Generic immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation: A canadian perspective

Transplantation

Volumn 93, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 657-665

  Harrison, Jennifer J ^a   Schiff, Jeffrey R ^a   Coursol, Christian J ^b   Daley, Christopher J A ^c   Dipchand, Anne I ^d   Heywood, Norine M ^b   Keough Ryan, Tammy M ^c,h   Keown, Paul A ^e   Levy, Gary A ^a   Lien, Dale C ^f   Wichart, Jenny R ^g   Cantarovich, Marcelo ^b  

^a TORONTO GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^c QUEEN ELIZABETH II HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

^d HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^g ALBERTA CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^h DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bioequivalence; Generic; Immunosuppression; Solid organ transplantation

Indexed keywords

CYCLOSPORIN; CYCLOSPORIN A; GENERIC DRUG; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; RAPAMYCIN; TACROLIMUS;

ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION; APPLE JUICE; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BIOEQUIVALENCE; CANADA; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG COST; DRUG DOSE TITRATION; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG MONITORING; DYSLIPIDEMIA; FOOD DRUG INTERACTION; GRAFT FAILURE; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HEART TRANSPLANTATION; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MAXIMUM PLASMA CONCENTRATION; NEPHROTOXICITY; NEUROTOXICITY; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

CANADA; COST SAVINGS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG SUBSTITUTION; DRUGS, GENERIC; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GRAFT REJECTION; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PATENTS AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84859266161     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182445e9d     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Bell C, Griller D, Lawson J, et al. Generic drug pricing and access in Canada: What are the implications? Toronto, Canada, Health Council of Canada 2010. Available at: http://healthcouncilcanada. ca/docs/rpts/2010/generics/ generics-June182010-rpt.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2011
2. Retail prices of generic drugs reduced dramatically in Canada. Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association website. Available at. http://www. canadiangenerics.ca/en/news/dec-15-10.asp. Accessed May. 25.2011
3. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924
4. Health Canada Patent Register. Available at: http://webprod3.hcsc. gc.ca/pr-rdb/start-debuter.do?lang-eng. Accessed May 25, 2011
5. Health Canada Guidance for Industry.Conduct and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies-Part A: Oral dosage formulations used for systemic effects.1997.http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic- demande/guide-ld/bio/index-eng.php. Accessed May 212011
6. Nation RL, Sansom LN. Bioequivalence requirements for generic products. Pharmacol Ther 1994; 62: 41
7. Thiessen JJ. Bioavailability and bioequivalence. In: du Souich P, Erill S, Orme M, eds. The IUPHAR compendium of basic principles for pharmacological research in humans. 2004, pp 55-66. Available at: http://www.iuphar.org/clin-hu. html. Accessed May 21, 2011
8. Health Canada Guidance for Industry.Bioequivalence requirements: Criticaldosedrugs.2006.Availableat:http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/ applic-demande/guide-ld/bio/critical-dose-critique-eng. php. Accessed May 21, 2011
9. Staatz CE, Tett SE. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolate in solid organ transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2007; 46: 13
10. Deierhoi MH, Haug M. Review of select transplant subpopulations at high risk of failure from standard immunosuppressive therapy. Clin Transplant 2000; 14: 439
11. Knoop C, Vervier I, Thiry P, et al. Cyclosporine pharmacokinetics and dose monitoring after lung transplantation: Comparison between cystic fibrosis and other conditions. Transplantation 2003; 76: 683
12. van Duijnhoven E, Christiaans M, Schafer A, et al. Tacrolimus dosing requirements in diabetic and nondiabetic patients calculated from pretransplantation data. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 1268
