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

Comparative safety of generic versus brand calcineurin inhibitors in solid organ transplant patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although generic ciclosporin-A (CsA) and tacrolimus (TAC) have been used for the prophylaxis of organ rejection in transplant patients for decades, evidence in their safety profile compared to reference listed drugs (RLDs) in real-world transplant patients remains limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare safety outcomes of generic CsA and TAC with the reference-listed drugs in solid organ transplant patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception until March 15, 2022, to select randomized and observational studies comparing safety profiles of generic versus brand CsA and TAC in de novo and/or stable solid organ transplant patients. Primary safety outcomes were changes in serum creatinine (Scr) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Secondary outcomes included incidences of infection, hypertension, diabetes, other serious adverse events (AEs), hospitalization, and death. Mean difference (MD) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Of 2612 publications identified, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies had a moderate risk of bias. Scr was statistically significantly lower in patients using generic CsA compared to brand at 1 month (MD = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.11, -0.04), while there were no statistically significant differences at 4 months, 6 months, and 12 months. No differences were detected in Scr (MD = -0.04; 95% CI: -0.13, 0.04) and estimated GFR (MD = -2.06; 95% CI: -8.89, 4.77) between patients using generic and brand TAC at 6 months. No statistically significant differences between generic CsA and TAC with their RLDs were observed for secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Findings support similarity in safety outcomes between generic and brand CsA and TAC in real-world solid organ transplant patients.

Interchangeability of generic drugs for subpopulations: Bioequivalence simulation from a nonparametric PK model of gabapentin generic drugs

Patients are often switched between generic formulations of the same drug, but in some cases generic interchangeability is questioned. For generic drugs to be approved, bioequivalence with the innovator drug should be demonstrated, but evidence of bioequivalence is not required in the intended patient population or relative to other approved generics.

AIM

We aim to identify pathophysiological pharmacokinetic subpopulations for whom there is a difference in comparative bioavailability compared to a healthy population.

METHODS

We used simulated exposures from a nonparametric model of multiple generics and the originator gabapentin. Exposure was simulated for virtual populations with pharmacokinetic characteristics beyond those of healthy subjects with regard to rate of absorption, volume of distribution and reduced renal function. Virtual parallel design bioequivalence studies were performed using a random sample of 24 simulated subjects, with standard acceptance criteria.

RESULTS

Results indicated increased pharmacokinetic variability for patient populations with a lower rate of absorption or a reduced renal function, but no change in the average comparable bioavailability ratio. This increased variability results in a reduced likelihood of demonstrating bioequivalence. Observations were similar for comparisons between all different formulations, as well as between subjects who received the identical formulation in a repeated fashion. No relevant effect was observed for simulations with increased volume of distribution.

CONCLUSION

Our simulations indicate that the reduced likelihood of demonstrating bioequivalence for subjects with altered pharmacokinetics is not influenced by a formulation switch, nor does the average comparable bioavailability ratio change, therefore these results support generic interchangeability and current approval requirements for generics.

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

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

Changes in the commercial brand of tacrolimus lead to subtherapeutic trough levels and acute rejection in renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The vigilance of tacrolimus (TAC) trough levels is an essential part of renal transplant follow up. Reduced TAC trough levels and high variability are related to adverse outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of brand changes on tacrolimus (TAC) subtherapeutic (SubT) trough levels, acute rejection (AR), and kidney function.

METHODS

This is a prospective, observational cohort study of renal transplant recipients, between January 2016 and October 2018. Tacrolimus trough levels and brand used by the patient were both registered at every consult. Tacrolimus values ≤3.5 ng/mL were considered SubT.

RESULTS

445 patients were included. The median number of TAC brand changes was 2 (IQR, 1-4). Patients were grouped according to the number of brand changes: Group 1 = 0 (n = 107), Group 2 = 1-4 (n = 236), and Group 3 = ≥5 (n = 102). Patients with the greatest number of brand changes had a greater proportion and number of SubT TAC trough levels (Group 1 = 36.4%, average 0.53; Group 2 = 39.8%, average 0.65, Group 3 = 59.8%, average 1.17, P < .001) and AR (Group 1 = 0.9%, Group 2 = 11%, Group 3 = 14.7%, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, SubT levels and the number of brand changes were related to AR.

CONCLUSIONS

In Mexico, changes in TAC brand are associated with an elevated frequency of SubT levels. Brand changes and SubT levels are independently associated with acute rejection. The supply policies on TAC brands in Mexico require revision to avoid changing brands as much as possible.

Generic Substitution of Orphan Drugs for the Treatment of Rare Diseases: Exploring the Potential Challenges

Generic drugs are important components of measures introduced by healthcare regulatory authorities to reduce treatment costs. In most patients and conditions the switch from a branded drug to its generic counterpart is performed with no major complications. However, evidence from complex diseases suggests that generic substitution requires careful evaluation in some settings and that current bioequivalence criteria may not always be adequate for establishing the interchangeability of branded and generic products. Rare diseases, also called orphan diseases, are a group of heterogeneous diseases that share important characteristics: in addition to their scarcity, most are severe, chronic, highly debilitating, and often present in early childhood. Finding a treatment for a rare disease is challenging. Thanks to incentives that encourage research and development programs in rare diseases, several orphan drugs are currently available. The elevated cost of orphan drugs is a highly debated issue and a cause of limited access to treatment for many patients. As patent protection and the exclusivity period of several orphan drugs will expire soon, generic versions of orphan drugs should reach the market shortly, with great expectations about their impact on the economic burden of rare diseases. However, consistent with other complex diseases, generic substitution may require thoughtful considerations and may be even contraindicated in some rare conditions. This article provides an overview of rare disease characteristics, reviews reports of problematic generic substitution, and discusses why generic substitution of orphan drugs may be challenging and should be undertaken carefully in rare disease patients.

Generic immunosuppressants

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

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.

Nationwide conversion to generic tacrolimus in pediatric kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Bioequivalence between Tacrolimus Prograf® and generic tacrolimus formulations has been demonstrated in adult populations, however clinical experience and safety data regarding generic tacrolimus in pediatric transplant recipients is limited. This study aimed to evaluate conversion from Tacrolimus Prograf® to Sandoz® in pediatric renal transplant recipients nationwide. The primary outcome was a change in mean trough tacrolimus concentration. Additionally, changes in tacrolimus intra-patient coefficient of variation (CoV), allograft function, requirement for dose adjustments, and episodes of biopsy-proven rejection were evaluated.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study in 37 pediatric renal transplant recipients who switched to Tacrolimus Sandoz®. Each patient had three pre-conversion tacrolimus trough and creatinine concentrations within the 4 months prior and three post-conversion concentrations on day 3, 10, and the next subsequent level. Mean pre- and post-conversion tacrolimus trough concentrations and glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were calculated. Tacrolimus concentration, CoV, and creatinine differences were compared by paired t test.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients (41% females, age 3-18 years) were included. Average intra-patient difference in trough tacrolimus concentration was 0.05μg/l (95% CI -0.37 to 0.47). Average intra-patient difference in eGFR was -1.20 ml/min/1.73² (95% CI -3.53 to 1.13). Three patients had acute rejection during 12 months post-conversion compared to none during 12 months pre-conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric renal transplant recipients can be converted from Tacrolimus Prograf® to Sandoz® with negligible change in trough concentration, dose adjustments, or immediate allograft function. Of concern was the number of acute rejection episodes, however non-adherence contributed to at least one episode and this difference was determined clinically and statistically not significant.