Generic cyclosporine formulations: More open questions than answers

Transplant International

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 371-378

  Cattaneo, Dario ^a,b,c   Perico, Norberto ^a,b   Remuzzi, Giuseppe ^a,b  

^a OSPEDALI RIUNITI   (Italy)

^b MARIO NEGRI INST PHARMACOL RES   (Italy)

^c MARIO NEGRI INSTITUTE FOR PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bioequivalence; Cyclosporine; Generic formulation; Organ transplantation

Indexed keywords

CYCLOSPORIN A; EQUORAL; GENERIC DRUG; NEOPLANTA; SIGMASPORIN MICROORAL; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; CYCLOSPORIN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BIOEQUIVALENCE; DETERIORATION; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG ABSORPTION; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG BIOAVAILABILITY; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG CAPSULE; DRUG FORMULATION; GRAFT FAILURE; GRAFT REJECTION; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; MICROEMULSION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SIDE EFFECT; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PHARMACOKINETICS;

CYCLOSPORINE; DRUGS, GENERIC; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY;

EID: 20444475424     PISSN: 09340874     EISSN: 14322277     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2005.00078.x     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Hariharan S, Johnson P, Bresnan BA, Taranto SE, McIntosh MJ, Stablein D. Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988 to 1996. N Eng J Med 2000; 342: 605.
2. Lindholm A, Kahan BE. Influence of cyclosporine pharmacokinetic, trough concentrations, and AUC monitoring on outcome after kidney transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 54: 205.
3. Savoldi S, Maiorca R, Maderna M, Chiappini R, Corbetta G. Low intrapatient variability of blood cyclosporine levels is correlated with excellent graft survival. Transplant Proc 1997; 29: 288.
4. Kahan BD, Welsh M, Urbauer DL, et al. Low intraindividual variability of cyclosporin A exposure reduces chronic rejection incidence and health care costs. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11: 1122.
5. Tyrer JH, Eadie MJ, Sutherland JM, Hooper WD. Outbreak of anticonvulsivant intoxication in an australian city. Br Med J 1970; 4: 271.
6. Holt DW. Digoxin bioavailability. Lancet 1978; 2: 1103.
7. Mountfield RJ, Senepin S, Schleimer M, Walter I, Bittner B. Potential inhibitory effects of formulation ingredients on intestinal cytochrome P450. Int J Pharm 2000; 211: 89.
8. Canadian Multicentre Transplant Study Group. A randomized clinical trial of cyclosporine in cadaveric renal transplantation. N Eng J Med 1983; 309: 809.
9. Holt DW, Mueller EA, Kovarik JM, van Bree JB, Kutz K. The pharmacokinetics of Sandimmun Neoral: a new oral formulation of cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 1994; 26: 2935.
10. Mueller EA, Kovarik JM, van Bree JB, Grevel J, Lucker PW, Kutz K. Influence of a fat reach meal on the pharmacokinetics of a new oral formulation of cyclosporine in a crossover comparison with the market formulation. Pharm Res 1994; 11: 151.
11. Curtis JJ, Barbeito R, Pirsch J, Lewis RM, Van Buren DH, Choudhury S. Differences in bioavailability between oral cyclosporine formulations in maintenance renal transplant patients. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 34: 869.
12. Keown P, Landsberg D, Halloran P, et al. A randomized, prospective multicenter pharmacoepidemiologic study of cyclosporine microemulsion in stable renal graft recipients. Transplantation 1996; 62: 1744.
13. Kahan BD, Grevel J. Optimization of cyclosporine therapy in renal transplantation by a pharmacokinetic strategy. Transplantation 1988; 46: 631.
14. Mueller EA, Kallay Z, Kovarik JM, et al. Bile-independent absorption of cyclosporine from a microemulsion formulation in liver transplant patients. Transplantation 1995; 60: 515.
15. Mendez R, Abboud H, Burdick J, et al. Reduced intrapatient variability of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients switched from oral Sandimmune to Neoral. Clin Ther 1999; 21: 160.
16. Keown P, Niese D, on behalf of the International Sandimmune Neoral Study Group. Cyclosporine microemulsion increases drug exposure and reduces acute rejection without incremental toxicity in de novo renal transplantation. Kidney Int 1998; 54: 938.
17. Gaspari F, Perico N, Pisoni R, et al. How to convert from traditional cyclosporine to the microemulsion formulation in stable renal transplant patients? Clin Transplant 1998; 12: 379.
18. David OJ, Johnston A. Limited sampling strategies for estimating cyclosporin area under the concentration-time curve: review of current algorithms. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23: 100.
19. Grant D, Kneteman N, Tchervenkov J, et al. Peak cyclosporine levels (Cmax) correlate with freedom from liver graft rejection. Transplantation 1999; 67: 1133.
20. Pescovitz MD, Barbeito R, for the Simulect US01 Study Group, Two-hour post-dose cyclosporine level is a better predictor than trough level of acute rejection of renal allografts. Clin Transplant 2002; 16: 378.
21. Shah MB, Martin JE, Schroeder TJ, First MR. A meta-analysis to assess the safety and tolerability of two formulations of cyclosporine: Sandimmune and Neoral. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 4048.
22. Commitee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Notes for Guidance on the Investigation of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence. London: CPMP, 2001.
23. Marzo A. Clinical pharmacokinetic registration file for NDA and ANDA procedures. Pharmacol Res 1997; 36: 425.
24. First MR, Alloway R, Schroeder TJ. Development of Sang-35: a cyclosporine formulation bioequivalent to Neoral. Clin Transplant 1998; 12: 518.
