Recommendations for bioequivalence testing of cyclosporine generics revisited

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cyclosporine and psoriasis: 2008 National Psoriasis Foundation Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND

Cyclosporine is a valuable option for the treatment of psoriasis. This report summarizes studies regarding the use of cyclosporine since the last guidelines were published in 1998.

OBJECTIVE

A task force of the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board was convened to evaluate treatment options. Our aim was to achieve a consensus on new updated guidelines for the use of cyclosporine in the treatment of psoriasis.

METHODS

Reports in the literature were reviewed regarding cyclosporine therapy.

LIMITATIONS

There are few evidence-based studies on the treatment of psoriasis with cyclosporine.

RESULTS

A consensus was achieved on the use of cyclosporine in psoriasis including specific recommendations on dosing, monitoring, and use of cyclosporine in special situations. The consensus received approval from members of the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board.

CONCLUSIONS

Cyclosporine is a safe and effective drug for the treatment of psoriasis. It has a particularly useful role in managing psoriatic crises, treating psoriasis unresponsive to other modalities, bridging to other therapies, and treating psoriasis within a rotational scheme of other medications. Appropriate patient selection and monitoring will significantly decrease the risks of side effects.

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.

Drug-drug interaction after single oral doses of the furanocoumarin methoxsalen and cyclosporine

Furanocoumarins increase the bioavailability of drugs that are CYP3A4 substrates. A possible interaction of methoxsalen with cyclosporine was evaluated in 12 healthy volunteers following oral administration of 40 mg methoxsalen, 200 mg cyclosporine, or a combination of both in a randomized crossover study. Methoxsalen increased area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and peak plasma concentration (Cmax) of cyclosporine by 29% (range, -20% to 172%; P < .05) and 8% (range, -10% to 26%; P < .05), respectively, compared to cyclosporine alone. The AUC geometric means ratio (95% confidence interval) for cyclosporine plus methoxsalen/cyclosporine alone was 1.14 (1.02, 1.27), and treatments were therefore not bioequivalent. Methoxsalen causes a clinically significant interaction with cyclosporine in some susceptible individuals. The reasons for susceptibility and the clinical implications for chronic cyclosporine administration have not been established. Caution is recommended in combination therapy, and more frequent monitoring of cyclosporine plasma levels and clinical monitoring is advised.

Comparative bioavailability of the microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine (Neoral) with a generic dispersion formulation (Cicloral) in young healthy male volunteers

The aim of this study was to compare the bioavailability of cyclosporine (CyA) from the generic dispersion formulation Cicloral (CIC) with the microemulsion formulation Neoral (NEO) and the original Sandimmune (SIM) capsules after single doses of 100, 300, or 600 mg of drug, respectively. The study was performed according to an open 3-period cross-over design with 12 young healthy male volunteers for each dosage. The concentrations of CyA and its main metabolites were determined by high performance liquid chromatography in whole blood and urine up to 48 hours postdosing. Peak concentrations and area under the time-concentration curve were greater for the NEO and CIC formulations compared with SIM, and the mean bioavailability of CIC was significantly (P<0.05) lower compared with NEO. The bioavailability of SIM compared with NEO was 54% to 71%, in agreement with previous results. Bioequivalence was not demonstrated between CIC (test) and NEO (reference) as the 90% confidence intervals were outside the 80% to 125% guidelines based on log-transformed AUCs, and were 75.2% to 87.7% at 100 mg, 79.2% to 91.8% at 300 mg, and 76.6% to 94.5% at 600 mg doses. The respective values for Cmax were 78.9% to 94.6%, 80.7% to 95.0%, and 71.4% to 84.1%. A good correlation was demonstrated between the urinary recovery of CyA and the AUC4. Therefore, the urinary recovery of CyA may be helpful as a surrogate parameter for the systemic exposure of patients to CyA. Whereas the relative amount of hydroxylated metabolites (AM1, AM9, AM1c) was similar for all formulations and doses, the urinary recovery of the N-demethylated metabolite AM4N decreased with increasing dose indicating saturable metabolism. No relationship could be demonstrated between CYP3A activity using dextromethorphan as a probe for the metabolic clearance of CyA.

