Experience with Neoral versus Sandimmune in primary liver transplant recipients

We compared results using Neoral versus Sandimmune, each in combination with steroid and azathioprine immunosuppression, in primary liver transplantation recipients. There were 15 patients in each group with similar demographic distributions. Intravenous cyclosporine was stopped at 4.3 ± 1.9 days in the Neoral group vs 7.8 ± 4.9 days in the Sandimmune group (P < 0.025). Cyclosporine levels in the first 10 days were higher (mean 306 ng/ml vs 231 ng/ml) in the Neoral group than the Sandimmune group (P < 0.05). The Neoral dose was less than the Sandimmune dose (mean 5.5 ng/kg per day vs 7.9 ng/kg per day) to achieve these levels in that time period (P < 0.05). Two patients (13 %) experienced three episodes of biopsy-proven rejection in the Neoral group compared to nine patients (60 %) with 12 episodes of rejection in the Sandimmune group (P < 0.025). Incidences of neurological and renal complications were similar between the groups. Infections requiring treatment were also similar. Liver function, renal function, and marrow function, evaluated at days 7, 14, 21, 28, and 2, 4, 6, and 12 months post-transplant, were not different between the groups. In summary, shorter use of intravenous cyclosporine and quicker stabilization of trough cyclosporine levels was achieved with Neoral than with Sandimmune. In the early posttransplant period, higher levels with lower doses were achieved with Neoral than with Sandimmune. In our experience, the incidence of rejection was lower with Neoral than with Sandimmune. There were similar lengths of hospitalization, mortality, adverse events, retransplantation, and similar liver, renal, and marrow function up to 1 year posttransplantation. Because of this experience, we continued to use Neoral in a total of 59 primary liver transplant recipients. We have not used intravenous cyclosporine in the last 44 patients. Follow-up was a mean of 11.4 months, ranging from 1 to 27 months. The incidence of rejection was 24 % in these 59 patients compared to our historical experience of 70 % using Sandimmune.     

Abbreviated cyclosporine AUCs on Neoral – the search continues!

 Cyclosporine is a powerful immunosuppressant with a narrow therapeutic window and considerable inter- and intrapatient variability. The pre-dose trough concentration (C_min) is commonly used for therapeutic drug monitoring. With the new microemulsion (Neoral), intrapatient variability was reduced. However, the usefulness of Neoral C_min was questioned. Firstly, because of the improved and more-rapid absorption, accidental intake before blood sampling has a greater impact on C_min than with classic cyclosporine. Secondly, C_min may be low despite high drug exposure, due to rapid clearance in children. A full pharmacokinetic (PK) profile with determination of the area under the curve (AUC) is expensive and cumbersome, and therefore a search for an abbreviated AUC began. Here, we present a retrospective analysis of 84 PK profiles from 78 pediatric renal transplant recipients. By analysis of rejection episodes and toxicity, we estimated a target AUC above 5,000 ng×h/ml in the early post-transplant period and 3,900 ng×h/ml beyond 100 days. The abbreviated AUC using the 2- and 6-h concentrations (C2 and C6) and a simple estimate derived from the 3-h concentration (C3) were equally well correlated with the AUC. From our data, we recommend a target C3 at approximately 800 ng/ml early after transplantation and 450–550 ng/ml beyond 100 days. Received: 28 January 1998 / Revised: 10 June 1998 / Accepted: 15 June 1998     

Safety of Neoral conversion in maintenance renal transplant patients: A one-year, double-blind study. NOVARTIS OLN-353 Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Despite the improved pharmacokinetic characteristics of Neoral, some centers have encountered difficulty with the conversion of some patients from Sandimmune to Neoral and have reported precipitation of toxicity and rejection. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter prospective study of stable maintenance renal transplant patients to compare the safety and tolerability of converting from Sandimmune to Neoral (N = 132) versus continuing Sandimmune (N = 130). Patients were studied for one year. The cyclosporine (CsA) dose was adjusted as necessary to maintain site-specific trough whole blood levels. RESULTS: During the study, dose adjustments were frequent in both groups: 67% Neoral versus 65% Sandimmune patients. At study completion, the mean trough CsA levels were comparable; the dose change-from-baseline did not differ statistically between groups. Fewer Neoral (87.1%) than Sandimmune (95.4%) patients reported adverse events, and serious adverse events were comparable. Adverse events related to CsA were not more common in the Neoral group. Renal function measures also implied comparability of the two treatments. Three Neoral versus five Sandimmune patients experienced acute rejection; two Neoral versus five Sandimmune patients experienced chronic graft dysfunction. Two septic deaths occurred in the Neoral group. No grafts were lost. CONCLUSIONS: With careful monitoring, conversion of maintenance renal transplant patients to Neoral can be safely accomplished.     

