Immunosuppression, generic drugs and the FDA

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.

Oral generic tacrolimus initiation and substitution in the Medicaid population: a new user cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Although existing studies have compared clinical efficacy and pharmacokinetics of generic with brand tacrolimus, little is known about generic tacrolimus utilization patterns or factors predicting generic substitution. This study examines associations between patient-level factors and generic tacrolimus initiation or substitution among new users of oral generic or brand-name tacrolimus.

METHODS

This new user retrospective cohort study identified 374 beneficiaries who initiated generic or brand tacrolimus treatment, using 100% Medicaid administrative claims data from 11 states in 2011-2012. Outcomes were generic tacrolimus initiation and substitution within 12 months of treatment initiation. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with generic tacrolimus initiation and substitution.

RESULTS

Two-thirds of oral tacrolimus new users initiated generic tacrolimus. Patients who were older age and black were significantly more likely to initiate generic tacrolimus (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.001-1.03; AOR = 2.54, 95% CI = 1.40-4.62; respectively). Patients with more concomitant prescriptions, more comorbidities, or higher initial daily dosage had significantly lower likelihoods of initiating generic tacrolimus (AOR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.87-0.99; AOR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.77-0.99; AOR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.93-0.993). Among brand tacrolimus new users, 23.6% substituted with generics within 12 months, and an addition of prior hospitalization or unit of initial daily dosage increment was associated with 35% (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.02-1.76) or 2% (SHR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.00-1.04) increase in likelihood of generic substitution, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding associations between patient-level factors with generic tacrolimus initiation and substitution could help practitioners and policymakers monitor treatment effect and facilitate generic tacrolimus utilization.

The Association of Tacrolimus Formulation Switching with Trough Concentration Variability: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Tacrolimus Use Post-Kidney Transplantation Based on National Drug Code (NDC) Numbers

INTRODUCTION

It was hypothesized that patients experiencing at least one tacrolimus formulation switch may require more frequent therapeutic drug monitoring, subsequent dose adjustments, and a potential for untoward clinical outcomes than patients who remain on a single formulation.

METHODS

Eligible patients were adult kidney transplant recipients with stable renal function at month 3 post-transplant and no evidence of acute rejection, receiving an oral, tacrolimus-based regimen. Patients were categorized into two groups (fixed or variable formulation) using the US National Drug Code (NDC) on the basis of tacrolimus formulation usage over the 12-month period.

RESULTS

A total of 305 patients were enrolled from four US transplant centers; 44 (14.4%) received multiple formulations and 261 (85.6%) received a single formulation. Mean number of tacrolimus dose adjustments and mean cumulative milligram dose change were not statistically different between the two groups. Mean trough-to-dose ratio, frequency of trough level measurements, and mean number of excursions above 120% or below 80% of the patient's mean trough concentration were significantly higher in the variable compared to the fixed formulation group.

CONCLUSION

A variable tacrolimus formulation regimen was associated with a higher frequency of trough level measurements and a greater number of excursions in trough levels compared with continuing on a fixed formulation regimen of tacrolimus in this retrospective chart review study.

FUNDING

Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc. Plain language summary available for this article.

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.

Comparison of the long-term efficacy and safety of generic tacrolimus, Tacrobell, with Prograf in liver transplant recipients

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of generic tacrolimus (Tacrobell [TCB]) and a reference tacrolimus (Prograf [PGF]) in liver transplant recipients.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively analyzed 167 patients who used TCB or PGF between January 2009 and March 2016 for >1 year (TCB group, n=86; PGF group, n=81). To assess the efficacy and safety of TCB, we evaluated the relationship between drug dose and trough level, survival, rejection, infection, kidney function, and side effects.

Results

There was no difference in the preoperative demographics between the two groups. Moreover, there was no difference in the drug dose and trough level between the groups at 1 week after surgery. Coefficient of variation (CV) values were obtained at the drug trough level for each patient and no differences in CV values were identified within 1 year (p=0.587) and up to 5 years (p=0.824) in both groups. Rehospitalization (p=0.1) and total rejection (p=0.915) did not differ between the two groups, but the rejection severity, recorded as the rejection activity index value, was worse in the PGF group (p=0.039). No difference was found in the infection rate (p=0.818), and with regard to nephrotoxicity, there was no difference in the rate of patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3 and above during the follow-up period. No differences were found between the two groups in terms of drug side effects and adverse events.