Assessment of the bioequivalence of a generic cyclosporine A by a randomized controlled trial in stable renal recipients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the bioequivalence of Cysporin, a generic cyclosporine A, compared with Neoral in stable renal transplant recipients.

METHODS

Study design consisted of an open label, two-way crossover, randomized controlled trial of Cysporin versus Neoral in stable renal transplant recipients. In all, 33 patients were enrolled; 31 were randomized and 28 were evaluable. AUCs(0-12) were done on day 14 and 28; C(0) and C(2) were done on days 0, 7, 21 and 35. Dose conversion was 1:1. Outcome measures for serum cyclosporin A concentrations expressed as the mean+/-SD were AUC(0-12) (microg x hr/L), C(max) (microg/L), C(2) (microg/L), T(max) (hr) and T(1/2) (hr). Mean and 90% CI of the ratio Cysporin/Neoral of log-transformed data were calculated using a general linear model.

RESULTS

The main pharmacokinetic features were: AUC(0-12): Cysporin 3495+/-1319, Neoral 3853+/-1378 (P<0.05); C(max): Cysporin 755+/-301, Neoral 881+/-368 (P<0.05); C(2): Cysporin 613+/-235, Neoral 672+/-255 (P>0.05); T(max): Cysporin 1.9+/-0.8, Neoral 1.4+/-0.6 (P<0.005); and T1/2: Cysporin 8.8+/-4.3, Neoral 8.7+/-6.2 (P>0.05). Estimated ratios of Cysporin/Neoral were: AUC 0.93 (90% CI 0.88-0.98; P<0.05); C(max) 0.88 (90% CI 0.80-0.97; P<0.05); and T(max) 1.32 (90% CI 1.14-1.53; P<0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the extent and rate of absorption of Cysporin are significantly less than those of Neoral. The 90% CI for the ratios of Cysporin/Neoral for AUC and C(max) lie within 0.80-1.25. Hence in this clinical context Cysporin is pharmacologically bioequivalent with Neoral. This study illustrates the importance of testing bioequivalence of generic cyclosporine A products in transplant recipients not healthy volunteers.

Switchover to generic cyclosporine in stable renal transplant recipients: a single unit experience

BACKGROUND

The introduction of the immunosuppressant cyclosporine has significantly improved renal transplant survival. It is an expensive drug and generic alternatives may offer cost advantages. However, generic alternatives must be shown to provide equivalent therapeutic efficacy and safety. This study reports our experience of a switch from the microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine, Neoral (Novartis), to the generic equivalent, Cysporin (Mayne Pharma).

METHOD

A two-period, single-sequence, cross-over study was done to compare cyclosporine blood levels and the area under the curve (AUC) of Neoral with Cysporin 2 weeks after a 1:1 dose switch. cyclosporine blood levels were measured at time points 0, 2, 4 and 8 h (C0, C2, C4, C8) after the switch. The cyclosporine AUC at 0-4 h and 0-12 h were calculated using the trapezoidal method. The two formulations were considered to result in equivalent blood levels if the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the two levels was within 0.8-1.25.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

A total of 38 stable renal transplant patients aged 49.79 +/- 11.38 years (mean +/- SD), who were 7.84 +/- 3.97 years postrenal transplantation, were studied. The Neoral dose at the time of the switch was 2.38 +/- 1.21 mg per kg bodyweight. At all measured time points the 95% CI for the cyclosporine drug level ratio was between 0.9 and 1.15. There were no significant adverse events during the period of study. We conclude that the generic formulation of cylosporin, Cysporin, after a 1:1 switch from Neoral results in equivalent blood levels in stable renal transplant recipients. After switchover cyclosporine levels at C0 or C2 can continue to be monitored as per the institution's current monitoring practice.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine

The introduction of cyclosporine into clinical practice improved transplant outcome. However, the use of cyclosporine is not without problems. A narrow therapeutic index (the drug causes irreversible kidney damage when given in too high a dose) coupled with variable absorption and unpredictable pharmacokinetics has resulted in the need to measure cyclosporine blood concentrations to enable the dose of the drug to be individualised to the patient. When this is done correctly therapeutic efficacy can be maximised while toxicity is kept to a minimum. The evolution of cyclosporine dose optimisation started with the adjustment of empirical fixed doses by clinical "judgement;" progressed to therapeutic drug monitoring of trough, predose, C0 concentration with non specific assays that measured parent drug and metabolite; then on to "specific" cyclosporine C0 measurements; through area under curve monitoring using full profile measurements and limited sampling scheme procedures; and finally ending up with absorption profiling that targets AUC in the first 4 hours or the 2 hour blood cyclosporine concentration, C2. At the same time the formulation of cyclosporine has changed from Sandimmune to Neoral and now generic forms of the latter are available. The evidence base supporting C2 monitoring continues to grow and the technique will need to be customised as new combination therapies emerge. Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine may also need to be tailored to avoid the potential negative impact of switching patients to generic forms of the drug.

Cyclosporin A pharmacokinetics and efficacy in the treatment of atopic dermatitis in dogs

A series of experiments was conducted to study cyclosporin A (CsA) pharmacokinetics in dogs and the factors influencing variability of blood concentrations. In a first study, influence of feeding on drug absorption and blood profile was evaluated. Administration of CsA as micro-emulsion (ME) formulation with food decreased the bioavailability by 22% and increased the individual variability of drug absorption. In a second study, pharmacokinetic profiles from laboratory fasted beagle dogs receiving orally CsA ME formulation were analyzed. CsA was measured in blood samples by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC, 34 profiles) and fluorescent polarization immunoassay (FPIA, 16 profiles). A two-compartment model with first-order absorption was used to calculate the pharmacokinetic parameters. Using FPIA, blood concentrations were 1.5 to 1.7 times higher than when using HPLC, but elimination half-life and MRT were similar. The coefficient of variation of key pharmacokinetic parameters ranged from 27 to 34% following HPLC assay. The same range of variation was obtained after FPIA assay. In a third study, in a clinical trial evaluating CsA for the treatment of canine atopic dermatitis, a single blood sample was collected in dogs which had received CsA for 28 days. No significant correlation was found between clinical improvement and CsA blood concentrations. Considering the large margin of safety of CsA in dogs, the limited inter-individual variability and the lack of correlation between blood concentrations and clinical response, routine monitoring of blood CsA does not appear necessary in dogs with atopic dermatitis.

Bioequivalence of a new cyclosporine a formulation to Neoral

New cyclosporine A (CsA) formulations must prove their bioequivalence to Neoral, the reference CsA formulation, to allow free prescription for the patients. The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a new CsA formulation (Zinograf-ME), produced by Strides-Arcolab, to Neoral and to demonstrate their interchangeability in stable renal transplant recipients. Twelve-hour PK studies were obtained from 18 (13 M/5 F) adult patients (mean age 44.7 +/- 12 years). They received their renal allografts from 13 cadaver and 5 living donors. Before enrollment, all patients were receiving a third generic CsA for a mean of 48 months. Nine patients were also under azathioprine and 9 under mycophenolate mofetil; 17 received prednisone. A single oral dose of either Zinograf or Neoral was administered. The first PK study was performed with one formulation, and 1 week later, a second PK was done with the other formulation. During the washout period, patients continued taking the third CsA formulation. The drug substitution was done milligram-for-milligram. The CsA whole-blood level was measured by TDx immunoassay. Mean +/- SD of area under the curve (AUC), maximum concentration (C(max)), and concentration at the second hour (C2) of Zinograf were not statistically different from those with Neoral (4019 +/- 1466 vs 3971 +/- 1325 ng x h/mL, 998 +/- 376 vs 1021 +/- 356 ng/mL, and 707 +/- 254 vs 734 +/- 229 ng/mL, respectively). In the same way, the Zinograf 90% confidence interval for either C(max) (-123, +77 ng/mL) or AUC (-214, +311 ng.mL/h) were within the Neoral bioequivalence interval for the same parameters (+/-204 ng/mL and +/-794 ng x mL/h, respectively). These data demonstrate that the ZinografME CsA formulation is bioequivalent to Neoral.