13. Undre NA, Schafer A; the European Tacrolimus Multicentre Renal Study Group. Factors affecting the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in the first year after renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 1261
14. Kovarik JM, Noe A, Wang Y, et al. Differentiation of innovator versus generic cyclosporine via a drug interaction on sirolimus. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 361
15. Kovarik JM, Barilla D, McMahon L, et al. Administration diluents differentiate Neoral from a generic cyclosporine oral solution. Clin Transplant 2002; 16: 306
16. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration to SangStat Medical Corp; withdrawal of approval on an abbreviated new drug application; cyclosporine. Federal Register 2000; 65: 75717
17. Fernandez de Gatta MM, Santos-Buelga D, Dominguez-Gil A, et al. Immunosuppressive therapy for pediatric transplant patients: Pharmacokinetic considerations. Clin Pharmacokinet 2002; 42: 115
18. MacPhee IAM, Fredericks S, Mohamed M, et al. Tacrolimus pharmacogenetics: The CYP3A5*1 allele predicts low dose-normalized tacrolimus blood concentrations in whites and South Asians. Transplantation 2005; 79: 499
19. Mancinelli LM, Frassetto L, Floren LC, et al. The pharmacokinetics and metabolic disposition of tacrolimus: A comparison across ethnic groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 24
20. Kuypers DRJ, Le Meur Y, Cantarovich M, et al. Consensus report on therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid in solid organ transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 5: 341
21. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2009; 9(suppl 3): S1
22. Kesselheim AS, Misono AS, Lee JL, et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2008; 300: 2514
23. Diarra DA, Riegersperger M, Säemann MD, et al. Maintenance immunosuppressive therapy and generic cyclosporine A use in adult renal transplantation: A single center analysis. Kidney Int 2010; 77(suppl 115): S8
24. Vítko S, Ferkl M. Interchangeability of ciclosporin formulations in stable adult renal transplant recipients: Comparison of Equoral and Neoral capsules in an international, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Kidney Int 2010; 77(suppl 115): S12
25. Talaulikar GS, Gallagher MP, Carney GM, et al. Switchover to generic cyclosporine in stable renal transplant recipients: A single unit experience. Nephrology 2004; 9: 418
26. Roza A, Tomlanovich S, Merion R, et al. Conversion of stable renal allograft recipients to a bioequivalent cyclosporine formulation. Transplantation 2002; 74: 1013
27. Kahn D, Muller E, Pascoe M. Safe conversion to cicloral, a generic cylosporine, in both stable and de novo renal transplant recipients. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplant 2010; 21: 426
28. David-Neto E, Kakehashi E, Alves CF, et al. Bioequivalence of a new cyclosporine a formulation to Neoral. Ther Drug Monitor 2004; 26: 53
29. Fradette C, Lavigne J, Waters D, et al. The utility of the population approach applied to bioequivalence in patients: Comparison of 2 formulations of cyclosporine. Ther Drug Monitor 2005; 27: 592
30. Perlík F, Masri MA, Rost M, et al. Pharmacokinetic conversion study of a new cyclosporine formulation in stable adult renal transplant recipients. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc, Czech Repub 2005; 149: 309
31. Tsang W-K, Wong S-H, Chu K-H, et al. The pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of Gengraf and Neoral in stable renal transplant recipients. Hong Kong J Nephrol 2003; 5: 40
32. Al Wakeel JS, Shaheen FA, Mathew MC, et al. Therapeutic equivalence and mg:mg switch ability of a generic cyclosporine microemulsion formulation (Sigmasporin Microral) in stable renal transplant patients maintained on Sandimmun Neoral. Transplant Proc 2008; 40: 2252
33. Gaston R, Alloway RR, Gaber AO, et al. Pharmacokinetic and safety evaluation of SangCya vs Neoral or Sandimmune in stable renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 1999; 31: 326
34. 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
35. Qazi YA, Forrest A, Tornatore K, et al. The clinical impact of 1:1 conversion from Neoral to a generic cyclosporine (Gengraf) in renal transplant recipients with stable graft function. Clin Transplant 2006; 20: 313
36. Hibberd AD, Trevillian PR, Roger SD, et al. Assessment of the bioequivalence of a generic cyclosporine A by a randomized controlled trial in stable renal recipients. Transplantation 2006; 81: 711