The evaluation of the safety and tolerability of two formulations of cyclosporine: neoral and sandimmune. A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neoral, a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine, was approved for use in the United States in 1995. Many studies comparing Neoral and Sandimmune have been conducted, and although most state that Neoral is the superior cyclosporine formulation, results have failed to conclusively demonstrate this claim. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of Neoral and Sandimmune. METHODS: Publications comparing the use of Neoral and Sandimmune were reviewed for demographic variables, adverse events, rejection incidence, graft losses, and serum creatinine. Neoral and Sandimmune were compared in all patients and in the following subgroups: (1) age (adult or pediatric), (2) transplant type (kidney, liver, or heart), (3) indication (de novo or stable), and (4) study design (randomized prospective trials versus nonrandomized, blinded versus open-labeled studies). RESULTS: The rate of graft loss was similar when comparing Neoral and Sandimmune in all analyses. The incidence of rejection was lower in Neoral-treated de novo renal, liver, and cardiac transplants (P<0.05). There were significantly more adverse events in Sandimmune-treated de novo liver transplants than Neoral-treated de novo liver transplants (P<0.00001). When considering only randomized prospective trials, the incidence of rejection was lower in Neoral-treated de novo and stable patients (P<0.05). However, there were more adverse events in Neoral-treated stable patients (P<0.00001). When considering only blinded studies, there were more adverse events in Neoral-treated patients (P<0.05), whereas in open-labeled studies there was no difference in adverse events comparing Neoral and Sandimmune (P=NS). CONCLUSIONS: Considering all published trials, the data seem to indicate that Neoral therapy is preferred because of a lower rejection incidence, with a trend toward less adverse events. However, when limiting the analysis to only randomized prospective trials, and specifically assessing blinded studies, the data become less clear. Neoral use was associated with more adverse events in blinded studies, and Sandimmune use was associated with more adverse events in open-labeled studies. Careful individual consideration must be given in choosing the best possible cyclosporine formulation.     

Comparison of pharmacokinetics of Neoral and Sandimmune in stable pediatric liver transplant recipients.

Cyclosporine (Sandimmune; Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) is an effective immunosuppressive drug, but its lipid formulation and variable absorption may expose children to the risk of rejection during episodes of gastroenteritis after liver transplantation. Neoral (Novartis) is a microemulsified form of cyclosporine that may be better absorbed. In this study, the pharmacokinetic profiles of Neoral and Sandimmune were compared in stable children after liver transplantation to evaluate whether Neoral is more predictably absorbed. Eight children, 6 boys and 2 girls, with a mean age of 4.5 years (range, 1.2-12) were studied between 4 and 12 months after liver transplantation. Pharmacokinetic profiles were performed on each child by using the same dose (mg/kg) of Neoral or Sandimmune. Tmax, Cmax, Ctrough, and the area under the curve (AUC) were calculated and side effects were documented in children taking either drug for more than 3 months. Mean peak cyclosporine levels were higher and were achieved significantly sooner with Neoral (Cmax 790.5 +/- 216.5 ng/mL, P =.06; Tmax 1.8 +/- 1.0 hr, P =.01) than with Sandimmune (Cmax 589.4 +/- 313 ng/mL, Tmax 2.5 +/- 1.7 hr), implying more rapid and better absorption. There was no significant difference in overall drug exposure (AUC) and 12-hour trough levels between the two formulations (P >.05). Children with Roux-en-Y loop biliary anastomosis taking Neoral, however, showed greater increases in AUC (mean increase = 37%) than those with duct-to-duct anastomosis (mean increase = 16%). There was no correlation between 12-hour trough level and AUC for either Neoral (r2 = 0.48) or Sandimmune (r2 = -0.08); however, for both drugs, AUC correlated very well with the 2-hour post-dose level (r2 = 0.68 and 0.7, respectively). Hirsutism was reported in 4 of 6 children on Neoral and may be associated with higher peak levels. Neoral is more consistently absorbed than Sandimmune in children after liver transplantation and may be more effective prophylaxis against rejection. Because of the increased peak levels and drug exposure, which may influence side effects, particularly in children with Sandimmune malabsorption, we recommend a 1:0.75 dose conversion ratio in patients being converted from Sandimmune to Neoral.     

