Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily LCP-Tacrolimus Versus Twice-Daily Immediate-Release Tacrolimus in Adult Hispanic Stable Kidney Transplant Recipients: Sub-Group Analysis from a Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND The pharmacokinetics and metabolism of tacrolimus, an immunosuppressant commonly used to prevent transplant rejection, can differ in specific subpopulations. This analysis examined treatment outcomes and safety of immediate-release tacrolimus (IR-Tac) and LCP-tacrolimus (LCPT) in stable Hispanic kidney transplant recipients. MATERIAL AND METHODS This was a post hoc analysis of clinical trial data from Hispanic adult stable kidney transplant recipients randomized to remain on IR-Tac or convert from IR-Tac to a reduced dose of LCPT (NCT00817206). Composite treatment failure was evaluated at 12 months. Estimated glomerular filtration rate and tacrolimus trough concentrations were evaluated over 12 months. RESULTS Fifty-five stable (LCPT n=26, IR-Tac n=29) kidney transplant recipients who self-identified as Hispanic or Latino were included in this analysis. Composite treatment failure occurred in 1 patient (4%) who converted to LCPT and 1 (3%) who remained on IR-Tac. The estimated glomerular filtration rate was stable over time and similar in the 2 treatment groups (P=0.08). Tacrolimus trough levels for both groups were similar over time in the 2 treatment groups (P=0.98). Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar in patients who converted to LCPT and in those who remained on IR-Tac. CONCLUSIONS Efficacy and safety were similar in Hispanic kidney transplant recipients who converted from IR-Tac to LCPT and in those remaining on IR-Tac.

Effect of Concentration/Dose Ratio in De Novo Kidney Transplant Recipients Receiving LCP-Tacrolimus or Immediate-Release Tacrolimus: Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase 3 Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND A previous phase 3 clinical trial in de novo adult kidney transplant recipients (NCT01187953) compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily LCP-tacrolimus (LCPT) and twice-daily immediate-release tacrolimus (IR-Tac). However, whether the rate of tacrolimus metabolism affects outcomes between LCPT and IR-Tac was not examined. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients were initiated on 0.17 mg/kg/day LCPT or 0.1 mg/kg/day IR-Tac, with doses adjusted over time to maintain target therapeutic trough concentrations. This post hoc analysis examined dosing trends, relative efficacy, and safety of LCPT (n=247) and IR-Tac (n=249) in slow, intermediate, and rapid metabolizers as defined by concentration/dose ratios at day 30. RESULTS For all metabolizer subgroups, minimum target tacrolimus trough concentrations were obtained more rapidly with LCPT than with IR-Tac. Slow metabolizers were more likely to exceed target trough concentrations with LCPT, while rapid metabolizers were more likely to fall below target trough concentrations with IR-Tac. Regardless of metabolizer status, significant differences were not detected between LCPT and IR-Tac for treatment failure, death, graft failure, biopsy-proven acute rejection, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or other clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Although within metabolizer subgroups, attainment of target trough concentrations in the first week differed between LCPT and IR-Tac, these results suggest that, regardless of metabolizer phenotype, clinical outcomes do not differ between these formulations when dose adjustments are made.

