Generic immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 350, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Molnar, Amber O ^a,b   Fergusson, Dean ^a,c   Tsampalieros, Anne K ^a,b   Bennett, Alexandria ^a,b   Fergusson, Nicholas ^a,b   Ramsay, Timothy ^a   Knoll, Greg A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CREATININE; CYCLOSPORIN A; GENERIC DRUG; MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL; TACROLIMUS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY;

ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BIOEQUIVALENCE; CARDIAC GRAFT REJECTION; CAUSE OF DEATH; CLINICAL STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; FOLLOW UP; GRAFT REJECTION; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HEART TRANSPLANTATION; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; INCIDENCE; INTERVENTION STUDY; INTESTINE TRANSPLANTATION; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; LUNG TRANSPLANTATION; MAXIMUM PLASMA CONCENTRATION; META ANALYSIS; NONHUMAN; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PANCREAS TRANSPLANTATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT FAILURE; IMMUNOLOGY; MORTALITY; PROGNOSIS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL, HUMANIZED; DRUGS, GENERIC; GRAFT REJECTION; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PROGNOSIS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84939215429     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h3163     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Harrison JJ, Schiff JR, Coursol CJ, et al. Generic immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation: a Canadian perspective. Transplantation 2012; 93: 657-65.
2. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Transplant Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2009; 9(SUPPL. 3): S1-155.
3. Sabatini S, Ferguson RM, Helderman JH, et al. Drug substitution in transplantation: a National Kidney Foundation White Paper. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 33: 389-97.
4. Uber PA, Ross HJ, Zuckermann AO, et al. Generic drug immunosuppression in thoracic transplantation: an ISHLT educational advisory. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009; 28: 655-60.
5. 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: 1211-5.
6. Godman B, Wettermark B, van Woerkom M, et al. Multiple policies to enhance prescribing efficiency for established medicines in Europe with a particular focus on demand-side measures: findings and future implications. Front Pharmacol 2014; 5: 106.
7. 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: 2514-26.
8. Al Ameri MN, Whittaker C, Tucker A, et al. A survey to determine the views of renal transplant patients on generic substitution in the UK. Transpl Int 2011; 24: 770-9.
9. Banahan BF 3rd, Kolassa EM. A physician survey on generic drugs and substitution of critical dose medications. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2080-8.
10. Figueiras MJ, Alves NC, Marcelino D, et al. Assessing lay beliefs about generic medicines: development of the generic medicines scale. Psychol Health Med 2009; 14: 311-21.
11. Hakonsen H, Eilertsen M, Borge H, et al. Generic substitution: additional challenge for adherence in hypertensive patients? Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: 2515-21.
12. Health Canada. Guidance document-comparative bioavailability standards: formulations used for systemic effects. 2012. www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/bio/gd-standards-ld-normes-eng.php-a2.1
13. Knoll GA, Blydt-Hansen TD, Campbell P, et al. Canadian Society of Transplantation and Canadian Society of Nephrology commentary on the 2009 KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Kidney Dis 2010; 56: 219-46.
14. Van Gelder T. Substitution EACoG. European Society for Organ Transplantation Advisory Committee recommendations on generic substitution of immunosuppressive drugs. Transpl Int 2011; 24: 1135-41.
15. CHMP Pharmacokinetics Working Party (PKWP). Questions and answers: postitions on specific questions addressed to the Pharmacokinetics Working Party. 2011. www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/Scientific-guideline/2009/09/WC500002963.pdf.
16. Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency. Oral tacrolimus products: prescribe and dispense by brand name only, to minimize the risk of inadvertent switching between products, which has been associated with reports of toxicity and graft rejection. Drug Safety Update, 2012. www.mhra.gov.uk/Safetyinformation/DrugSafetyUpdate/CON155756.
17. Danish Health Medicines Authority. Generic substitution terminated for oral medicines containing cyclosporine or tacrolimus, 2011. http://sundhedsstyrelsen.dk/en/news/2011/generic-substitution-terminated-for-oral-medicines-containing-cyclosporine-or-tacrolimus.
18. Christians U, First MR, Benet LZ. Recommendations for bioequivalence testing of cyclosporine generics revisited. Ther Drug Monit 2000; 22: 330-45.
19. Davit BM, Nwakama PE, Buehler GJ, et al. Comparing generic and innovator drugs: a review of 12 years of bioequivalence data from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Ann Pharmacother 2009; 43: 1583-97.