Neoral pharmacokinetics in Latino and Caucasian pediatric renal transplant recipients

Interpopulation variability of drug pharmacokinetics (PK) has been described. For example, the systemic clearance of nifedipine is higher in Mexicans than Caucasians. African-Americans have a lower cyclosporine bioavailability than Caucasians. Limited data are available in the Latino population. Under identical conditions, we compared the PK profile of Neoral (cyclosporine for microemulsion) obtained in stable pediatric renal transplant recipients of Latino and Caucasian origin. A slightly lower area under the curve (AUC) when corrected for dose per body surface area or per kilogram of body weight was observed in Caucasians compared with Latinos. This difference was more pronounced in the younger age group (<12 years) with a higher peak-to-trough ratio. However, the Caucasians required a higher dosage of Neoral than the Latinos to achieve that same AUC. There was no difference between the groups in the time (t_max) to reach maximal concentration (C_max) of Neoral. A higher apparent clearance of the drug was observed in the Caucasians compared with the Latinos, especially in the younger age group. No differences in pre- and post-dose levels were observed between the two groups. These differences might affect dose adjustment between the two subpopulations. Received: 30 June 2000 / Revised: 21 November 2000 / Accepted: 21 November 2000     

NOF-11: a one-year pediatric randomized double-blind comparison of neoral versus sandimmune in orthotopic liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Although cyclosporine (CsA) has been a mainstay in liver transplantation immunosuppression the original formulation [Sandimmune (SIM)] has variable absorption, particularly in children. Neoral is a new formulation of CsA that may have improved biovailability that would be advantageous in children. This study was undertaken to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK) and effects on outcome of Neoral versus Sandimmune (SIM) in primary pediatric liver transplant recipients. METHODS: Thirty-two patients were randomized to receive Neoral (17 patients) or SIM (15 patients) in the early posttransplant period (days 1-7) in a double-blind fashion. Intravenous CsA was instituted immediately posttransplant followed by Neoral or SIM as soon as the patient was tolerating oral fluids (days 1-7). PK were compared after the first dose (1-7 days), 3 weeks, and 6 and 12 months posttransplant. In addition, side effects, effect of age and food on absorption, and rejection episodes were assessed by intent to treat analysis. Notable characteristics of this study include the use of a central laboratory for all sample analyses and the assessment of renal function using radioisotopic evaluation of glomerular filtration rates. RESULTS: At baseline the two groups were comparable. Neoral resulted in higher peak levels of CsA and total drug exposure with comparable time to peak drug levels at days 1-7 and week 3. This trend was maintained at 6 and 12 months. Time on i.v. CsA was reduced in the Neoral group (8.4 vs. 11.1 days) and the weight adjusted daily dose of SIM required to achieve target trough levels was about 2-fold more than Neoral from day 22 onward. In addition, biopsy proven and treated and steroid-resistant rejection episodes were fewer in the Neoral group (6 vs. 12; P=0.01 and 1 vs. 8: P=0.004, respectively). Side effects were comparable in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Neoral was well tolerated and had greater biovailability than SIM without any increase in the incidence of side effects. In addition fewer episodes of rejection were observed with Neoral versus SIM. We conclude that Neoral is the CsA formulation of choice for use in pediatric liver transplant recipients.     

