A randomized, crossover pharmacokinetic study comparing generic tacrolimus vs. the reference formulation in subpopulations of kidney transplant patients

Impact of Switching From Immediate- or Prolonged-Release to Once-Daily Extended-Release Tacrolimus (LCPT) on Tremor in Stable Kidney Transplant Recipients: The Observational ELIT Study

Once-daily extended-release tacrolimus (LCPT) exhibits increased bioavailability versus immediate-release (IR-TAC) and prolonged release (PR-TAC) tacrolimus. Improvements in tremor were previously reported in a limited number of kidney transplant patients who switched to LCPT. We conducted a non-interventional, non-randomized, uncontrolled, longitudinal, prospective, multicenter study to assess the impact of switching to LCPT on tremor and quality of life (QoL) in a larger population of stable kidney transplant patients. The primary endpoint was change in The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale (TETRAS) score; secondary endpoints included 12-item Short Form Survey (SF-12) scores, tacrolimus trough concentrations, neurologic symptoms, and safety assessments. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess change in TETRAS score and tacrolimus trough concentration/dose (C0/D) ratio by prior tacrolimus formulation and tacrolimus metabolizer status. Among 221 patients, the mean decrease of TETRAS score after switch to LCPT was statistically significant (p < 0.0001 vs. baseline). There was no statistically significant difference in change in TETRAS score after switch to LCPT between patients who had received IR-TAC and those who had received PR-TAC before switch, or between fast and slow metabolizers of tacrolimus. The overall increase of C0/D ratio post-switch to LCPT was statistically significant (p < 0.0001) and from baseline to either M1 or M3 (both p < 0.0001) in the mITT population and in all subgroups. In the fast metabolizers group, the C0/D ratio crossed over the threshold of 1.05 ng/mL/mg after the switch to LCPT. Other neurologic symptoms tended to improve, and the SF-12 mental component summary score improved significantly. No new safety concerns were evident. In this observational study, all patients had a significant improvement of tremor, QoL and C0/D ratio post-switch to LCPT irrespective of the previous tacrolimus formulation administered (IR-TAC or PR-TAC) and irrespective from their metabolism status (fast or slow metabolizers).

Bioequivalence evaluation and blood concentration estimation of generic and branded tacrolimus in healthy subjects under fasting: A randomized, four-periods, two-sequences, complete repeated, crossover study

OBJECTIVE

The demand for generic tacrolimus is enormous. Our randomized trial was an open-label single-dose testing with four-periods and two-sequences; we aimed to evaluate the bioequivalence between a generic and branded tacrolimus by establishing their area under concentration-time curve (AUC) predictive equations. For better comparison, each tacrolimus served either as test vs. reference in sequence 1 or vice versa as reference vs. test in sequence 2.

METHODS

Forty healthy subjects were randomized into two groups, namely a sequence 1 group (N = 20 in test-reference-test-reference) or sequence 2 (N = 20, reference-test-reference-test) received a test tacrolimus (Ruibeirong®; Chengdu Shengdi Medicine Co., Ltd.) and a reference tacrolimus (Astagraf XL®, Astellas Ireland Co., Ltd.) under the fasting condition with a wash-out period of ≥14 days between every two phases. Blood samples were collected sequentially until 120 h after oral administration of tacrolimus.

RESULTS

A 95% upper confidence bound was -0.05% for the peak concentration (Cmax), -0.02% for the AUC from 0 to the last time point (AUC0-t), and - 0.02% for the AUC from 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞). The geometric least square means ratio (test/reference) with 90% of confidence interval (CI)) was 96.10% (90.58%-101.95%) for Cmax, 93.80% (88.52%-99.39%) for AUC0-t, and 94.34% (89.20%-99.77%) for AUC0-∞. Meanwhile, the ratio of within-subject standard deviation of test/reference (σWT/WR) with 90% CI was 0.66 (0.50-0.86) for Cmax, 0.73 (0.55-0.96) for AUC0-t, and 0.75 (0.57-0.98) for AUC0-∞. These results fulfilled the bioequivalence criteria by the Food and Drug Administration. Both products showed acceptable safety. Moreover, the AUC predictive equations (by linear regression plus limited sampling strategy) with 2-5 sampling time point showed the high performance (all R > 0.970, predictive error (PE) >0.5%, absolute PE <5.1%, which were interchangeable between test and reference products.

CONCLUSION

Generic tacrolimus (Ruibeirong®) is bioequivalent to branded tacrolimus (Astagraf XL®) with tolerable safety, which AUC predictive equations work well and are interchangeable between the two products.

Evaluation of Clinical and Safety Outcomes Following Uncontrolled Tacrolimus Conversion in Adult Transplant Recipients

PURPOSE

To compare clinical and safety outcomes of transplant recipients converted between different tacrolimus formulations to those patients who remained on a single formulation in an outpatient environment.