20. Klintmalm GB Immunosuppression, generic drugs and the FDA. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 1765-6.
21. US Food and Drug Administration. The FDA Process for Approving Generic Drugs. 2009. www.fda.gov/training/forhealthprofessionals/ucm090320.htm
22. Meyer MC United States Food and Drug Administration requirements for approval of generic drug products. J Clin Psychiatry 2001; 62(SUPPL. 5): 4-9; discussion 23-4.
23. Nation RL, Sansom LN. Bioequivalence requirements for generic products. Pharmacol Ther 1994; 62: 41-55.
24. Higgins J P, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928.
25. Wells G, Shea B, Higgins J P, et al. Checklists of methodological issues for review authors to consider when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods 2013; 4: 63-77.
26. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT Statistical algorithms in Review Manager 5: statistical methods group of the Cochrane Collaboration, 2010.
27. Higgins JT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
28. Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Higgins JP, et al. Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues. Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31: 140-9.
29. Henney JE From the food and drug administration: nationwide recall of SangCya oral solution. JAMA 2000; 284: 1234.
30. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: e1-34.
31. Al Wakeel JS, Shaheen FAM, 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: 2245-51.
32. Al Wakeel JS, Shaheen FAM, 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: 2252-7.
33. Carnahan W, Cooper T Y. Neoral-to-Gengraf conversion in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2003; 35: 1308-13.
34. David-Neto E, Kakehashi E, Alves CF, et al. Bioequivalence of a new cyclosporine a formulation to Neoral. Ther Drug Monit 2004; 26: 53-7.
35. Diarra DA, Riegersperger M, Saemann MD, et al. Maintenance immunosuppressive therapy and generic cyclosporine A use in adult renal transplantation: a single center analysis. Kidney Int Suppl 2010; 115: S8-11.
36. Durlik M, Rauch C, Thyroff-Friesinger U, et al. Comparison of peak and trough level monitoring of cyclosporine treatment using two modern cyclosporine preparations. Transplant Proc 2003; 35: 1304-7.
37. 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 Monit 2005; 27: 592-600.
38. 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: 711-7.
39. Kahn D, Muller E, Pascoe M. Safe conversion to cicloral, a generic cylosporine, in both stable and de novo renal transplant recipients. Saudi J Kid Dis Transpl 2010; 21: 426-32.
40. Kim SC, Han DJ. Neoplanta as a new microemulsion formula of cyclosporine in renal transplantation: comparative study with Neoral for efficacy and safety. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 3547-8.
41. Kraeuter M, Helmschrott M, Erbel C, et al. Conversion to generic cyclosporine A in stable chronic patients after heart transplantation. Drug Des Develop Ther 2013; 7: 1421-6.
42. Leet A, Richardson M, Senior JA, et al. A bioavailability study of cyclosporine: comparison of Neoral versus Cysporin in stable heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009; 28: 894-8.
43. 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: 80-3.
44. Masri MA, Haberal M, Rizvi A, et al. Switchability of neoral and equoral according to Food and Drug Administration rules and regulations. Transplant Proc 2005; 37: 2988-93.
45. Pamugas GEP, Danguilan RA, Lamban AB, et al. Safety and efficacy of generic cyclosporine arpimune in Filipino low-risk primary kidney transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2012; 44: 101-8.
46. Perlik 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 Rep 2005; 149: 309-13.
47. 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: 313-7.
48. Roza A, Tomlanovich S, Merion R, et al. Conversion of stable renal allograft recipients to a bioequivalent cyclosporine formulation. Transplantation 2002; 74: 1013-7.
49. 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: 1214-8.
50. 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: 2051-3.
51. 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: 392-4.
52. Stephan A, Masri MA, Barbari A, et al. A one-year comparative study of Neoral vs Consupren in de novo renal transplant patients. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 3533-4.
53. Taber DJ, Baillie GM, Ashcraft EE, et al. Does bioequivalence between modified cyclosporine formulations translate into equal outcomes? Transplantation 2005; 80: 1633-5.
54. Talaulikar GS, Gallagher M P, Carney GM, et al. Switchover to generic cyclosporine in stable renal transplant recipients: a single unit experience. Nephrology (Carlton) 2004; 9: 418-21.
55. Toman J, Spinarova L, Krejci J, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of Consupren solution and Sandimmun Neoral solution, 50 ml in stable heart transplant patients. Biom Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Rep 2002; 146: 87-90.