Low intraindividual variability of cyclosporin A exposure reduces chronic rejection incidence and health care costs

The present study applied a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to assess the role of intraindividual variability of cyclosporin A (CsA) drug exposure in predisposing renal transplant recipients to the occurrence of chronic rejection, as well as to increased health care costs using a resource-based economic analysis. Two hundred and four adult renal transplant recipients were treated with tapering doses of prednisone (Pred) and with a concentration-controlled strategy that selected doses of the olive oil-based formulations of CsA (Sandimmune(R)) that achieved target concentrations based on serial pharmacokinetic profiles. The ROC analysis revealed an inflection point of plots of the coefficient of variation (%CV) of CsA exposure versus the risk of chronic rejection at >/=28.4% for the average concentration (C(av)), i.e., the dosing interval-corrected area under the concentration-time curves, and >/=36% for the trough concentration (C(0)). The incidence of chronic rejection over a period of 5 yr was 24% among the less variable (LV) versus 40% among the variable (V) cohort. The economic analysis revealed that the total mean facility and physician costs per patient were $48,789 versus $60,998, respectively (P < 0.01). The degree of variability displayed by any individual could only be predicted by serial measurements of CsA concentrations, and not by demographic features, laboratory determinations, clinical characteristics, individual or mean values of any observed CsA concentration, or other pharmacokinetic parameters calculated following a single drug exposure. Thus, strategies that reduce intrapatient variability of CsA exposure over time may lead to reductions in chronic allograft loss and in treatment costs.     

Neoral in de novo liver transplantation: Adequate immunosuppression without intravenous cyclosporine

Absorption of cyclosporine from the traditional oral formulation Sandimmune (Novartis Pharma, Basel, Switzerland) is particularly unpredictable in the early stages after liver transplantation. The absorption of cyclosporine is influenced by liver function, postoperative paralytic ileus, and graft dysfunction. Oral absorption of cyclosporine from Sandimmune is also bile dependent; cholestasis and external biliary drainage are associated with low cyclosporine absorption. Postoperative administration of intravenous Sandimmune is therefore often necessary to obtain adequate immunosuppression, despite the increased risk of renal and neurological toxicity. A microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine, Neoral (Novartis), has been developed to overcome the problems of poor and variable absorption of cyclosporine from Sandimmune. Uptake of cyclosporine from Neoral is rapid and less dependent on bile secretion so that higher peak concentrations are reached and absorption is less variable than with Sandimmune. A review of several open studies in which Neoral was administered to liver transplant patients immediately after transplantation is presented. The results suggest that the use of Neoral as a primary immunosuppressive therapy provides adequate cyclosporine trough levels, minimizing or obviating the need for intravenous cyclosporine administration. In addition, Neoral appears to reduce the risk of acute rejection episodes compared with immunosuppressive regimens involving intravenous cyclosporine. (Liver Transpl Surg 1997 Nov;3(6):571-7)     

Safety and tolerability of a new oral formulation of cyclosporin A, Sandimmun Neoral, in renal transplant patients

Abstract The current therapy with Sandimmun has been improved by the development of a new oral formulation of its active ingredient, Cyclosporine A and which is called Sandimmun Neoral. This new galenical formulation is based on the microemulsion technology and offers consistent oral absorption and pharmacokinetic predictability. In two studies of a 12 weeks duration each and including 466 stable renal transplant patients and 86 new renal transplant patients it was shown that Sandimmun Neoral is as well tolerated and as safe as Sandimmun. Stable renal transplant patients currently receiving Sandimmun can safely be switched to Sandimmun Neoral on a 1:1 dose level basis. However, as a result of the more consistent absorption of Sandimmun Neoral, poor absorbers with Sandimmun will become normal absorbers and than will need a considerable dose reduction to reach the same Cyclosporine A exposure. In new renal transplant patients kidney function seems to improve better and faster when Sandimmun Neoral is given as shown by creatinine and creatinine clearance values. In the Sandimmun Neoral group less patients experienced a rejection episode and time free of rejection was longer, this may reflect a better maintenance of immunosuppression. In addition, considerably lower doses (16% on average) are required for Sandimmun Neoral to achieve comparable cyclosporine A blood trough levels and these patients are also sooner stabilized in terms of Cyclosporine a therapy.     