25. Lee YJ, Chung SJ, Shim CK. Bioequivalence of Neoplanta capsule to Sandimmune, microemulsion formulations of cyclosporin A in human subjects. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 36: 210.
26. Stephan AG, Barbari A, Masri M, et al. A two-year study of the new cyclosporine formulation Consupren in de novo renal transplant patients. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 3563.
27. Helderman JH, Bennet WM, Cibrik DM, Kaufman DB, Klein A, Takemoto SK. Immunosuppression: practice and trends. Am J Transplant 2003; 3 (Suppl 4): 41.
28. Durlik M, Rauch C, Thyroff-Friesinger U, Streu H, Paczek L. Comparison of peak and trough level monitoring of cyclosporine treatment using two modern cyclosporine preparations. Transplant Proc 2003; 35: 1304.
29. Najib NM, Idkaidek N, Adel A, et al. Comparison of two cyclosporine formulations in healthy muddle eastern volunteers: bioequivalence of the new sigmasporin microoral and sandimmun neoral. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2003; 55: 67.
30. Andrysek T, Masri M, Jegorov Z, Veselsky Z, Matha V. Equoral, new cyclosporine drug delivery system, versus neoral: a bioequivalence study in healthy volunteers. Transplant Proc 2003; 35: 207.
31. Masri MA, Haberal M, Rizvi A, et al. The pharmacokinetics of equoral versus neoral in stable renal transplant patients: a multinational multicenter study. Transplant Proc 2004; 36: 80.
32. Johnston A, Holt DW. Bioequivalence criteria for cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 1999; 31: 1649.
33. Kahan BD. Considerations concerning generic formulations of immunosuppressive drugs. Transplant Proc 1999; 31: 1635.
34. Kovarik JM, Mueller EA, Richard F, et al. Evidence for earlier stabilization of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in de novo renal transplant patients receiving a microemulsion formulation. Transplantation 1996; 62: 759.
35. Yee GC, McGuire TR, Gmur DJ, Lennon TP, Deeg HJ. Blood cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in patients undergoing marrow transplantation. Influence of age, obesity, and hematocrit. Transplantation 1988; 46: 399.
36. Schroeder TJ, Shah M, Hariharan S, First MR. Increased resources are required in patient with low cyclosporine bioavailability. Transplant Proc 1996; 28: 2151.
37. Chapman JR, O'Connell PJ, Bovington KJ, Allen RD. Reversal of cyclosporine malabsorption in diabetic recipients of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant using a microemulsion formulation. Transplantation 1996; 61: 1699.
38. Metha MU, Venkataramanan R, Burckart GJ, et al. Effect of bile on cyclosporin absorption in liver transplant patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1988; 25: 579.
39. McGuire TR, Yee GC, Emerson S, Gmur DJ, Carlin J. Pharmacodynamic studies of cyclosporine in marrow transplant recipients. A comparison of three assay methods. Transplantation 1992; 53: 1275.
40. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Bioequivalence Review Cyclosporine 100 mg and 25 mg. Eon Labs Manufacturing Inc, 1999. Review ANDA:#65-017.
41. Pollard S, Nashan BR, Johnston A, et al. A pharmacokinetic and clinical review of the potential clinical impact of using different formulations of cyclosporin A. Clin Ther 2003; 25: 1654.
42. Alloway RR, Isaacs R, Lake K, et al. Report of the American Society of Transplantation conference on immunosuppressive drugs and the use of generic immunosuppressants. Am J Transplant 2003; 3: 1211.
43. Kovarik JM, Barilla D, MacMahon L, Wang Y, Kisicki J, Schmouder R. Administration diluents differentiate Neoral from a generic cyclosporine oral solution. Clin Transplant 2002; 16: 306.
44. Roza A, Tomlanovich S, Merion R, et al. Conversion of stable renal allograft recipients to a bioequivalent cyclosporine formulation. Transplantation 2002; 74: 1013.
45. Carnahan W, Cooper TY. Neoral-to-Gengraf conversion in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2003; 35: 1308.
46. Lee YJ, Chung S, Shim CK. Decreased oral availability of cyclosporin A at second administration in humans. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 44: 343.
47. Zafar MN, Ahmed E, Alam A, et al. Study of a new generic cyclosporine, consupren, in de novo renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2002; 34: 2480.
48. Toman J, Spinarova L, Krejci' J, Hude P, Kopecna E, Kamarad V. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of Consupren solution and Sandimmun Neoral solution, 50 mL in stable heart transplant patients. Biomed Papers 2002; 146: 87.
49. Zafar MN, Abbas K, Naqvi A, Rizvi A. Pharmacokinetics of abbreviated AUC of cyclosporine in renal allograft recipients in a pakistan population. Transplant Proc 1999; 31: 3304.
50. Chueh SC, Liao CH, Lai MK. Greater variability of dose-corrected cyclosporine C2 concentrations in renal recipients with acute rejection. Transplant Proc 2003; 35: 234.
51. Stoves J, Newstead CG. Variability of cyclosporine exposure and its relevance to chronic nephropathy: a case-control study. Transplantation 2002; 74: 1794.
52. Billaud EM, Antoine C. C2 therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine: source of variability. Transplant Proc 2002; 34: 2828.
53. Waiser J, Slowinski T, Brinker-Paschke A, et al. Impact of the variability of cyclosporin A trough levels on long-term renal allograft function. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17: 1310.
54. Einecke G, Mai I, Pritsche L, et al. The value of C2 monitoring in stable renal allograft recipients on maintenance immunosuppression. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19: 215.
55. Schieppati A, Perico N, Remuzzi G. Preventing end-stage renal disease: the potential impact of screening and intervention in developing countries. Kidney Int 2003; 63: 1948.