Report of the American Society of Transplantation conference on immunosuppressive drugs and the use of generic immunosuppressants

Considerable economic and health-related costs are associated with the life-long maintenance immunosuppressive therapy required to prevent transplant rejection. Generic medications have the potential of providing equivalent therapeutic efficacy at a lower economic cost. In 2001, the American Society of Transplantation invited experts to review the data and issues associated with the approval and use of generic immunosuppressants. A summary of that meeting is reported here. The generic medication approval process has been in effect for more than 30 years. All marketed generic cyclosporin formulations have met FDA criteria demonstrating bioequivalence in healthy subjects, and some were also tested in transplant recipients. Most participants agreed that generic narrow therapeutic index immunosuppressive agents provide adequate de novo immunosuppression in low-risk transplant recipients. However, some participants expressed concern regarding the currently unquantified risk that may be associated with switching immunosuppressive agents under uncontrolled circumstances. There was broad agreement among the participants that generic medications should be clearly labeled and distinguishable from innovator drugs, and that patients should be educated to inform their physicians of any switch to or among generic alternatives. There was also strong support in favor of requiring studies to demonstrate bioequivalence in potentially at-risk patient populations, specifically African-Americans and pediatric patients.

Randomized, open-label preference study of two cyclosporine capsule formulations (usp modified) in stable solid-organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Prior research has indicated patient dissatisfaction with the odor, size, and taste of cyclosporine capsules, as well as the halitosis and body odor the capsules can cause.

OBJECTIVES

The purposes of this investigation were to (1) compare the overall cyclosporine capsule preference (Gengraf vs Neoral) in stable, solid-organ transplant recipients, (2) assess patient preference based on specific capsule attributes, and (3) determine the reliability of the Cyclosporine Capsule SatiSfaCtion Survey (original to this study).

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, preference study, patients were recruited from 144 centers in North America with established transplant programs. Solid-organ transplant recipients who had taken stable doses of cyclosporine (Neoral) for >/=2 consecutive months were randomized in a 9:1 ratio to receive another cyclosporine formulation (Gengraf) or to remain on Neoral therapy. Patients completed the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey prior to randomization (baseline survey) and after taking the study drug for 4 weeks (final survey). The survey consisted of multiple attribute items with high face validity in assessing patients' perceptions and preferences with regard to their overall experience, as well as specific attributes of cyclosporine capsules known to affect patient acceptance.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat population included 1906 patients (1211 men, 693 women [sex unknown in 2 patients]; mean [SD] age, 50.2 [12.4] years). A total of 1708 patients were switched to Gengraf; 198 continued on Neoral. Based on their overall experience with both capsule formulations, the majority of patients switched to Gengraf (61.9%) responded that they preferred the Gengraf capsule, compared with 13.7% who preferred the Neoral capsule and 24.4% who indicated no preference (P < 0.001). A similar preference for Gengraf was observed based on capsule odor (66.3%), ease of swallowing (51.5%), taste (57.1%), and impact on breath odor (52.5%) and body odor (48.4%) (P < 0.001 for each test). The results of internal consistency and reproducibility calculations were high for the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey. Internal consistency ranged from alpha = 0.84 to 0.95 for the subscales and was alpha = 0.95 for the overall score. Ranges for reproducibility in the subscales were r = 0.75 to 0.79, with an overall reproducibility of r = 0.85. Guyatt's responsiveness statistics for the subscale and overall scores were moderately high to very high, indicating that the survey is capable of measuring change in response to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the transplant recipients receiving Gengraf in this study, most preferred Gengraf to Neoral based on overall experience, capsule odor, difficulty swallowing, taste, breath odor, and body odor. Among all study patients, fewer patients receiving Gengraf were bothered by capsule odor, difficulty in swallowing, taste, or the impact on breath or body odor compared with patients who continued to receive Neoral. Internal consistency, reproducibility, and responsiveness results show that the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey is a psychometrically valid instrument that is appropriate for use in clinical trials.

