Equivalence and interchangeability of narrow therapeutic index drugs in organ transplantation

European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 302-307

  Johnston, Atholl ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYCLOSPORIN A; GENERIC DRUG; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT; TACROLIMUS;

ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BIOEQUIVALENCE; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG SAFETY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; IMMUNE DEFICIENCY; MAXIMUM PLASMA CONCENTRATION; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCE;

EID: 84884377847     PISSN: 20479956     EISSN: 20479964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2012-000258     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Shapiro R, Young JB, Milford EL, et al. Immunosuppression: evolution in practice and trends, 1993-2003. Am J Transplant 2005;5:874-886.
2. Uber PA, Ross HJ, Zuckermann AO, et al. Generic drug immunosuppression in thoracic transplantation: an ISHLT educational advisory. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009;28:655-660.
3. European Medicines Agency. Committee for Human Medicinal Products. Questions & Answers: positions on specific questions addressed to the Pharmacokinetics Working Party. EMA/618604/2008 Rev 5. September 2012.
4. Health Canada. Guidance document: comparative bioavailability standards: formulations used for systemic effects. Ottawa, Ontario: February 2012.
5. Kahan BD, Keown P, Levy GA, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressant drugs in clinical practice. Clin Ther 2002;24:330-350.
6. Büchler M, Johnston A. Seeking optimal prescription of cyclosporine ME. Ther Drug Monit 2005;27:3-6.
7. Jorga A, Holt DW, Johnston A. Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 2004;36(Suppl 2S):396S-403S.
8. Wallemacq P, Armstrong VW, Brunet M, et al. Opportunities to optimize tacrolimus therapy in solid organ transplantation: report of the European consensus conference. Ther Drug Monit 2009;31:139-152.
9. Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics. Facts and figures 2010. The Hague, The Netherlands: February 2011.
10. Johnston A, Belitsky P, Frei U, et al. Potential clinical implications of substitution of generic cyclosporine formulations for cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) in transplant recipients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004;60:389-395.
11. Johnston A, Keown PA, Holt DW. Simple bioequivalence criteria: are they relevant to critical dose drugs? Experience gained from cyclosporine. Ther Drug Monit 1997;19:375-381.
12. European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98. Rev 1/Corr. London: January 2010.
13. Food and Drug Administration. US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry: bioequivalence recommendations for specific products. Silver Spring, MD: June 2010.
14. García-Arieta A, Gordon J. Bioequivalence requirements in the European Union: critical discussion. AAPS J 2012;14:738-748.
15. van der Meersch A, Dechartres A, Ravaud P. Quality of reporting of bioequivalence trials comparing generic to brand name drugs: a methodological systematic review. PLoS One 2011;6:e23611.
16. van Gelder T, Gabardi S. Methods, strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of bioequivalence tests with special regard to immune-suppressive drugs. Transplant Int 2013;26:771-777.
17. Wang D, Lorch U, Bakhai A. Crossover Trials. In: Wang D, Bakhai A. eds. Clinical Trials-A Practical Guide to Design, Analysis, and Reporting. London, UK: Remedica, 2006:91-99.
18. Karalis V, Macheras P. Current regulatory approaches of bioequivalence testing. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2012;8:929-942.
19. Krauss GL, Caffo B, Chang YT, et al. Assessing bioequivalence of generic antiepilepsy drugs. Ann Neurol 2011;70:221-228.
20. Gwaza L, Gordon J, Welink J, et al. Statistical approaches to indirectly compare bioequivalence between generics: a comparison of methodologies employing artemether/ lumefantrine 20/120 mg tablets as prequalified by WHO. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2012;68:1611-1618.
21. Herranz M, Morales-Alcelay S, Corredera-Hernández MT, et al. Bioequivalence between generic tacrolimus products marketed in Spain by adjusted indirect comparison. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2013;69:1157-1162.
22. Stevenson KS, Glen J, Stevens KK, et al. High tacrolimus intrapatient variability is associated with acute rejection and graft loss (Abstract MO-021). Transplant Int 2011;24(Suppl 2):111.
23. Pollard S, Nashan B, Johnston A, et al. A pharmacokinetic and clinical review of the potential clinical impact of using different formulations of cyclosporin A. Berlin, Germany, November 19, 2001. Clin Ther 2003;25:1654-1669.
24. Taber DJ, Baillie GM, Ashcraft EE, et al. Does bioequivalence between modified cyclosporine formulations translate into equal outcomes? Transplantation 2005;80:1633-1635.
25. Kahan BD. Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine: 20 years of progress. Transplant Proc 2004;36:S378-S391.
26. He X, Johnston A. Variable cyclosporine exposure: a risk factor for chronic allograft nephropathy and graft loss? Transplant Proc 2004;36:1321-1326.
27. 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;11:1122-1131.
28. 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;17:1310-1317.
29. Borra LC, 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;25:2757-2763.
30. 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;11:1861-1867.
31. McDevitt-Potter LM, Sadaka B, Tichy EM, et al. A multicenter experience with generic tacrolimus conversion. Transplantation 2011;92:653-657.
32. Spence MM, Nquyen LM, Hui RL, et al. Evaluation of clinical and safety outcomes associated with conversion from brand-name to generic tacrolimus in transplant recipients enrolled in an integrated health care system. Pharmacotherapy 2012;32:981-987.
33. Alloway RR, Sadaka B, Trofe-Clark J, et al. A randomized pharmacokinetic study of generic tacrolimus versus reference tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2012;12:2825-2831.
34. Sandoz. Adoport®. Important advice: meticulous attention to detail is required when prescribing or dispensing oral tacrolimus products, and patients must always know which medicine they are taking. 28 June 2010. http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/ groups/pl-p/documents/websiteresources/con087633.pdf. (accessed Oct 2012).
35. Klintmalm GB. Immunosuppression, generic drugs and the FDA. Am J Transplant 2011;11:1765-1766.
36. Latran M. Response to Klintmalm on the use of generic immunosuppression. Am J Transplant 2012;12:791; Author reply 794.
37. 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-S155.
38. Sociedad Española de Trasplante. Consensus statement on generic substitution for immunosuppressants with a narrow therapeutic index. 29 March 2011.
39. van Gelder T. European Society for Organ Transplantation Advisory Committee recommendations on generic substitution of immunosuppressive drugs. Transplant Int 2011;24:1135-1141.
40. Parker K, Zagadailov EA, Bruno AS, et al. Transplant coordinators' perceived impact of availability of multiple generic immunosuppression therapies on patients, workload, and posttransplant maintenance therapy. J Transplant Published Online First: 8 Jan 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/897434
41. 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;8:61-68.