A randomized, prospective multicenter pharmacoepidemiologic study of cyclosporine microemulsion in stable renal graft recipients. Report of the Canadian Neoral Renal Transplantation Study Group.

BACKGROUND

The safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of conventional cyclosporine (ConCsA) and cyclosporine microemulsion (MeCsA) were compared under conditions of normal clinical practice in a prospective, randomized, concentration-controlled, pharmacoepidemiologic study.

METHODS

Between September 1994 and March 1995, 1097 stable renal transplant recipients in 14 Canadian centers were randomized 2:1 to treatment with MeCsA or ConCsA. Patients were commenced on each study drug at a dose equal to their previous therapy with ConCsA, and the dose was adjusted to maintain predose whole blood cyclosporine concentrations within the therapeutic range established for each center. Prednisone and azathioprine were continued unless dose adjustment was required for clinical reasons.

RESULTS

The mean cyclosporine concentration was comparable in both treatment groups at all time points throughout the 6 months of follow-up. The mean dose of cyclosporine was 3.6 mg/kg/day in both treatment groups at entry to the study, and declined by 0.3% and by 2.8% in patients receiving ConCsA and MeCsA, respectively. The nature and severity of adverse events were similar in both treatment groups, but there was a transient increase in neurological and gastrointestinal complications in the group receiving MeCsA within the first month after conversion (P<0.05). Serum creatinine and creatinine clearance did not change in either treatment group throughout the study. Biopsy-proven acute rejection occurred in three patients (0.8%) receiving ConCsA and in seven patients (0.9%) receiving MeCsA, with non-histologically proven acute rejection in an additional three patients (0.8%) receiving ConCsA and five patients (0.6%) receiving MeCsA (P=NS). Serum creatinine rose transiently in 35 patients (9.8%) receiving ConCsA and 138 patients (18.7%) receiving MeCsA (P<0.05) and resolved either spontaneously or after a reduction in the cyclosporine dose. One graft was lost in the MeCsA group due to irreversible rejection, and seven patients died, three in the group receiving ConCsA and four of those receiving MeCsA (P=NS). Absorption of cyclosporine was more rapid and complete from MeCsA than from ConCsA during the first 4 hr of the dosing interval, resulting in almost 40% greater exposure to the drug (P<0.001). There was close correlation between area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) over the first 4 hr of the 12-hr dosage interval and AUC over the entire 12-hr dosage interval for both formulations, making AUC over the first 4 hr a good predictor of total cyclosporine exposure. Using this parameter, patients with low absorption randomized to receive MeCsA showed a marked increase in drug exposure by months 3 and 6, whereas there was no change in those who continued on ConCsA. A limited sampling strategy utilizing samples at the predose and postdose trough levels provided an excellent correlation with drug exposure, particularly for patients receiving MeCsA (r2=0.94 MeCsA vs. r2=0.89 ConCsA).

CONCLUSIONS

MeCsA appears to be a safe and effective therapy in stable renal transplant patients and provides superior and more consistent absorption of cyclosporine when compared with ConCsA. Transient toxicity after conversion to MeCsA occurs in some patients, and may reflect the increased exposure to cyclosporine. Use of a limited sampling approach combining trough and 2-hr postdose concentrations may provide an effective way to monitor this exposure.