Wuzhi Tablet (Schisandra sphenanthera Extract) is a Promising Tacrolimus-Sparing Agent for Renal Transplant Recipients Who are CYP3A5 Expressers: a Two-Phase Prospective Study.

Tacrolimus is a potent but expensive first-line immunosuppressant, thus solutions to reduce tacrolimus consumption while maintain therapeutic level are in urgent need. A two-phase prospective study was conducted to assess the efficacy of an ethanolic extraction preparation of Schisandra sphenanthera (Wuzhi tablet) as a tacrolimus-sparing agent in renal transplant recipients who were high-dose tacrolimus consumers (CYP3A5*1 allele carriers, CYP3A5 expressers). A total of 12 patients were included in the Part I study. After co-administration of Wuzhi tablet, the average individual increment (%) in dose-adjusted C0, Cmax and AUC0-12 hour of tacrolimus were 198.8% (95% CI 149.2, 248.3), 111.0% (95% CI 63.4, 158.6) and 126.1% (95% CI 89.4, 162.8), respectively (P < 0.01), while the average individual reduction (%) in tacrolimus daily dose was 40.9% (95% CI 25.2, 56.6) (P < 0.01). Subsequently, 32 patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, controlled study and randomly assigned to receive tacrolimus by CYP3A5 genotype plus Wuzhi tablet co-administration guided dosing (study group) or standard dosing (control group). Besides less tacrolimus dose requirement (P < 0.01), a more accurate tacrolimus initial dose characterized by lower incidence of out-of-range C0 after initial dose (P < 0.01) and fewer dose changes (P < 0.01) was found in the study group. Moreover, no significant differences in acute rejection rate and serum creatinine levels were observed between two groups. Our results show that CYP3A5 genotype plus Wuzhi tablet co-administration guided tacrolimus dosing is a promising therapy for CYP3A5 expressers in the early post-transplant stage, while further study with a larger sample size is required to prove these findings.

Co-administration of Wuzhi capsules and tacrolimus in patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy: clinical efficacy and pharmacoeconomics.

PURPOSE: Tacrolimus is an effective (but relatively expensive) immunosuppressant that is used widely in patients with membranous nephropathy. To reduce the tacrolimus dose while maintaining an equivalent therapeutic effect, we studied the clinical efficacy and pharmacoeconomic impact of co-administration of Wuzhi capsules (WZC that protects against damage to liver cells) and tacrolimus. METHODS: Sixty patients with membranous nephropathy were divided randomly into two groups: experimental (tacrolimus + WZC + corticosteroids) and control (tacrolimus + corticosteroids). Each group received treatments continuously for >6 months. Liver function; renal function; and whole-blood concentrations of tacrolimus, sugars, lipids, as well as 24-h urinary protein levels were used in the clinical evaluation. The cost of drugs was calculated, and the pharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out to compare indices between the two groups. RESULTS: Doses and costs of tacrolimus differed significantly between experimental and control groups (p < 0.01 or p < 0.05). Costs in the experimental group were 13,702.62 ± 1,458.6 CNY (2,194.10 ± 233.56 USD) and those in the control group were 17,796.87 ± 2,469.27 CNY (2,849.69 ± 395.39 USD), with clinical efficacy of 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratios were 146.86 ± 15.63 and 197.73 ± 27.44, respectively. Compared with the experimental group, the control group showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1,240.68 ± 306.25 CNY (198.66 ± 49.04 USD), whereas remission between the two groups was similar. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of WZCs and tacrolimus can reduce the dose of tacrolimus and decrease the costs incurred by patients within the same therapeutic window to that seen for treatment with tacrolimus alone.

Evaluation of clinical and safety outcomes associated with conversion from brand-name to generic tacrolimus in transplant recipients enrolled in an integrated health care system.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical and safety outcomes among transplant recipients whose tacrolimus was converted from the brand-name formulation to a generic formulation. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. DATA SOURCE: Clinical databases and electronic records from a large, integrated health care system in California. PATIENTS: A total of 234 clinically stable, adult transplant recipients (renal, liver, and heart) whose tacrolimus was converted from the brand-name formulation to a generic formulation between October 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, according to a physician-approved protocol. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each patient, pre- and postconversion tacrolimus trough concentrations and serum creatinine concentrations were analyzed. Data were also collected on the percentage of patients who required dosage titration, drug cost savings, and rates of reversion to brand-name tacrolimus, biopsy-proved acute allograft rejections, and mortality. No significant differences were noted in mean ± SD pre- and postconversion tacrolimus trough levels (6.74 ± 1.61 vs 6.96 ± 2.31 ng/ml, p=0.137) or serum creatinine concentrations (1.33 ± 0.48 vs 1.36 ± 0.82 mg/dl, p=0.302). The mean ± SD percent change in tacrolimus trough concentration was 5.63 ± 32.95%. Thirty-six patients (15.4%) required dosage titration. Six patients (2.6%) reverted back to brand-name tacrolimus. No deaths or acute rejections occurred. Use of the generic product saved each patient an average of $45/month in drug acquisition cost and $26/prescription copayment. CONCLUSION: Clinical experience as well as research data show that use of generic tacrolimus results in trough concentrations that are comparable to the brand-name drug. Given the lack of adverse events reported and the cost savings recognized, conversion from brand-name tacrolimus to generic tacrolimus should be encouraged. Since dosage titration may be required, close therapeutic drug monitoring is recommended.