Pharmacokinetics of neoral in stable renal transplant recipients with long-term diabetes mellitus

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of Neoral has been studied widely and C2 monitoring has been shown to be superior to C0 monitoring in predicting outcomes. However, data are scarce in diabetic renal transplant recipients who may have gastroparesis. We studied 0 to 8 hour pharmacokinetic profiles (AUC(0-8h)) of Neoral on 3 consecutive days in 18 diabetic adults who had stable renal function for at least 6 months after transplantation and no overt symptoms of diabetic gastroparesis. All patients had diabetes mellitus (DM) for at least 5 years. Intrapatient variability of C2 levels was 28% (range, 6%-68%); it was < or =20% in 9 patients (50%) and >60% in 2 patients. Correlation coefficients between AUC(0-8h) and AUC(0-4h), between C2 and AUC(0-8h), and between C0 and AUC(0-8h) were 0.95, 0.86, and 0.77, respectively. Exposure phase (85% of AUC(0-8h)) was longer than 4 hours in all completed (48/54; 89%) profiles; it was longer than 6 hours in 20 profiles. C4 levels had good correlation with AUC(0-8h) (0.86) and low intrapatient variability (16% +/- 11%; range, 2%-39%). Thirteen of 18 patients (72%) had intrapatient variability of C4 < or = 20%. We conclude that the exposure phase of Neoral is prolonged more than 4 hours in adult renal transplant recipients with long-term diabetes, even in the absence of symptoms of gastroparesis. Because of very high intrapatient variability in this group of patients, C2 levels may not be reliable for TDM of Neoral despite high correlation with AUC(0-8h). C4 level may be a valid alternative for these patients.     

Comparison of microemulsion and conventional formulations of cyclosporine A in preventing acute rejection in de novo kidney transplant patients. The U.K. Neoral Renal Study Group

BACKGROUND: The microemulsion preconcentrate formulation of cyclosporine A (CsA) (Neoral) exhibits more uniform pharmacokinetics than the conventional formulation (Sandimmun; SIM). This randomized, open-label, U.K. multicenter study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Neoral and SIM in preventing acute rejection in de novo renal transplant recipients. METHODS: Adult cadaveric kidney recipients (n=293) received Neoral or SIM twice daily for 12 months. Initially identical Neoral and SIM doses were titrated, maintaining trough CsA levels within locally defined therapeutic limits. RESULTS: In the year after transplantation, acute rejection occurred in 34% of the Neoral and 47% of the SIM recipients (P=0.037). In the intent-to-treat population, fewer treatment failures (defined as acute rejection, graft loss, withdrawal, or death) occurred in the Neoral (45%) than the SIM recipients (58%) (P=0.015) and therapeutic CsA levels (> or =250 microg/L) were reached faster with Neoral than SIM (P=0.0017). Antibody treatment of refractory rejection was used slightly less in the Neoral group (Neoral: 10%; SIM: 12%). One-year patient and graft survival rates (excluding deaths with functioning grafts) were 95% and 88%, respectively, for Neoral and 96% and 89% for SIM. Both formulations were well tolerated. No differences were observed between therapies in the nature, frequency, or severity of adverse events. Neoral use was not associated with increased nephrotoxicity or excessive immunosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: Neoral reduced the incidence of acute rejection compared with SIM, without significant increases in adverse events. This was achieved without altering existing SIM protocols and was attributed to improved absorption of CsA from Neoral and less variability in whole blood CsA concentrations.     

Effect of increasing baseline immunosuppression on the prevalence of clinical and subclinical rejection: a pilot study.