56. Tsang WK, Wong SH, Chu KH, et al. The pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of Gengraf and Neoral in stable renal tranplant recipients. Hong Kong J Nephrol 2003; 5: 40-3.
57. Vitko 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 Suppl 2010; 115: S12-6.
58. First MR, Alloway R, Schroeder TJ. Development of Sang-35: a cyclosporine formulation bioequivalent to Neoral. Clin Transplant 1998; 12: 518-24.
59. Fisher RA, Pan SH, 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: 394-5.
60. 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: 326-7.
61. Masri MA, Barbari A, Stephan A, et al. Cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in stable renal transplant patients: effect of formulation Sandimmun versus Consupren versus Neoral. Transplant Proc 1996; 28: 1318-20.
62. Khatami SM, Taheri S, Azmandian J, et al. One-year multicenter double-blind randomized clinical trial on the efficacy and safety of generic cyclosporine (Iminoral) in de novo kidney transplant recipients. Exp Clin Transplant 2013; doi: 10.6002/ect.2013.0139.
63. 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: 2825-31.
64. Connor A, Prowse A, MacPhee I, et al. Generic tacrolimus in renal transplantation: trough blood concentration as a surrogate for drug exposure. Transplantation 2012; 93: e45-6.
65. Dhungel V, Colvin-Adams M, Eckman PM. Short-term outcomes in heart transplant recipients treated with generic tacrolimus. Open J Organ Transplant Surg 2013; 3: 19-21.
66. Heavner MS, Tichy EM, Yazdi M, et al. Clinical outcomes associated with conversion from brand-name to generic tacrolimus in hospitalized kidney transplant recipients. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2013; 70: 1507-12.
67. Marfo K, Aitken S, Akalin E. Clinical outcomes after conversion from brand-name tacrolimus (prograf) to a generic formulation in renal transplant recipients: a retrospective cohort study. P T 2013; 38: 484-8.
68. Min SI, Ha J, Kim YS, et al. Therapeutic equivalence and pharmacokinetics of generic tacrolimus formulation in de novo kidney transplant patients. Nephrol Dialysis Transplant 2013; 28: 3110-9.
69. Rosenborg S, Nordstrom A, Almquist T, et al. Systematic conversion to generic tacrolimus in stable kidney transplant patients. Clin Kidney J 2013; 7: 151-5.
70. Spence MM, Nguyen 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: 981-7.
71. Yu YD, Lee SG, Joh JW, et al. Results of a phase 4 trial of Tacrobell in liver transplantation patients: a multicenter study in South Korea. Hepatogastroenterology 2012; 59: 357-63.
72. McDevitt-Potter LM, Sadaka B, Tichy EM, et al. A multicenter experience with generic tacrolimus conversion. Transplantation 2011; 92: 653-7.
73. 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: 1861-7.
74. Robertsen I, Asberg A, Ingero AO, et al. Use of generic tacrolimus in elderly renal transplant recipients: precaution is needed. Transplantation 2015; 99: 528-32.
75. 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: 292-6.
76. Namgoong JM, Hwang S, Ahn CS, et al. A pilot study on the safety and efficacy of generic mycophenolate agent as conversion maintenance therapy in stable liver transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2013; 45: 3035-7.
77. Rutkowski B, Bzoma B, Debska-Slizien A, et al. Immunosuppressive regimens containing generic mycophenolate mofetil (Myfenax) in de novo renal transplant recipients - preliminary results of 6-month observation. Ann Transplant 2011; 16: 74-80.
78. Sunder-Plassmann G, Reinke P, Rath T, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetic study of two mycophenolate mofetil formulations in stable kidney transplant recipients. Transpl Int 2012; 25: 680-6.
79. Danguilan RA, Lamban AB, Luna CA, et al. Pilot study on the efficacy and safety of generic mycophenolate mofetil (Mycept) compared with Cellcept among incident low-risk primary kidney transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2014; 46: 415-7.
80. 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: 602-5.
81. Trofe-Clark J, Gabardi S, McDevitt-Potter L, et al. Immunosuppression, generic drugs and the FDA. Am J Transplant 2012; 12: 792-3.
82. Allard JF, MC. Is it ethical to prescribe generic immunosuppressive drugs to renal transplant patients. Can J Kidney Health Dis 2014; 1: 23.
83. Meredith P. Bioequivalence and other unresolved issues in generic drug substitution. Clin Ther 2003; 25: 2875-90.