37. Al Wakeel JS, Shaheen FA, Mathew MC, et al. Six-month clinical outcome of cyclosporine microemulsion formulation (Sigmasporin Microral) in stable renal transplant patients previously maintained on Sandimmun Neoral. Transplant Proc 2008; 40: 2245
38. Sayyah M, Argani H, Pourmand GR, et al. Pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of Iminoral compared with Neoral in healthy volunteers and renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2007; 39: 1214
39. Carnahan W, Cooper TY. Neoral-to-Gengraf conversion in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2003; 35: 1308
40. Durlik M, Paczek L, Rutkowski B, et al. The efficacy and safety of ciclosporin (Equoral®) capsules after renal transplantation: A multicentre, open-label, phase IV clinical trial. Ann Transplant 2010; 15: 51
41. Sharma A, Shekhar C, Heer M, et al. Comparison of generic cyclosporine microemulsion versus neoral in de novo renal transplant recipients managed by 2-hour postdose monitoring. Transplant Proc 2006; 38: 2051
42. 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
43. Spasovski G, Masin-Spasovska J, Ivanovski N. Do we have the same clinical results with Neoral and Equoral treatment in kidney transplant recipients? A pilot study. Transpl Int 2008; 21: 392
44. Taber DJ, Baillie GM, Ashcraft EE, et al. Does bioequivalence between modified cyclosporine formulations translate into equal outcomes? Transplantation 2005; 80: 1633
45. Kim SJ, Huh KH, Han DJ, et al. A 6-month, multicenter, single-arm pilot study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of generic tacrolimus (TacroBell) after primary renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 2009; 41: 1671
46. Guleria S, Kamboj M, Chatterjee A, et al. Generic tacrolimus (Pan Graf) in renal transplantation: An experience of 155 recipients in India. Transplant Proc 2008; 40: 2237
47. Müller H, Solari S, Zuñiga C, et al. Immunosuppression with generic tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients: Preliminary report in Chile. Transplant Proc 2008; 40: 705
48. Momper JD, Ridenour TA, Schonder KS, et al. The impact of conversion from Prograf to generic tacrolimus in liver and kidney transplant recipients with stable graft function. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 1861
49. Holm A, Hernandez M. A post-hoc analysis of the safety and efficacy of tacrolimus (Prograf) versus a "generic formulation" of tacrolimus (tenacrine) as primary immunosuppressive therapy in LRD and CAD, adults and pediatric renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2008; 86(2S): abstract 528
50. Videla C, Godoy C. Converting to a generic formulation of mycophenolate mofetil in stable kidney transplant recipients: 1 year of drug surveillance and outcome. Transplant Proc 2007; 39: 602
51. Abdallah TB, Ounissi M, Cherif M, et al. The role of generics in kidney transplant: Mycophenolate mofetil 500 versus mycophenolate: 2-year results. Exp Clin Transplant 2010; 8: 292
52. 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
53. Abdulnour HA, Araya CE, Dharnidharka VR. Comparison of generic tacrolimus and Prograf drug levels in a pediatric kidney transplant program: Brief communication. Pediatr Transplant 2010; 14: 1007
54. Fisher RA, Pan S-H, Rossi SJ, et al. Pharmacokinetic comparison of two cyclosporine A formulations, SangCya (Sang-35) and Neoral, in stable adult liver transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 1999; 31: 394
55. McDevitt-Potter LM, Sadaka B, Tichy EM, et al. A multicenter experience with generic tacrolimus conversion. Transplantation 2011; 92: 653
56. Leet A, Richardson M, Senior J-A, et al. A bioavailability study of cyclosporine: Comparison of Neoral versus Cysporin in stable heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009; 28: 894
57. Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. Prescribability and switchability of highly variable drugs and drug products. J Control Release 1999; 62: 33
58. BialerM,MidhaKK.Generic products of antiepileptic drugs:Aperspectiveon bioequivalence and interchangeability. Epilepsia 2010; 51: 941
59. Berg MJ, Gross RA, Tomaszewski KJ, et al. Generic substitution in the treatment of epilepsy: Case evidence of breakthrough seizures. Neurology 2008; 71: 525
60. Duh MS, Paradis PE, Latremouille-Viau D, et al. The risks and costs of multiple-generic substitution of topiramate. Neurology 2009; 72: 2122
61. Kahan BD, Welsh M, Urbauer DL, et al. Low intraindividual variability of cyclosporine A exposure reduces chronic rejection incidence and health care costs. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11: 1122
