Arns Wolfgang, Huppertz Andrea, Rath Thomas, Ziefle Stephan, Rump Lars C, Hansen Anita, Budde Klemens, Lehner Lukas J, Shipkova Maria, Baeumer Daniel, Kroeger Irena, Sieder Christian, Klein Thomas, Schenker Peter
1 Medizinische Klinik 1, Transplantationszentrum, Städtische Klinik Merheim, Cologne, Germany. 2 Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 3 Klinik für Innere Medizin 3, Westpfalz-Klinikum Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany. 4 Klinik für Nephrologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 5 Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Campus Mitte, Medizinische Klinik m.S. Nephrologie, Berlin, Germany. 6 Central Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Klinikum-Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. 7 Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nuernberg, Germany. 8 Department of Surgery, Universitätsklinik Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Transplantation. 2017 Nov;101(11):2780-2788. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001843.
Scrupulous comparison of the pharmacokinetic and clinical characteristics of generic tacrolimus formulations versus the reference drug (Prograf) is essential. The pharmacokinetics of the Tacrolimus Hexal (TacHexal) formulation is similar to Prograf in stable renal transplant patients, but data in de novo patients are lacking.
De novo kidney transplant patients were randomized to generic tacrolimus (TacHexal) or Prograf in a 6-month open-label study.
The primary end point, the dose-normalized area under the curve0-12h at month 1 posttransplant, was similar with TacHexal or Prograf; back-transformed geometric means of adjusted log-transformed values (analysis of variance) were 18.99 ng·h·L (TacHexal) and 20.48 ng·h·L (Prograf) (ratio, 1.08; 90% confidence interval, 0.84-1.38; P = 0.605). The dose-normalized peak concentration geometric means at month 1 was also comparable between treatments (ratio, 1.16; 90% confidence interval, 0.88-1.54; P = 0.377). There were no relevant differences in other pharmacokinetic parameters at month 1 or in area under the curve0-4h and trough concentration when measured at months 3 and 6. The adjusted change in mean estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline to month 6 (Nankivell) was noninferior for TacHexal versus Prograf using observed values (47.7 vs 38.6 mL/min per 1.73 m, P < 0.001) and was superior based on observed values (P = 0.044) but not using last observation-carried forward method. Rates of biopsy-proven acute rejection (5.7% vs 7.9%), adverse events, and serious adverse events were similar with TacHexal or Prograf.
Tacrolimus pharmacokinetics is similar with TacHexal and Prograf early after kidney transplantation. Efficacy and safety in this limited data set were comparable, with at least equivalent graft function under TacHexal.
仔细比较他克莫司仿制药制剂与参比药物(普乐可复)的药代动力学和临床特征至关重要。在稳定的肾移植患者中,他克莫司赫赛(TacHexal)制剂的药代动力学与普乐可复相似,但初治患者的数据尚缺。
在一项为期6个月的开放标签研究中,将初治肾移植患者随机分为接受他克莫司仿制药(TacHexal)或普乐可复治疗。
主要终点,即移植后第1个月时剂量标准化的0至12小时曲线下面积,TacHexal与普乐可复相似;经调整的对数转换值的反转换几何均数(方差分析)分别为18.99 ng·h·L(TacHexal)和20.48 ng·h·L(普乐可复)(比值为1.08;90%置信区间为0.84至1.38;P = 0.605)。两种治疗在第1个月时剂量标准化的峰浓度几何均数也具有可比性(比值为1.16;90%置信区间为0.88至1.54;P = 0.377)。在第1个月时其他药代动力学参数,以及在第3个月和第6个月测量的0至4小时曲线下面积和谷浓度方面,均无相关差异。使用观察值时,TacHexal相对于普乐可复,从基线到第6个月平均估计肾小球滤过率的调整变化(南基韦尔法)不差(分别为47.7和38.6 mL/min per 1.73 m,P < = 0.001),且基于观察值更优(P = 0.044),但采用末次观察结转法时并非如此。经活检证实的急性排斥反应发生率(5.7%对7. %)、不良事件和严重不良事件在TacHexal与普乐可复之间相似。
肾移植术后早期,他克莫司与TacHexal的药代动力学相似。在这个有限的数据集中,疗效和安全性具有可比性,使用TacHexal时移植肾功能至少相当。