This group has reported that treatment of subclinical rejection in the first 3 mo posttransplant with corticosteroids decreases late clinical rejections and improves graft function at 2 yr in renal transplant recipients. The current study was performed to determine whether an increase in baseline immunosuppression would decrease the prevalence of early subclinical rejections, as well as the incidence of early and late clinical rejections. Patients received mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and Neoral cyclosporin A (CsA) posttransplant (n = 29), of which 17 underwent protocol biopsies at months 1, 2, 3, and 6 (Neoral + MMF Protocol Biopsy [Bx]), while 12 declined protocol biopsies (Neoral + MMF Control). These individuals were compared with 72 historical control patients treated with Sandimmune CsA and Imuran, of which 36 had undergone protocol biopsies at months 1, 2, 3, and 6 (Sandimmune + Azathioprine [AZA] Protocol Bx), and 36 had a protocol biopsy at month 6 (Sandimmune + AZA Control). Baseline immunosuppression with Neoral + MMF decreased the incidence of early clinical rejections (0 to 3 mo) and cumulative corticosteroid exposure, but had no impact on the prevalence of early subclinical rejection. Moreover, to maximally decrease the risk of developing late clinical rejections (months 7 to 12) in Neoral + MMF patients required that protocol biopsies be done and that subclinical rejection be treated. The paradoxical finding of recent clinical trials that a reduction in acute clinical rejection has not improved long-term graft outcome may be explained in part by the failure to control subclinical rejection.     

Cyclosporine formulation and Kaposi's sarcoma after renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: Transplantation enhances the risk of malignancies, due to the chronic use of antirejection medication. In the case of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) the permissive effect of immunosuppression has been extensively studied, and cyclosporine (CsA) appears to play a key role. Here we have compared the incidence of KS in transplant patients receiving Neoral or Sandimmune as a part of their immunosuppressive therapy. METHODS: In all, 668 kidney transplant recipient followed at our Nephrology Unit from 1970 to 2003 entered this retrospective analysis; 300 were on CsA Sandimmune-based and 308 on CsA Neoral-based therapy. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of KS. RESULTS: KS was diagnosed in 20 out of 608 patients given CsA with an incidence rate of 4.7 per 1000 patients per year. No episodes of KS was found in the preCsA era. Among patients on CsA, those treated with Neoral had fourfold higher incidence rate of KS than in the Sandimmune group (10.7 vs. 2.3 per 1000 patients per year). Kaplan-Meier analysis shows that patients on Neoral had lower cumulative KS-free probability than those on Sandimmune. Cox's analysis documented that Neoral was a positive predictor of KS development as compared to Sandimmune (hazard ratio: 2.237). Among patients on Neoral, those who developed KS had higher daily exposure to the drug assessed by pharmacokinetic studies. CONCLUSIONS: In recipients of kidney transplant CsA Neoral increases the risk of KS as compared to the Sandimmune formulation, possibly due to enhanced drug bioavailability and ultimately patients daily CsA exposure.     

Conversion from tacrolimus to cyclosporin in stable renal transplant patients: safety, metabolic changes, and pharmacokinetic comparison

BACKGROUND: Conversion from tacrolimus to cyclosporin has not previously been reported as routine clinical practice, but only as indicated by rejection or adverse effects. METHODS: The safety and metabolic outcome of elective conversion from tacrolimus to cyclosporin was examined in 19 recipients of cadaver renal transplants. Conversion was performed in stable patients at 3-6 months after transplantation. RESULTS: Patient and graft survival was 100% at 3 months after conversion, with no rejection episodes. Three patients have been subsequently converted back to tacrolimus, two for rejection and one for hirsutism. There were no significant changes in creatinine, urate, or blood sugar levels after conversion, but the mean plasma magnesium rose from 0.73 (0.63-0.97) to 0.82 (0.65-1) mmol/liter (P=0.037), and the mean plasma cholesterol rose from 5.2 (3.4-6.8) to 5.5 (3.8-7.6) mmol/liter (P=0.033). Pharmacokinetic profiles were measured before and after conversion, and showed that cyclosporin (Neoral) exhibited significantly less interpatient and intrapatient variability than tacrolimus, for area under the curve (AUC), maximum concentration postdose (Cmax), minimum concentration postdose (Cmin), time to maximum concentration (Tmax). CONCLUSION: This is the first study that has examined the outcome of conversion from tacrolimus- to cyclosporin-based immunosuppression in stable patients after renal transplantation. This conversion was performed without early immunological hazard, but there was a small rise in blood cholesterol levels after conversion. Pharmacokinetic studies showed cyclosporin in the form of Neoral showed less inter- and intrapatient variability than tacrolimus, although this is of uncertain clinical significance.     

