglobin, leukocytes, and thrombocytes (MT switch) did not change (p = NS) during the three wk after each respective switch (8.7 ± 2.9 vs. 8.4 ± 1.9 μg/L, 129.1 ± 12.6 vs. 130.1 ± 12.8 g/L, 6.3 vs. 6.2 × 10(9) /L, and 217.4 ± 56.6 vs. 219.3 ± 61.8 × 10(9) /L, respectively). 0% of the EMBs in the MT switch vs. 3% of the EMBs in the control group showed ACR>grade 1R (p = NS). After six months, survival was 96% (MT switch) and 100% (TS switch), and the frequency of severe ACR was low. Safety parameters measured at the next annual follow-up were also stable following each switch.

CONCLUSION

Switching to MT and/or TS several years after heart transplantation appeared safe in the short-term perspective, showing no detectable changes in tacrolimus C0 levels, safety or efficacy, during an average follow-up of six months.

Bioavailability of a generic of the immunosuppressive agent mycophenolate mofetil in pediatric patients

The use of generic immunosuppressive agents is controversial, especially for the treatment of pediatric patients, as information on the bioavailability of generic immunosuppressants in children is particularly scarce. The aim of the study was to compare the bioavailabilities of two products containing mycophenolate mofetil, the innovator and a generic, in children. Pediatric patients with end-stage renal disease on the waiting list for renal transplantation received a single oral dose of mycophenolate mofetil as either the innovator product (CellCept(®) , Roche) or the generic (Tevacept(®) , Teva Pharmaceuticals). A nine point pharmacokinetic profile was obtained. Mycophenolic acid concentration was quantitated in plasma by HPLC, plasma concentration-against-time curves were constructed, and bioavailability parameters were determined. Pharmaceutical quality analysis of both formulations, including drug content and dissolution profile, was also performed. There were no statistically significant differences between formulations in bioavailability parameters. Interindividual variability was very important, but individual values of AUC, an indicator of the extent of drug absorption, were within the same range for both formulations. The two formulations exhibited similar drug content and dissolution profiles, as well as comparable mycophenolic acid plasma levels in an end-stage renal failure population.

Do we need to worry about mycophenolate overdose?

INTRODUCTION

To discuss the significance of the recent observational case series from the Swiss Toxicological Information Centre (STIC). Mycophenolic acid (MPA) and its prodrug mycophenolate mofetil are immunosuppressive agents that are frequently prescribed in renal transplant recipients, and their safety profiles must be established.

AREAS COVERED

This case series and systemic literature analysis consists of 15 cases of MPA overdose from the STIC and a systemic analysis of the literature over the past 18 years. This study focuses on acute overdosing, the effects of which are presumably mild. In contrast, the effects of long-term overdosing may be much more severe. Substantial underreporting is likely. The pharmacokinetic monitoring of MPA is rarely performed, which is both striking and does not coincide with findings in academic literature. The scant data on pharmacokinetic monitoring presented demonstrated that MPA has a short terminal half-life, which suggests that decontamination and activated charcoal treatment in acute overdose may not be necessary.

EXPERT OPINION

The case series and systematic literature analysis of acute mycophenolate overdose represent an important contribution toward increasing the safety of MPA therapy.

Controlled-dose versus fixed-dose mycophenolate mofetil for kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Although mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is recommended at a fixed dose, there is increasing interest in controlled-dose (CD) MMF based on therapeutic drug monitoring. We systematically evaluated published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of CD versus fixed-dose MMF for kidney transplant recipients.

METHODS

The electronic databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library (up to June 2012) were searched to identify relevant RCTs. Two reviewers independently applied the study selection criteria, examined the study quality, and extracted the data. Dichotomous measures were expressed as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes were expressed as weighted mean difference, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.1.6.

RESULTS

Four RCTs met our selection criteria and included 1755 de novo recipients. The differences between CD and fixed-dose MMF in treatment failure (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10; P=0.52), serum creatinine clearance (weighted mean difference, 2.46; 95% CI, -1.15 to 6.07; P=0.18), total gastrointestinal adverse events (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.65-2.35; P=0.53), diarrhea (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92-1.25; P=0.35), anemia (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.95-1.64; P=0.12), leukopenia (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93-1.35; P=0.25), thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.47-1.36; P=0.41), and malignancy (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.27-1.38; P=0.23) were not statistically significant. Furthermore, total infections were more frequent in the CD group (36.0% vs. 30.9%; RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30; P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidence, CD MMF administration cannot be recommended as routine practice for kidney transplant recipients. Therapeutic drug monitoring for MMF may be targeted toward high-risk recipients, who should be identified in future studies.