Immunosuppressive therapy for paediatric transplant patients: pharmacokinetic considerations

Immunosuppressive therapy in paediatric transplant recipients is changing as a consequence of the increasing number of available immunosuppressive agents. Generic and other new formulations are now emerging onto the market, clinical experience is growing, and it is expected that clinicians should tailor immunosuppressive protocols to individual patients by optimising dosages and drugs according to the maturation and clinical status of the child. Most information about the clinical pharmacokinetics of immunosuppressive drugs in paediatrics is centred on cyclosporin, tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in renal and liver transplant recipients; data regarding other immunosuppressants and transplant types are limited. Although the clinical pharmacokinetics of these drugs in paediatric transplant recipients are still under investigation, it is evident that the pharmacokinetic parameters observed in adults may not be applicable to children, especially in younger age groups. In general, patients younger than 5 years old show higher clearance rates irrespective of the organ transplanted or drug used. Another important factor that frequently affects clearance in this patient population is the post-transplant time. In accordance with these findings, and in contrast with the usual under-dosage in children, the need for higher dosages in younger recipients and during the early post-transplant period seems evident. To achieve the best compromise between prevention of rejection and toxicity, dosage individualisation is required and this can be achieved through therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). This approach is particularly useful to ensure the cost-effective management of paediatric transplant recipients in whom the pharmacokinetic behaviour, target concentrations for clinical use and optimal dosage strategies of a particular drug may not yet be well defined. Although TDM may be a tool for improving immunosuppressive therapy, there is little information concerning its positive contribution to clinical events, including outcomes, for paediatric patients. Substantial information to support the use of TDM exists for cyclosporin and, to a lesser extent, for tacrolimus, but a diversity of options affects their implementation in the clinical setting. The role of TDM in therapy with mycophenolate mofetil and sirolimus has yet to be defined regarding both methods and clinical indications. Pharmacodynamic monitoring appears more suited to other immunosuppressants such as azathioprine, corticosteroids and monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies. If coupled with pharmacokinetic measurements, such monitoring would allow earlier and more precise optimisation of therapy. Very few population pharmacokinetic studies have been carried out in paediatric transplant patients. This type of study is needed so that techniques such as Bayesian forecasting can be applied to optimise immunosuppressive therapy in paediatric transplant patients.

Therapeutic drug monitoring for immunosuppressants

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressants have significantly increased patient survival, e.g. in renal transplant up to 90% for the first year.

METHODS

Four immunosuppressants are used for clinical applications in the United States: cyclosporine (CsA) (Sandimmune and Neoral), FK 506-tacrolimus (ProGraf), mycophenolic mofetil (CellCept)--the prodrug for the mycophenolic acid (MPA), and rapamycin (RAPA) (Sirolimus). For CsA and FK 506, the rationale for monitoring is due to the variable pharmacokinetics, acute infection, dosage adjustment, non-compliance check, and for long-term maintenance therapy. Targeted whole blood concentrations ranges are: for CsA, 100-400 ng/ml depending on the methods, therapy and organs; and for FK 506, 5-20 ng/ml. For MPA, drug bioavailability--the plasma area-under-curve up to 12 h of 32.2-60.6 mg h/l was correlated to the biopsy-proven rejection rate of <10%. Monitoring is advocated for liver and renal transplants, for pediatrics, and for checking for non-compliance. RAPA monitoring is useful to check for variable pharmacokinetics, for non-compliance and others. The therapeutic range is tentatively targeted for 5-15 ng/ml. Monitoring methodologies are: for CsA, immunoassays such as fluorescence polarization immunoassay, and liquid chromatography (LC); for FK 506, microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA); for MPA, enzyme multiplied immunoassay and LC; and for RAPA, MEIA, LC and LC-mass spectrometry. Proficiency survey programs for CsA and FK 506 are available from the US and Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring of immunosuppressants has become an essential adjunct to the drug therapy for organ transplant patients.