Chronopharmacokinetics and Food Effects of Single-Dose LCP-Tacrolimus in Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: A modified-release version of tacrolimus, LCP-tacrolimus (LCPT; Envarsus XR, Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Cary, NC), has been licensed in the United States for prophylaxis of organ rejection in de novo kidney transplant patients. As tacrolimus has a narrow therapeutic window, the impact of circadian patterns on LCPT drug exposure, including food and chronopharmacokinetic effects, needs to be elucidated to optimize dosing. METHODS: Two randomized, crossover, phase 1 studies were conducted in healthy volunteers. The first assessed the effect of morning versus evening dosing on the pharmacokinetic profile of LCPT 2 mg; the second assessed the effect of food on the pharmacokinetic profile of LCPT 5 mg. In both, blood samples were drawn from participants for up to 144 hours after administration of a single LCPT dose. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between evening and morning dosing in peak blood concentration (4.4 versus 4.0 ng/mL; P = 0.27), area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) from time 0 to time of the last concentration (89.1 versus 102.6 ng/mL; P = 0.20), AUC from time 0 to infinity (99.7 versus 114.3 ng·h/mL; P = 0.18), AUC from 0 to 24 hours post-dose (AUC0-24; 49.4 versus 51.6 ng·h/mL; P = 0.56), time to reach maximum blood concentration (median, 6.0 versus 6.0 hours; P = 0.91), total clearance (arithmetic mean = 21.5 versus 19.5 L/h; P = 0.50), or terminal half-life (arithmetic mean = 26.8 versus 28.1 hours; P = 0.26). After a high-calorie meal in the morning, the AUC0-24 reduced by 54% (ratio of geometric means = 45.6%; P < 0.0001) and peak blood concentration reduced by 22% (ratio of geometric means = 78.4%; P = 0.0006). However, the terminal half-life did not differ between fasted and fed states (33.3 versus 34.8 hours; P = 0.16), implying that these differences occurred because of altered bioavailability rather than modified clearance. CONCLUSIONS: For LCPT, no chronopharmacokinetic effects were observed, whereas food significantly reduced the 24-h exposure and the peak blood concentration.

Outcomes at 7 years post-transplant in black vs nonblack kidney transplant recipients administered belatacept or cyclosporine in BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT.

Clinical outcomes are generally worse for black vs nonblack renal allograft recipients. In BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT, recipients were randomized to belatacept more intense-based, belatacept less intense-based, or cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. At year 7, belatacept was associated with superior graft survival vs cyclosporine in BENEFIT (recipients of living or standard criteria deceased donor kidneys); belatacept was associated with similar graft survival vs cyclosporine in BENEFIT-EXT (recipients of extended criteria donor kidneys). In both studies, renal function was superior for belatacept-treated vs cyclosporine-treated patients. Seven-year outcomes were examined by race post hoc in each study. The effect of race and treatment on time to death or graft loss was compared using Cox regression. The interaction between treatment and race was also considered. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated from months 1 to 84 using a repeated-measures model. In total, 8.3% (55/666) and 13.1% (71/543) of patients in BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT, respectively, were black. Time to death or graft loss was similar in blacks and nonblacks. For both subgroups, estimated mean GFR increased over 7 years for belatacept, but declined for cyclosporine. Outcomes were similar in belatacept-treated black and nonblack patients. Due to the small number of black patients, these results must be interpreted with caution.

Real world data in health technology assessments in kidney transplants in Germany: use of routinely collected data to address epidemiologic questions in kidney transplants in the AMNOG process in Germany.

Introduction: It is discussed whether real world data can be used in health technology assessment. Following it is of interest whether routinely collected data for quality assurance (QA) in the hospital sector is feasible to address epidemiologic questions in kidney transplantation in the AMNOG process in Germany. Objectives: To investigate the proportion of kidney transplants classified as from so-called standard criteria donors (SCD) and from expanded criteria donors (ECD) in Germany and to study the age distribution. Methods: After granted use by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), the data analysis was carried out by the AQUA institute, and a SPSS code was developed. Special challenge was the complex definition of SCD/ECD criteria that, in addition to donor age, takes into account combinations of donor diagnoses, creatinine, and cold ischemia time. Results: Age analyses could be performed in all patients. Median age of the adult transplant recipients in Germany was 54 years in 2012 as well as in 2013, range 18-85 and 18-82 years and a mean (SD) of 53 (14) and 52 (14) years, respectively. 63.5% (2012) and 62.5% (2013) of recipients were male. Classification in SCD/ECD transplants could be performed for 2,083 of 2,461 patients (85%; 2012) and for 1,795 of 2,079 patients (86%; 2013). Of all classifiable transplants 61.4% (2012) and 66.5% (2013) were SCD transplants. Total project time from the request to results was <6 months. Conclusions: The use of data routinely collected for QA in the hospital sector is feasible to address epidemiologic questions in kidney transplantation in the AMNOG process in Germany, which is basically following the systematic of an HTA process. All patients with kidney transplants are represented thus avoiding sampling error. Limitations include the availability of all necessary data in the QA data set. Within <6 months' time with reasonable resources it was possible to meet timelines. The analyses were accepted by the authorities.