Conclusion

The generic tacrolimus, TCB, is a comparable alternative to the original tacrolimus, PGF, as a main immunosuppressive drug for liver transplantation.

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.

Follow-on products for treatment of multiple sclerosis in Latin America: An update

Both proprietary and non-proprietary medicines are expected to undergo rigorous pre-approval testing and both should meet stringent health authority regulatory requirements related to quality to obtain approval. Non-proprietary (also known as copy or generic) medicines, which base their authorization and use on the proprietary documentation and label, are often viewed as a means to help lower cost and thus increase patient access. If these medicines fail to meet quality standards, such as good manufacturing practice and bioequivalence (in humans), they are then defined as substandard copies and can pose serious risks to patients in terms of safety and efficacy. Availability of this type of compounds is more prevalent in regions where health authorities do not enforce registration regulations as stringent as those of the Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, or World Health Organization, including preestablished quality standard requirements. This article focuses on non-proprietary medicines for multiple sclerosis, that are not identical to proprietary versions and could thus fail to meet efficacy or have different impact on the safety of patients with multiple sclerosis.

A Systematic Literature Review Approach to Estimate the Therapeutic Index of Selected Immunosuppressant Drugs After Renal Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Drugs that exhibit close margins between therapeutic and toxic blood concentrations are considered to have a narrow therapeutic index (NTI). The Food and Drug Administration has proposed that NTI drugs should have more stringent bioequivalence standards for approval of generic formulations. However, many immunosuppressant drugs do not have a well-defined therapeutic index (TI).

METHODS

We sought to determine whether safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic data obtained from the medical literature through a comprehensive literature search could be used to estimate the TI of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and sirolimus. In this analysis, we considered TI ≤2 as a criterion to define a drug as having an NTI.

RESULTS

Published literature indicates that cyclosporine has a TI of 2-3, which falls just short of our criteria to be classified as having an NTI. We found sirolimus and tacrolimus to have a therapeutic range of 5-12 ng/mL and of 5-20 ng/mL, respectively, but were unable to calculate the TI.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the current literature does not provide a clear indication that these drugs have an NTI, the routine use of therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice suggests that more stringent testing of their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties should be performed before the approval of generic formulations.

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.

Switching Stable Kidney Transplant Recipients to a Generic Tacrolimus Is Feasible and Safe, but It Must Be Monitored

Background. Tacrolimus is the primary immunosuppressive drug used in kidney transplant patients. Replacing brand name products with generics is a controversial issue that we studied after a Chilean Ministry of Health mandate to implement such a switch. Methods. Forty-one stable Prograf (Astellas) receiving kidney transplant patients were switched to a generic tacrolimus (Sandoz) in a 1 : 1 dose ratio and were followed up for up to 8 months. All other drugs were maintained as per normal practice. Results. Neither tacrolimus doses nor their trough blood levels changed significantly after the switch, but serum creatinine did: 1.62 ± 0.90 versus 1.75 ± 0.92 mg/dL (p < 0.001). At the same time, five graft biopsies were performed, and two of them showed cellular acute rejection. There were nine infectious episodes treated satisfactorily with proper therapies. No patient or graft was lost during the follow-up time period. Conclusion. Switching from brand name tacrolimus to a generic tacrolimus (Sandoz) is feasible and appears to be safe, but it must be monitored carefully by treating physicians.

