Literature DB >> 14510694

Report of the American Society of Transplantation conference on immunosuppressive drugs and the use of generic immunosuppressants.

Rita R Alloway1, Ross Isaacs, Kathleen Lake, Peter Hoyer, Roy First, Harold Helderman, Suphamai Bunnapradist, Alan Leichtman, M William Bennett, Amir Tejani, Steven K Takemoto.   

Abstract

Considerable economic and health-related costs are associated with the life-long maintenance immunosuppressive therapy required to prevent transplant rejection. Generic medications have the potential of providing equivalent therapeutic efficacy at a lower economic cost. In 2001, the American Society of Transplantation invited experts to review the data and issues associated with the approval and use of generic immunosuppressants. A summary of that meeting is reported here. The generic medication approval process has been in effect for more than 30 years. All marketed generic cyclosporin formulations have met FDA criteria demonstrating bioequivalence in healthy subjects, and some were also tested in transplant recipients. Most participants agreed that generic narrow therapeutic index immunosuppressive agents provide adequate de novo immunosuppression in low-risk transplant recipients. However, some participants expressed concern regarding the currently unquantified risk that may be associated with switching immunosuppressive agents under uncontrolled circumstances. There was broad agreement among the participants that generic medications should be clearly labeled and distinguishable from innovator drugs, and that patients should be educated to inform their physicians of any switch to or among generic alternatives. There was also strong support in favor of requiring studies to demonstrate bioequivalence in potentially at-risk patient populations, specifically African-Americans and pediatric patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14510694     DOI: 10.1046/j.1600-6143.2003.00212.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Transplant        ISSN: 1600-6135            Impact factor:   8.086


  16 in total

1.  Bioequivalence between generic tacrolimus products marketed in Spain by adjusted indirect comparison.

Authors:  Marta Herranz; Susana Morales-Alcelay; Ma Teresa Corredera-Hernández; José María de la Torre-Alvarado; Antonio Blázquez-Pérez; Ma Luisa Suárez-Gea; Covadonga Alvarez; Alfredo García-Arieta
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Nationwide conversion to generic tacrolimus in pediatric kidney transplant recipients.

Authors:  Derisha Naicker; Peter W Reed; Jane Ronaldson; Tonya Kara; William Wong; Chanel Prestidge
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 3.714

Review 3.  Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium: tolerability profile compared with mycophenolate mofetil.

Authors:  Matthias Behrend; Felix Braun
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.546

4.  Differentiation of innovator versus generic cyclosporine via a drug interaction on sirolimus.

Authors:  John M Kovarik; Adele Noe; Yibin Wang; Irene Mueller; Gilberto DeNucci; Robert L Schmouder
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-03-18       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  The adoption of generic immunosuppressant medications in kidney, liver, and heart transplantation among recipients in Colorado or nationally with Medicare part D.

Authors:  Qian Liu; Abigail R Smith; Jeong M Park; Murewa Oguntimein; Sarah Dutcher; Ghalib Bello; Margaret Helmuth; Marc Turenne; Rajesh Balkrishnan; Melissa Fava; Charlotte A Beil; Adam Saulles; Sangeeta Goel; Pratima Sharma; Alan Leichtman; Jarcy Zee
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2018-03-31       Impact factor: 8.086

6.  A randomized pharmacokinetic study of generic tacrolimus versus reference tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients.

Authors:  R R Alloway; B Sadaka; J Trofe-Clark; A Wiland; R D Bloom
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 8.086

7.  Comparative pharmacokinetic study of two mycophenolate mofetil formulations in stable kidney transplant recipients.

Authors:  Gere Sunder-Plassmann; Petra Reinke; Thomas Rath; Andrzej Wiecek; Michal Nowicki; Richard Moore; Jens Lutz; Martina Gaggl; Marek Ferkl
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 3.782

8.  Cyclosporine: A Commentary on Brand versus Generic Formulation Exchange.

Authors:  A K Singh; S S Narsipur
Journal:  J Transplant       Date:  2011-11-17

9.  Transplant coordinators' perceived impact of availability of multiple generic immunosuppression therapies on patients, workload, and posttransplant maintenance therapy.

Authors:  K Parker; E A Zagadailov; A S Bruno; A M Wiland
Journal:  J Transplant       Date:  2013-01-08

Review 10.  Generic immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Amber O Molnar; Dean Fergusson; Anne K Tsampalieros; Alexandria Bennett; Nicholas Fergusson; Timothy Ramsay; Greg A Knoll
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-06-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.