METHODOLOGY

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study at a large tertiary care medical center with an associated institutional outpatient pharmacy system. Adult transplant recipients with institutional pharmacy refill from August 1, 2009, to May 31, 2016, were assessed. Patients were allocated into four separate groups: Group (A) innovator tacrolimus (no conversion), Group (B) generic tacrolimus (no conversion), Group (C) single conversion (from innovator to single generic or from generic to innovator tacrolimus), and Group (D) multiple conversions. Index date was either the date of first tacrolimus product conversion (Groups C and D) or a pre-specified post-transplant time (Groups A and B).

RESULTS

Overall, 100 patients were included in the analysis, 63% were male, 62% were Caucasian, and 59% were renal transplant recipients. When compared between groups, linear trends in dose-normalized tacrolimus levels were similar in the pre-index date period (p=0.52) and in the post-index date period (p=0.08). When groups were compared individually, linear trends in dose-normalized tacrolimus levels were significantly different pre- versus post-index date for Group B (p=0.008). There were no differences in the linear trends of dose-normalized tacrolimus levels across the other groups (p>0.05 for all). After the index date, 43% of patients across all groups required tacrolimus dose modification with no differences by group (p=0.32). Allograft function and hospitalizations were similar across all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion between tacrolimus generic formulations has been suggested to be unsafe. This study demonstrates that switching tacrolimus products in post-transplant recipients does not alter dose-normalized tacrolimus trough concentrations, renal or hepatic function, pathology, or hospitalizations.

Healthcare utilization and costs with fixed-source versus variable-source tacrolimus in patients receiving a kidney transplant

AIMS

Switching drug manufacturers in transplant patients may require an increased intensity of therapeutic monitoring, leading to additional healthcare visits, associated laboratory tests, and perhaps hospitalizations. As real-world studies examining the interchangeability of tacrolimus from different manufacturers are limited, the purpose of this study was to examine the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and economic impact of tacrolimus-switching in kidney transplantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional, retrospective study examined HRU and healthcare costs (HCCs) among patients with a kidney transplant who were prescribed tacrolimus from fixed-source (FS) vs variable-source (VS) manufacturers using claims data from the large US health plan Humana from October 1, 2012, to December 31, 2013.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,024 patients were identified (FS: n = 674, 66%; VS: n = 350, 34%). The number of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) events for the VS group was 13% greater than for the FS group after controlling for demographics, comorbidity score, and number of medications (incidence rate ratio = 1.13, p = .033). Adjusted total HCCs were 9% lower for VS (US$28,054 vs US$30,823, p = .045). In the unadjusted analysis, VS had greater emergency department (ED) utilization (45% vs 35%, p < .002). In the VS group, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) number of days from manufacturer switch to first outpatient visit was 23.8 (33.6), and the number of days (SD) to first TDM event was 43.6 (56.2).

LIMITATIONS

Study limitations include the lack of availability of many transplant-specific variables within the Humana database, potential errors/omissions in claims coding, and restriction of cross-sectional data examination to a 1-year period.

CONCLUSIONS

VS patients had greater TDM and lower total HCCs. Further research is warranted to understand the drivers of ED use among the VS group, and to determine factors associated with delayed TDM after regimen modification. Opportunities may exist to improve the quality of care for patients receiving immunosuppressant treatment with tacrolimus.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival.

OBJECTIVES

To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled.

FUTURE WORK

High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome.

CONCLUSION

Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

Physicians' Trust in the FDA's Use of Product-Specific Pathways for Generic Drug Approval

Background

Generic drugs are cost-effective versions of brand-name drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) following proof of pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence. Generic drugs are widely prescribed by physicians, although there is disagreement over the clinical comparability of generic drugs to brand-name drugs within the physician community. The objective of this survey was to assess physicians' perceptions of generic drugs and the generic drug approval process.

Methods and Findings

A survey was administered to a national sample of primary care internists and specialists between August 2014 and January 2015. In total, 1,152 physicians comprising of internists with no reported specialty certification and those with specialty certification in hematology, infectious diseases, and endocrinology were surveyed. The survey assessed physicians’ perceptions of the FDA’s generic drug approval process, as well as their experiences prescribing six generic drugs approved between 2008 and 2012 using product-specific approval pathways and selected comparator drugs. Among 718 respondents (62% response rate), a majority were comfortable with the FDA’s process in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of generic drugs overall (91%) and with letting the FDA determine which tests were necessary to determine bioequivalence in a particular drug (92%). A minority (13–26%) still reported being uncomfortable prescribing generic drugs approved using product-specific pathways. Overall, few physicians heard reports of concerns about generic versions of the study drugs or their comparators, with no differences between the two groups. Physicians tended to hear about concerns about the safety or effectiveness of generic drugs from patients, pharmacists, and physician colleagues.