Clinical implications for substandard, nonproprietary medicines in multiple sclerosis: focus on fingolimod

Both proprietary and nonproprietary medicines are expected to undergo rigorous preapproval testing and both should meet stringent health authority regulatory requirements related to quality to obtain approval. Nonproprietary (also known as copy, or generic) medicines, which base their authorization and use on the proprietary documentation and label, are often viewed as a means to help lower the cost and, thus, increase patient access. If these medicines fail to meet quality standards, such as good manufacturing practice and bioequivalence (in humans), they are then defined as substandard copies and can pose serious risks to patients in terms of safety and efficacy. Potentially noncontrolled or different manufacturing process and excipients in nonproprietary medicines may result in poor batch-to-batch reproducibility (accurate and consistent quantity of each ingredient in each capsule/tablet) and lower quality. Substandard, nonproprietary copies of medicines that are immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive are of concern to patients due to their possible untoward safety and lack of efficacy events. This article reviews the potential risks associated with nonproprietary medicines that do not meet the regulatory requirements of the United States Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, or the World Health Organization. The clinical implications for patients are described. This article focuses on nonproprietary medicines for multiple sclerosis, particularly fingolimod, that are not identical to proprietary versions and could thus fail to meet efficacy expectations or have different impact on the safety of patients with multiple sclerosis.

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.

Immunosuppression: trends and tolerance?

Advances in pharmacologic immunosuppression are responsible for the excellent outcomes experienced by recipients of liver transplants. However, long-term follow-up of these patients reveals an increasing burden of morbidity and mortality that is attributable to these drugs. The authors summarize the agents used in contemporary liver transplantation immunosuppression protocols and discuss the emerging trend within the community to minimize or eliminate these agents from use. The authors present recently published data that may provide the foundation for immunosuppression minimization or tolerance induction in the future and review studies that have focused on the utility of biomarkers in guiding immunosuppression management.

Systematic conversion to generic tacrolimus in stable kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Tacrolimus (Prograf^®) is a key drug in the immunosuppressive treatment of renal transplant patients. Since the expiration of the patent for Prograf^®, generic preparations have been approved in Europe as bioequivalence has been shown in healthy volunteers. However, few studies have investigated whether patients can be successfully converted from Prograf^® to generic tacrolimus. Tacrolimus drug costs are by far the largest single item in the total drug expenditure for patients with renal disease in the Stockholm area. Considerable reductions in drug costs could be achieved if generic tacrolimus were to be used. The aim of this quality assurance study was to evaluate whether a switch from Prograf^® to generic tacrolimus (Tacrolimus Sandoz^®) could be safely performed in renal transplant patients. It further aimed to investigate changes of renal function (measured in estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR), need for dose changes and to calculate potential drug cost savings as a result of the conversion.

METHODS

We planned to recruit at least 50 patients. Plasma creatinine levels and trough concentrations of tacrolimus were collected from patients with renal transplants at three occasions during treatment with Prograf^® and three times after conversion to Tacrolimus Sandoz^®. The eGFR was calculated before and after the conversion.

RESULTS

Sixty-three of 67 enrolled patients (69% males, age 28-80 years) are included in this analysis. The ratio of mean trough concentrations of tacrolimus after comparison with before conversion was 1.02 (90% confidence interval 0.95-1.09). Fourteen patients experienced a change in tacrolimus levels >20% compared with baseline, no patients changed >20% in eGFR. The drug cost saving per daily dose was 33.40 SEK (∼€3.60, -23%).

CONCLUSIONS

Stable kidney transplant patients treated with Prograf^® can be converted to Tacrolimus Sandoz^® if trough concentrations of tacrolimus and plasma creatinine levels are closely monitored. The conversion brought savings, despite costs for extra monitoring.

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.

Transplant coordinators' perceived impact of availability of multiple generic immunosuppression therapies on patients, workload, and posttransplant maintenance therapy

Background. No studies have evaluated the impact of multiple generic immunosuppression medications on transplant coordinators (TCs) and patients. Methods. A cross-sectional, multicenter online survey of TCs managing transplant recipients' outpatient immunosuppression was undertaken to assess TCs' perceptions of the impact of multiple generic immunosuppression therapies on patients and workload. Results. Forty-six of 106 transplant centers contacted (43%) completed the survey, with usable information from 34 TCs (53% in centers performing >100 solid organ transplants annually, 82% registered nurses, and 68% with >5-year experience working with transplant patients). TCs indicated that “change in strength,” “switching from branded to generics,” “heavy pill burden,” and “switching from one generic to another” were the four most frequent reasons for patient confusion regarding immunosuppression. TCs reported increased patient confusion over the previous year for patients on generic immunosuppression therapy: 44% answered ≥3 patient calls/day regarding confusion over immunosuppression therapy. Most TCs indicated increased workload since the introduction of generic immunosuppression therapy. TCs perceived “acute rejection rates,” “rate of graft loss,” and “poor patient adherence” as the three most likely consequences of multiple generic immunosuppression therapy. Conclusion. TCs associated availability of multiple generic immunosuppression therapy with increased patient confusion and time spent addressing patient concerns.