62. Pollock-BarZiv SM, Finkelstein Y, Manlhiot C, et al. Variability in tacrolimus blood levels increases the risk of late rejection and graft loss after solid organ transplantation in older children. Pediatr Transplant 2010; 14: 968
63. Savoldi S, Maiorca R, Maderna M, et al. Low intrapatient variability of blood cyclosporine levels is correlated with excellent graft survival. Transplant Proc 1997; 29: 288
64. Borra LCP, Roodnat JI, Kal JA, et al. High within-patient variability in the clearance of tacrolimus is a risk factor for poor long-term outcome after kidney transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010; 25: 2757
65. Sabatini S, Ferguson RM, Helderman H, et al. Drug substitution in transplantation: A national kidney foundation white paper. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 33: 389
66. Uber PA, Ross HJ, Zuckermann AO, et al. Generic drug immunosuppression in thoracic transplantation: An ISHLT educational advisory. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009; 28: 655
67. Pollard S, Nashan B, Johnston A, et al. A pharmacokinetic and clinical review of the potential clinical impact of using different formulations of cyclosporine A. Clin Ther 2003; 25: 1654
68. Klintmalm GB. Immunosuppression, generic drugs and the FDA. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 1765
69. Ordre des Pharmaciens du Québec. Algorithme de l'exercice de la substitution. In: Guide sur la substituion en pharmacie, August 1994. Availableat:http://www.opq.org/fr/media/docs/guides-normes/guide-substitution. pdf
70. Butler JA, Roderick P, Mullee M, et al. Frequency and impact of nonadherence to immunosuppressants after renal transplantation: A systematic review. Transplantation 2004; 77: 769
71. Fine RN, Becker Y, De Geest S, et al. Nonadherence consensus conference summary report. Am J Transplant 2009; 9: 35
72. Figueiras MJ, Alves NC, Marcelino D, et al. Assessing lay beliefs about generic medications: Development of the generic medicines scale. Psychol Health Med 2009; 14: 311
73. Kasiske BL, Cohen D, Lucey MR, et al. Payment for immunosuppression after organ transplantation: American Society of Transplantation. JAMA 2000; 283: 2445
74. Hakonsen H, Eilertsen M, Borge H, et al. Generic substitution: An additional challenge for adherence in hypertensive patients? Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: 2515
75. O'Grady JGM, Asderakis A, Bradley R, et al. Multidisciplinary insights into optimizing adherence after solid organ transplantation. Transplantation 2010; 89: 627
76. Al Ameri MN, Whittaker C, Tucker A, et al. A survey to determine the views of renal transplant patients on generic subsitution in the UK. Transpl Int 2011; 24: 770
77. Sorensen L, Stokes JA, Purdie DM, et al. Medication management at home: Medication-related risk factors associated with poor health outcomes. Age Aging 2005; 34: 626
78. Sorensen L, Stokes JA, Purdie DM, et al. Medication management at home: Medication risk factor prevalence and inter-relationships. J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006; 31: 485
79. Greene JA. The substance of the brand. Lancet 2011; 378: 120
80. Katz MG, Jacobson TA, Veledar E, et al. Patient literacy and questionasking behavior during the medical encounter: A mixed-methods analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22: 782
81. Friedman AL, Donovan L, Chapman B, et al. What is a team to do? Generic drug availability impact on transplant center workload. Am J Transplant 2010; 10(suppl 4): 374
82. Alloway RR, Dupuis R, Gabardi S, et al. Evolution of the role of the transplant pharmacist on the multidisciplinary transplant team. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 1576
83. Designated Transplant Program Criteria. Attachment I to Appendix B of UNOS Bylaws. United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). Available at: http://www.unos.org/docs/Appendix-B-AttachI-XIII.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2011
84. Helderman JH, Kang N, Legorreta AP, et al. Healthcare costs in renal transplant recipients using branded versus generic ciclosporin. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2010; 8: 61
85. Haroldson JA, Somerville KT, Carlson S, et al. A retrospective assessment of safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomics of generic azathioprine in heart-transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant 2001; 20: 372.