Comparison of generic cyclosporine microemulsion versus neoral in de novo renal transplant recipients managed by 2-hour postdose monitoring

INTRODUCTION: The bioequivalence of generic formulations is established by measuring pharmacokinetic parameters in healthy volunteers. Cyclosporine (CsA) absorption and exposure is known to differ between healthy volunteers and transplant recipients. Therefore bioequivalence testing may be inadequate to ensure therapeutic equivalence. We sought to compare the efficacy of generic cyclosporine (ArpimuneME, RPG Life Sciences) versus Sandimmune Neoral in de novo renal transplant recipients. METHODS: A prospective single-center, open-label study enrolled 20 de novo renal transplant patients (group 1: mean age 30.55 +/- 9.81 years, M:F 19:1, mean donor age 43.4 +/- 10.8). All patients received ArpimuneME along with azathioprine and prednisolone. The results were compared with 17 matched controls (group 2: mean age 28.1 +/- 9.5 years, M:F 13:4, mean donor age 47.8 +/- 6.8) who received Neoral and were transplanted during the same period. C(2) levels were monitored by the cloned enzyme donor immunoassay (CEDIA). RESULTS: Patient and graft survivals were 100% and 100% and 100% and 92.8% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = NS). Six patients (30%) experienced rejection in group 1 as compared eight patients (47.1%) in group 2. Mean CsA levels (ng/mL) during the first month were 1419.1 +/- 213.6 and 1460.5 +/- 290.7 and at 3 months, 1296.3 +/- 227.8 and 1342.4 +/- 303.4 in the two groups, respectively (P = NS). The mean serum creatinine levels (mg%) in group 1 and group 2 were 1.6 +/- 0.8 and 2.0 +/- 1.4 at discharge and 1.5 +/- 0.4 and 1.5 +/- 0.8 at 6 months, respectively (P = NS). CONCLUSION: Use of a generic microemulsion form of CsA provided safe and effective immunosuppression compared with Sandimmune Neoral when drug monitoring was performed by C(2) levels.     

Pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine in heart transplant recipients receiving metabolic inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Inhibitors of cyclosporine metabolism are commonly co-administered with cyclosporine in transplant recipients. The aim of this study was to compare cyclosporine pharmacokinetics using the conventional formulation (Sandimmune) and after switching to the microemulsion (Neoral) formulation, in stable heart transplant recipients receiving various cyclosporine metabolic inhibitors. METHODS: Steady-state blood concentration-time profiles of Sandimmune were studied in 47 transplant recipients receiving either cyclosporine alone (Group A, n = 11) or in combination with diltiazem (120 mg/day, Group B, n = 11), ketoconazole (200 mg/day, Group C, n = 13), or both ketoconazole and diltiazem (200 and 120 mg/day, respectively, Group D, n = 12), and restudied 1 week after switching to Neoral. RESULTS: Neoral resulted in more rapid cyclosporine absorption as judged by the shorter absorption half-lives in all groups (p < 0.05). The mean percentage increase in the values of area-under-the-concentration-time curve was 42% and 37.5% higher for Neoral compared with Sandimmune for Groups A and B, respectively, but only 5.4% higher for Group C and 9.5% higher for Group D. The mean morning trough concentration of cyclosporine was not significantly different after administration of Neoral compared with Sandimmune in any of the groups studied (179 vs. 167 microg/liter for Group A; 171 vs. 147 microg/liter for Group B; 189 vs. 194 microg/liter for Group C; and 181 vs 201 microg/liter for Group D). Neoral did not alter serum concentrations of sodium, potassium, creatinine, and urea in any of the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The faster absorption and improved bioavailability of cyclosporine (around 40%) with Neoral compared with Sandimmune was not seen in patients receiving ketoconazole, where in fact cyclosporine bioavailability was already maximal. Mean morning trough levels of cyclosporine did not reflect the improvement in bioavailability seen in patients switching from Sandimmune to Neoral. Cyclosporine dose adjustment may be needed when switching from Sandimmune to Neoral for patients not receiving sparing agents or who receive diltiazem, but trough levels cannot necessarily be relied upon to determine the degree of adjustment needed. For patientson ketoconazole, the absorption profile is already optimized and no dosage alteration seems necessary.     