A randomized pharmacokinetic study of generic tacrolimus versus reference tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients

Pharmacokinetic analyses comparing generic tacrolimus preparations versus the reference drug in kidney transplant patients are lacking. A prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-period (14 days per period), two-sequence, crossover and steady-state pharmacokinetic study was undertaken to compare twice-daily generic tacrolimus (Sandoz) versus reference tacrolimus (Prograf®) in stable renal transplant patients. AUC(0-12h) and peak concentration (C(max) ) were calculated from 12 h pharmacokinetic profiles at the end of each period (days 14 and 28). Of 71 patients enrolled, 68 provided evaluable pharmacokinetic data. The ratios of geometric means were 1.02 (90% CI 97-108%, p = 0.486) for AUC(0-12h) and 1.09 (90% CI 101-118%, p = 0.057) for C(max) . Mean (SD) C(0) was 7.3(1.8) ng/mL for generic tacrolimus versus 7.0(2.1) ng/mL for reference tacrolimus based on data from days 14 and 28. Correlations between 12 h trough levels and AUC were r = 0.917 for generic tacrolimus and r = 0.887 for reference drug at day 28. These data indicate that generic tacrolimus (Sandoz) has a similar pharmacokinetic profile to the reference drug and is bioequivalent in kidney transplant recipients according to US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency guidelines.

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

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

Generic immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation: a Canadian perspective

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

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

We compared steady-state pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) - Myfenax(®) (Teva) and CellCept(®) (Roche) - in stable kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). This was an international, multi-centre, randomized, open-label, two-treatment, two-sequence crossover study with a 3-month follow-up. We included KTRs at least 12 months post-transplantation with stable renal graft function for at least 3 months. The maintenance treatment consisted of MMF in combination with tacrolimus with or without steroids. At the end of the two treatment periods, 6-h or 12-h PK studies of mycophenolic acid (MPA) were performed. A total of 43 patients (mean age: 50.7 ± 13.5 years; 19 females, 24 males) were randomized. Estimates of test to reference ratios (90% CIs) were 0.959 (0.899; 1.023) h*μg/ml for AUC((0-tau)) and 0.873 (0.787; 0.968) μg/ml for C(max). Estimates for AUC((0-6h)) were 0.923 (0.865; 0.984) h*μg/ml and 0.985 (0.877; 1.106) μg/ml for C(min). Thus, AUC((0-tau)), AUC((0-6h)), and C(min) of MPA were within the predefined margins. C(max) was somewhat outside of these margins in this set of patients. The numbers and types of adverse events were not different between the two treatments. The steady-state pharmacokinetics of MPA as well as adverse events are comparable for Myfenax(®) and CellCept(®) in tacrolimus-treated stable KTRs.

Progress in abdominal organ transplantation

The excellent results of vascularized organ transplantation have resulted in an increasing number of end-stage organ failure patients seeking such treatment. The results of organ transplantation depend on a number of factors – the quality of the donor (and an organ), living vs. deceased donation, magnitude of ischemic injury (and its prevention), and recipient-dependent factors. Ischemia/reperfusion injury in organ transplantation is a multifactorial process, which may lead to delayed graft function. In addition, surgical and preservation techniques, type of immunosuppressive regimens, complications after transplantation and post-transplant management may also have a significant impact on short- and long-term results of transplantation. In this paper we describe advances in transplantation in recent years, with particular emphasis on kidney, liver, intestines, whole pancreas and pancreatic islets.