Generic Drug Immunosuppression in Thoracic Transplantation: An ISHLT Educational Advisory

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.

Kinetics of generic tacrolimus in heart transplantation: A cautionary note

Tacrolimus is a core component of immunosuppressive regimens. This study compared active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and dissolution kinetics of branded tacrolimus and formulations from three generic manufacturers (Mylan, Dr. Reddy's, Intas) including samples from patients who suffered acute cardiac allograft rejection. Generic samples showed similar API content compared to branded samples with no major impurities. Capsules that underwent uniformity testing had consistent capsule-to-capsule API. Dissolution testing showed similar profiles between branded tacrolimus and Mylan, but notable differences with Dr. Reddy's and Intas. The approximate maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) was highest in branded tacrolimus (29 minutes), followed by Mylan (26 minutes), Dr. Reddy's (19 minutes), and Intas (14 minutes) (Student-Newman-Keuls Multiple Comparisons Test; overall ANOVA: p = 0.0199, F = 6.469). This study suggests that the bioavailability of certain generic tacrolimus formulations peak significantly earlier than branded tacrolimus. Further study is needed to determine whether these differences are clinically relevant.

Meeting Regulatory Requirements for Drugs with a Narrow Therapeutic Index: Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Once-Daily Tacrolimus

Despite growing clinical confidence in generics and their potential to reduce long-term healthcare costs, the transplant community have had real concerns about the use of generic immunosuppressants. One such immunosuppressant is tacrolimus, a cornerstone of lifelong treatment for patients who have undergone a solid organ transplant. Tacrolimus has a narrow therapeutic index (NTI), giving rise to questions about the potential for clinically relevant altered drug exposure. Its use in transplant patients also gives rise to questions about the most discriminative subject population for bioequivalence studies. The recognised need for stringent criteria to support approval of generic drugs with an NTI led the European Medicines Association and Health Canada to provide detailed information on requirements for bioequivalence studies and introduce tighter bioequivalence limits for these drugs, including tacrolimus. The aim of this article is to illustrate how regulatory guidance is implemented during the clinical development of generic immunosuppressants, using a generic, once-daily prolonged-release formulation of tacrolimus as an example.

Immunosuppression with generic tacrolimus in liver and kidney transplantation-systematic review and meta-analysis on biopsy-proven acute rejection and bioequivalence

While rejection prevention with innovator tacrolimus (Tac) is one of the key factors for long-lasting graft function, the use of generic Tac is still under debate. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide an overview on the current body of evidence for the effect of generic Tac in adult liver (LT) and kidney transplantation (KT) with focus on both biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and bioequivalence. A systematic literature search for trials comparing generic versus innovator Tac was conducted accordingly. Seventeen studies (5 LT, 11 KT, 1 LT/KT) including 1412 patients were identified. About 92.9% (13/14; 5/5 LT, 8/9 KT) of studies reported the same or lower BPAR with generics (pooled RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.65-1.09); however, de novo studies showed a significantly lower risk with generic Tac (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.63-0.90), whereas conversion studies showed increased risk (RR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.00-3.70). Bioequivalence was demonstrated primarily in studies on conversion. The current evidence is mostly based on observational data and studies showing some risk of bias. In conclusion, whereas overall there was no significant difference in terms of BPAR, there is some evidence suggesting lower BPAR risk with generic Tac for de novo use.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

Comparison of the long-term efficacy and safety of generic Tacrobell with original tacrolimus (Prograf) in kidney transplant recipients

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of a generic tacrolimus (Tacrobell [TCB]) compared to the original tacrolimus (Prograf [PGF]) in kidney transplant recipients. In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed the data from 444 patients who took TCB as a first-line immunosuppressive drug and 245 patients who took PGF. The 5-year graft survival rate was 92% for patients in the PGF group and 97% for patients in the TCB group, respectively. Cox proportional hazards for a one-sided, noninferiority model showed noninferiority (upper confidence interval [CI] limit of the hazard ratio [HR]<1.2) for TCB compared to PGF (HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0–1.14). The 5-year patient survival rate was 96% for patients in the PGF group and 97% for patients in the TCB group. Cox proportional hazards for a one-sided, noninferiority model showed noninferiority (upper confidence interval limit of the HR<2.0) for TCB compared to PGF (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0–1.95). The 5-year acute rejection-free graft survival rate was not significantly different between the groups (TCB 67%, PGF 68.8%; P=0.6286). The incidence of adverse events including adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, malignancies, new-onset diabetes after transplantation, and infection events did not differ significantly between the two groups. We conclude that TCB is a comparable alternative to the original tacrolimus as a first-line immunosuppressive drug. Producers of generics should support further study of their products after approval to assure physicians of their efficacy and safety.

