36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of cyclosporine (Imusporin) in renal transplant patients with stable graft function maintained on neoral or bioral

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          Previous pharmacokinetic studies have demonstrated bioequivalence of Imusporin (microemulsion preparation of cyclosporine, Cipla) to the innovator product Neoral (Novartis, Switzerland). This study was done to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Imusporin in patients who have already undergone renal transplant and have stable graft function maintained on cyclosporine preparation other than Imusporin.

          Materials and Methods:

          Twenty-two renal allograft recipients (mean age of 31.77 years, range 18-53 years), with stable graft function, previously on Neoral or Bioral were switched over to Imusporin after recording their relevant baseline clinical and biochemical parameters. These were repeated on 1, 4, 7, 15, 30 and 90 days after the start of therapy. Change in dosage required to maintain C2 levels at each visit were analyzed by paired sample t-test. Safety of the drug was assessed by the type and severity of adverse events developed during the therapy. Cost analysis was done assuming an average maintenance immunosuppression dose of 150 mg/day of cyclosporine.

          Results:

          Twenty-one patients completed the study. One patient was lost to follow-up. Mean C2 value before switchover was 894 ± 208 ng/ml, which was not significantly different from the mean values of C2 after switchover therapy ( P>0.30). Change in dosage required to maintain C2 levels was not significantly different from the baseline dose of 2.34 mg/ kg body weight ( P>0.1). No patient developed graft rejection after switchover therapy at a median follow-up of 16 months (14-18 months). Mean baseline SCr was similar to SCr at day 90 (1.38 vs. 1.37 mg/dl, P=0.930). No severe adverse events were reported. Mild side-effects included headache (4), somnolence (2), dry mouth (5) and generalized fatigue (6). Use of Imusporin (Cipla, India) results in an annual savings of Rs. 19892 over Neoral (Novartis, Switzerland) and Rs. 2263 over Bioral (Panacea Biotech, India).

          Conclusions:

          Imusporin is clinically as safe and efficacious as other cyclosporine preparations available while significantly reducing the cost of treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Long-term efficacy and safety of cyclosporine in renal-transplant recipients.

          The safety of long-term immunosuppression with cyclosporine in renal-transplant recipients is not well understood. This drug may cause a progressive toxic nephropathy, but it also preserves renal function because it prevents rejection. To determine the effect of cyclosporine on renal function and graft rejection, we conducted a retrospective analysis of data on 1663 renal-transplant recipients at six centers. The rate of graft survival was 78 percent (median follow-up, 36 months). Grafts were was lost in 279 patients (17 percent), mostly because of acute rejection (68 patients) or chronic graft dysfunction that was unresponsive to a reduction in the dose of cyclosporine (125 patients); 92 patients died with functioning grafts. The median change in the serum creatinine concentration in all patients after transplantation was less than 0.001 mg per deciliter per month (< 0.09 mumol per liter per month). Patients who had episodes of rejection had decreased rates of long-term graft function and survival. Eight percent of patients with functioning grafts at one year had first episodes of rejection more than one year after transplantation. These late first rejections were associated with noncompliance with therapy (in 34 percent), blood cyclosporine concentrations that were marginally lower than those of patients who had no episodes of rejection, and a low rate of successful reversal of rejection (77 percent, vs. 97 percent in patients with rejection during the first year; P < 0.001). The majority of renal-transplant patients tolerate long-term cyclosporine therapy without evidence of progressive toxic nephropathy. Graft failure is most often due to rejection.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A pharmacokinetic and clinical review of the potential clinical impact of using different formulations of cyclosporin A. Berlin, Germany, November 19, 2001.

            A meeting of 14 transplant and pharmacokinetic specialists from Europe and North America was convened in November 2001 to evaluate scientific and clinical data regarding the use of different formulations of cyclosporin A (CsA). The following consensus was achieved. (1) CsA is a critical-dose drug with a narrow therapeutic window. Clinical outcomes after transplantation are affected by the pharmacokinetic properties of CsA, particularly by its bioavailability, and by intrapatient variability in CsA exposure. (2) Standard bioequivalence criteria do not address differences in CsA pharmacokinetics between transplant recipients and healthy volunteers, or between subpopulations of transplant recipients. (3) In some circumstances, currently available formulations of CsA that meet standard bioequivalence criteria are likely to be nonequivalent with respect to pharmacokinetic characteristics. (4) The choice of CsA formulation can affect the short- and long-term clinical outcome. Currently, there is a lack of clinical comparisons between generic CsA formulations and the Neoral formulation (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey). Initial retrospective data from the Collaborative Transplant Study suggest that use of generic CsA formulations may result in reduced graft survival at 1 year. (5) Management of transplant recipients by monitoring Neoral concentrations 2 hours after dosing (C(2)) reduces the incidence and severity of acute rejection compared with monitoring of trough concentrations with no increase in toxicity. C(2) monitoring has been developed based on the pharmacokinetics of Neoral only and has not been evaluated or validated for generic formulations of CsA. (6) The major costs of care after transplantation relate to the management of poor clinical outcomes and toxicity. CsA formulations with different pharmacokinetic properties may be associated with varying clinical outcomes, which would be expected to affect total health care costs. (7) The transplant physician is responsible for selecting immunosuppressive agents and formulations for his or her patients. Any switch between CsA formulations in a particular patient should take place only in a controlled setting with adequate pharmacokinetic monitoring.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Generic cyclosporine formulations: more open questions than answers.

              The introduction of cyclosporine (CsA) in clinical practice has significantly improved patient and allograft survival after organ transplantation. The new microemulsion CsA formulation, Neoral, has been associated with a more reproducible absorption and a better patient outcome as compared to the old formulation Sandimmune. Recently, several generic CsA formulations have been tested as bioequivalent to Neoral. Bioequivalence tests have been performed in selected groups of young, healthy male volunteers usually in single-dose studies, and then extended to completely different population, such as transplant recipients. However, growing body of evidence shows that CsA pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects is different from that of transplant patients, treated chronically with CsA. Therefore, converting patients from Neoral to the new generic formulations could be detrimental, exposing patients to increased risk of graft function deterioration and graft loss. Thus, more research and more accurate bioequivalence tests are required to address the unanswered problems dealing with the generic CsA formulations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Indian J Urol
                IJU
                Indian Journal of Urology : IJU : Journal of the Urological Society of India
                Medknow Publications (India )
                0970-1591
                1998-3824
                Apr-Jun 2007
                : 23
                : 2
                : 130-132
                Affiliations
                Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, UP, India
                [* ]Department of Nephrology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, UP, India
                Author notes
                For correspondence: Aneesh Srivastava, Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow - 226 014, UP, India. E-mail: anees772000@ 123456yahoo.com
                Article
                IJU-23-130
                10.4103/0970-1591.32062
                2721520
                19675788
                a38ca0f0-42be-4c34-a25c-9ef0aed0fc49
                © Indian Journal of Urology

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Original Article

                Urology
                cyclosporine,efficacy,safety
                Urology
                cyclosporine, efficacy, safety

                Comments

                Comment on this article