Conclusions

Physicians hold largely positive views of the FDA's generic drug approval process even when some questioned the performance of certain generic drugs in comparison to brand-name drugs. Better education about the generic drug approval process and standards may alleviate concerns among the physician community and support the delivery of cost-effective health care.

Novel Once-Daily Extended-Release Tacrolimus Versus Twice-Daily Tacrolimus in De Novo Kidney Transplant Recipients: Two-Year Results of Phase 3, Double-Blind, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

1-year data from this trial showed the noninferiority of a novel once-daily extended-release tacrolimus (LCPT; Envarsus XR) to immediate-release tacrolimus (IR-Tac) twice daily after kidney transplantation.

STUDY DESIGN

Final 24-month analysis of a 2-armed, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, phase 3 trial.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

543 de novo kidney recipients randomly assigned to LCPT (n=268) or IR-Tac (n=275); 507 (93.4%) completed the 24-month study.

INTERVENTION

LCPT tablets once daily at 0.17 mg/kg/d or IR-Tac twice daily at 0.1 mg/kg/d; subsequent doses were adjusted to maintain target trough ranges (first 30 days, 6-11 ng/mL; thereafter, 4-11 ng/mL). The intervention was 24 months; the study was double blinded for the entirety.

OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS

Treatment failure (death, transplant failure, biopsy-proven acute rejection, or loss to follow up) within 24 months. Safety end points included adverse events, serious adverse events, new-onset diabetes, kidney function, opportunistic infections, and malignancies. Pharmacokinetic measures included total daily dose (TDD) of study drugs and tacrolimus trough levels.

RESULTS

24-month treatment failure was LCPT, 23.1%; IR-Tac, 27.3% (treatment difference, -4.14% [95% CI, -11.38% to +3.17%], well below the +10% noninferiority criterion defined for the primary 12-month end point). Subgroup analyses showed fewer treatment failures for LCPT versus IR-Tac among black, older, and female recipients. Safety was similar between groups. From month 1, TDD was lower for LCPT; the difference increased over time. At month 24, mean TDD for LCPT was 24% lower than for the IR-Tac group (P<0.001), but troughs were similar (means at 24 months: LCPT, 5.47 ± 0.17 ng/mL; IR-Tac, 5.8 ± 0.30 ng/mL; P=0.4).

LIMITATIONS

Trial participant eligibility criteria may limit the generalizability of results to the global population of de novo kidney transplant recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that once-daily LCPT in de novo kidney transplantation has comparable efficacy and safety profile to that of IR-Tac. Lower TDD reflects LCPT's improved bioavailability and absorption.

Generic lamotrigine versus brand-name Lamictal bioequivalence in patients with epilepsy: A field test of the FDA bioequivalence standard

OBJECTIVE

To test the current U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bioequivalence standard in a comparison of generic and brand-name drug pharmacokinetic (PK) performance in "generic-brittle" patients with epilepsy under clinical use conditions.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, multiple-dose, steady-state, fully replicated bioequivalence study compared generic lamotrigine to brand-name Lamictal in "generic-brittle" patients with epilepsy (n = 34) who were already taking lamotrigine. Patients were repeatedly switched between masked Lamictal and generic lamotrigine. Intensive PK blood sampling at the end of each 2-week treatment period yielded two 12-h PK profiles for brand-name and generic forms for each patient. Steady-state area under the curve (AUC), peak plasma concentration (Cmax ), and minimum plasma concentration (Cmin ) data were subjected to conventional average bioequivalence (ABE) analysis, reference-scaled ABE analysis, and within-subject variability (WSV) comparisons. In addition, generic-versus-brand comparisons in individual patients were performed. Secondary clinical outcomes included seizure frequency and adverse events.

RESULTS

Generic demonstrated bioequivalence to brand. The 90% confidence intervals of the mean for steady-state AUC, Cmax , and Cmin for generic-versus-brand were 97.2-101.6%, 98.8-104.5%, and 93.4-101.0%, respectively. The WSV of generic and brand were also similar. Individual patient PK ratios for generic-versus-brand were similar but not identical, in part because brand-versus-brand profiles were not identical, even though subjects were rechallenged with the same product. Few subjects had seizure exacerbations or tolerability issues with product switching. One subject, however, reported 267 focal motor seizures, primarily on generic, although his brand and generic PK profiles were practically identical.

SIGNIFICANCE

Some neurologists question whether bioequivalence in healthy volunteers ensures therapeutic equivalence of brand and generic antiepileptic drugs in patients with epilepsy, who may be at increased risk for problems with brand-to-generic switching. Bioequivalence results in "generic-brittle" patients with epilepsy under clinical conditions support the soundness of the FDA bioequivalence standards. Adverse events on generic were not related to the small, allowable PK differences between generic and brand.

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.