Tacrolimus Pharmacokinetics and Dose Monitoring After Lung Transplantation for Cystic Fibrosis and Other Conditions

In cystic fibrosis (CF), absorption of tacrolimus through the gastrointestinal tract may be impaired due to fat malabsorption. The aim of this pilot study was to compare tacrolimus pharmacokinetics and inter- and intrasubject variability of exposure in stable lung transplant recipients with and without CF, and to determine the best single-time predictors of exposure. The study included 11 lung transplant recipients with CF and 11 without CF who received tacrolimus twice daily. Blood samples were obtained predose and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12 h postdose on 3 separate days within 1 week. Tacrolimus pharmacokinetics and inter- and intrasubject variability of exposure were similar in the two groups, though exposure-per-milligram-dose was approximately 50% lower in CF patients. Tacrolimus trough concentration did not accurately predict the area under the concentration curve (AUC(0-12)), but the concentration measured 3 h postdose (C(3)) was tightly correlated with the AUC(0-12) in both CF (r(2)= 0.86) and non-CF (r(2)= 0.92) patients. In summary, patients with CF have a higher tacrolimus oral clearance, but nonsignificant differences in short-term inter- and intrasubject variability of exposure compared to patients without CF. C(3) is tightly correlated with AUC(0-12) in lung transplant recipients with and without CF.     

Prediction of cyclosporine area under the curve using a three-point sampling strategy after Neoral administration.

Accurate monitoring of cyclosporine (CsA) dosage is still a problem, because measurement of the area under the curve (AUC)--the most appropriate indicator of exposure to CsA--requires a number of blood samples to be taken over 12 h, which makes monitoring difficult in day-to-day clinical practice. This study investigated whether a limited sampling strategy in human kidney transplantation reflected the actual AUC better in patients given Neoral than in those being treated with Sandimmune. Stepwise multiple regression analysis of CsA blood levels recorded after Neoral administration to 20 renal transplant patients showed the best results in AUC prediction with three sampling points (1.5, 8, 11 h after Neoral dosing; r = 0.992 with an associated error in AUC prediction ranging from -8.0 to 8.8%). Because blood sampling at 8 and 11 h is not feasible in routine clinical practice, sample points from 0 to 3 h after Neoral dosing, i.e., up to the time of maximum mean blood CsA concentration plus 2 SD, were considered. The best results were obtained with a three-point strategy (0, 1, and 3 h after Neoral dosing; error in prediction: -9.0 to 7.2%), which gave an excellent correlation between measured and predicted AUC (r = 0.989). A similar analysis after Sandimmune given to the same patients always resulted in poor AUC prediction with a wide associated error. These findings indicate that with Neoral, but not Sandimmune, a limited strategy of three-point sampling taken early after dosing allows an excellent and perfectly reliable prediction of the actual AUC.     

Does bioequivalence between modified cyclosporine formulations translate into equal outcomes?

Neoral was replaced with a generic cyclosporine formulation on our hospital formulary. We compared outcomes for de novo kidney transplant recipients who either received Gengraf (n=88) or Neoral (n=100) in a single-center, retrospective review. As compared to patients who received Neoral, patients who received Gengraf were significantly more likely to have an acute rejection episode (39% vs. 25%, P=0.04), more likely to have a second rejection episode (13% vs. 4%; P=0.03), or to have received an antibody preparation to treat acute rejection (19% vs. 8%; P=0.02). Patients treated with Gengraf had a higher degree of intrapatient variability for cyclosporine trough concentrations as determined by %CV (P<0.05). The incidence of acute rejection at 6 months posttransplant was significantly higher in patients who received Gengraf compared to Neoral. A larger, prospective analysis is warranted to compare these formulations of cyclosporine in de novo kidney transplant recipients.