Comprehensive Care of the Lung Transplant Patient

Lung transplantation has evolved into a life-saving treatment with improved quality of life for patients with end-stage respiratory failure unresponsive to other medical or surgical interventions. With improving survival rates, the number of lung transplant recipients with preexisting and posttransplant comorbidities that require attention continues to increase. A partnership between transplant and nontransplant care providers is necessary to deliver comprehensive and optimal care for transplant candidates and recipients. The goals of this partnership include timely referral and assistance with transplant evaluation, optimization of comorbidities and preparation for transplantation, management of common posttransplant medical comorbidities, immunization, screening for malignancy, and counseling for a healthy lifestyle to maximize the likelihood of a good outcome. We aim to provide an outline of the main aspects of the care of candidates for and recipients of lung transplants for nontransplant physicians and other care providers.

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.

Transition from brand to generic tacrolimus is associated with a decrease in trough blood concentration in pediatric heart transplant recipients

There are limited data available on the bioequivalence of generic and brand-name tacrolimus in pediatric and heart transplant patients. We characterized changes in 12-hour trough concentrations and clinical outcomes after transition from brand to generic tacrolimus in pediatric thoracic organ transplant recipients. Patients with a pharmacy-confirmed date of switch between generic and brand tacrolimus were identified, as well as a matched control group that did not switch for comparison. We identified 18 patients with a confirmed date of switch, and in 12 patients that remained on the same dose, trough concentrations were 14% less than when they were on brand (p = 0.037). The average change was -1.15 ± 1.76 ng/mL (p = 0.045). The control group did not experience a change in trough concentration and was different than the switched group (p = 0.005). There were no differences in dosage changes or kidney or liver function. In the year after switch, 24% of patients who were switched to generic experienced a rejection event vs. 18% in the patients on brand. We suggest a strategy of monitoring around the time of transition, and education of the patient/family to notify the care team when changes from brand to generic or between generics occur.

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.

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.

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.

Equivalence and interchangeability of narrow therapeutic index drugs in organ transplantation

The calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), ciclosporin and tacrolimus, are the mainstay of immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation. Generic formulations of these drugs are now available. With increasing pressure on healthcare budgets and the consequent need to match health expectations to available resources, substitution with a generic product appears an attractive option to reduce costs. Approval of generic products differs from innovator drugs, and narrow therapeutic index drugs (NTIs; including CNIs) bring their own particular considerations. With NTIs, small variations in drug exposure could result in reduced immunosuppression or drug toxicity with potentially adverse effects on patient outcomes. NTIs are subject to stricter regulatory approval versus many other generic drugs. However, different generic formulations may still not necessarily be therapeutically equivalent in individuals, raising the possibility of significant differences in exposure between products. Although regional recommendations vary, many guidelines emphasise the need for NTI drug substitution to be initiated by the transplant physician, thus ensuring careful therapeutic monitoring and reduced negative patient impact. The need for therapeutic monitoring during generic substitution has important implications for the overall costs of generic treatment as these costs have to be factored in to the potential savings made from using generic formulations. The reduced acquisition costs of generic products may not necessarily translate into lower overall healthcare costs. This article examines the issue of equivalence and interchangeability of NTI drugs used in organ transplantation, the implications of the approval process for generic drugs on treatment efficacy and safety, and the effective management of substitutions between products.

[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.

Advances in immunosuppression after lung transplantation

Immunosuppression in transplantation has experienced changes in recent years as a result of the introduction of new drugs that act upon the different pathways of the host immune response with the purpose of securing more individualized immune suppression, with fewer side effects. Although following in the steps of other solid organ transplant modalities, lung transplantation, because of its special characteristics, has not yielded similar middle- and long-term results. Improved understanding of the underlying rejection mechanisms, the pharmacodynamic control of drugs, new administration routes designed to reduce the side effects, and new drug substances or immune modulating processes will all contribute to improve the expectations associated to lung transplantation in the near future.

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.

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.

Effectiveness, safety and cost of drug substitution in hypertension

Cost-containment measures in healthcare provision include the implementation of therapeutic and generic drug substitution strategies in patients whose condition is already well controlled with pharmacotherapy. Treatment for hypertension is frequently targeted for such measures. However, drug acquisition costs are only part of the cost-effectiveness equation, and a variety of other factors need to be taken into account when assessing the impact of switching antihypertensives. From the clinical perspective, considerations include maintenance of an appropriate medication dose during the switching process; drug equivalence in terms of clinical effectiveness; and safety issues, including the diverse adverse-event profiles of available alternative drugs, differences in the 'inactive' components of drug formulations and the quality of generic formulations. Patients' adherence to and persistence with therapy may be negatively influenced by switching, which will also impact on treatment effectiveness. From the economic perspective, the costs that are likely to be incurred by switching antihypertensives include those for additional clinic visits and laboratory tests, and for hospitalization if required to address problems arising from adverse events or poorly controlled hypertension. Indirect costs and the impact on patients' quality of life also require assessment. Substitution strategies for antihypertensives have not been tested in large outcome trials and there is little available clinical or economic evidence on which to base decisions to switch drugs. Although the cost of treatment should always be considered, careful assessment of the human and economic costs and benefits of antihypertensive drug substitution is required before this practice is recommended.