Spotlight on topical pimecrolimus in pediatric atopic dermatitis.

Topical pimecrolimus 1% cream (Elidel) [hereafter referred to as topical pimecrolimus] is a nonsteroidal alternative in the treatment of pediatric atopic dermatitis. In vehicle-controlled, short-term, continuous-use trials in pediatric patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis, topical pimecrolimus was effective in treating disease symptoms. Topical pimecrolimus was effective in preventing disease flares and reducing the need for topical corticosteroids in longer term, intermittent-use trials. In addition, topical pimecrolimus was associated with improvements in the health-related quality of life of pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis and their parents. In vehicle-controlled trials, topical pimecrolimus was generally as well tolerated as vehicle. Topical pimecrolimus showed similar efficacy to topical tacrolimus 0.03% ointment in a short-term, continuous-use trial and the two agents had a generally similar tolerability profile. Although comparative data between topical pimecrolimus and topical corticosteroids are lacking in pediatric patients, and the long-term tolerability (beyond 1-2 years) of topical pimecrolimus is yet to be established, topical pimecrolimus is a useful agent in the management of pediatric patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis who do not achieve satisfactory treatment with other topical pharmacologic treatments, including topical corticosteroids.

A cost-utility analysis of pimecrolimus vs. topical corticosteroids and emollients for the treatment of mild and moderate atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Conventional treatments for atopic eczema include topical corticosteroids (TCS) and emollients. Pimecrolimus, an immunosuppressant, was licensed in the U.K. in 2003 as an alternative treatment of mild to moderate atopic eczema. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-utility of pimecrolimus as a treatment for mild and moderate atopic eczema when compared with conventional treatments which use TCS and emollients. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was developed to represent the cyclical nature of atopic eczema and provide an economic analysis of cost-utility for treatment alternatives from the perspective of a third party payer (U.K. National Health Service). A range of methods was used to obtain data for transition probabilities, costs and quality of life. These included a systematic review of published effectiveness data, expert opinion, and a utility study conducted by the authors. Separate cohort analyses were modelled to distinguish between children and adult populations and between differing treatment patterns for facial and body eczema. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (using Monte-Carlo simulation) were performed. RESULTS: Baseline cost-utility outputs from the model show that, in all tested scenarios, TCS dominate pimecrolimus (i.e. TCS are both cheaper and more effective). However, the differences in benefits between treatments output by the model are very small. Sensitivity analyses highlight the importance of cost variations in pimecrolimus. Where pimecrolimus is compared with emollient only it is probably cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30 000 UK pounds per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: There are likely to be few situations in which the use of pimecrolimus for the treatment of atopic eczema can be justified on economic grounds. Exceptions are likely to be in cases where TCS have been shown to be ineffective, unacceptable due to adverse events, or where a patient is unwilling to accept TCS treatment despite appropriate education and support and emollient alone is the alternative clinical option.

Formulary review of therapeutic alternatives for atopic dermatitis: focus on pimecrolimus.

OBJECTIVE: Atopic dermatitis (AD), often called eczema, is characterized by intense pruritus, erythema, dry skin, and inflammation. The condition is chronic and relapsing, and often occurs in patients with a family history of the atopic triad (asthma, allergic rhinitis, and AD). Use of topical steroids has been the mainstay of medical treatment for AD. Steroid-free treatments for AD, with a more favorable safety profile, have become available within the past 2 years. Tacrolimus ointment, a topical immunomodulator, became available in early 2001 and is indicated for moderate-to-severe AD. A similar but highly skinselective cytokine inhibitor, pimecrolimus cream 1%, became available in March 2002. Pimecrolimus is indicated for mild-to-moderate AD. The objective of this article is to review the key characteristics that differentiate pimecrolimus from steroids and tacrolimus in the treatment of AD. METHODS: Using secondary resources, the clinical aspects and conventional treatment strategies for AD are reviewed as are the pivotal clinical studies with pimecrolimus and literature on quality of life and economic burden of disease for AD patients and families. SUMMARY: Pimecrolimus is an effective, steroid-sparing therapy for mild-tomoderate AD. Early treatment prevents flares, the agent works quickly to reduce signs and symptoms of more advanced AD, and it is safe and appropriate for intermittent long-term therapy. Pimecrolimus has fewer side effects than topical steroids and a better side-effect profile than tacrolimus. It can also be used as a first-line therapy. In studies with patients aged 2 to 17 years, it has been shown to be particularly effective in improving eczema of the face and neck, and its use may improve quality of life for many patients, especially children. A single-strength dose (1%) is safe and medically beneficial for pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients. The direct drug cost of pimecrolimus compares favorably with tacrolimus, but it is significantly more expensive than generic topical steroid creams.