Layout 1 Efficacy of Suprotac® compared to Prograf® in kidney transplantation Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13203, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13203 Abstract Transplant recipients are given an immunosuppressive regimen such as tacrolimus to prevent organ rejection. Suprotac® is a generic tacrolimus that is utilized in kidney transplantation regimen in Iran. This post-market study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Suprotac® in comparison with Prograf®. In this two-armed, open-label, parallel, active-controlled, and cohort study, de novo kidney transplant recipients aging 18 to 65 years were prescribed Suprotac® or Prograf® as part of the immunosuppressant protocol. The primary outcome was comparing the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at month 12. The secondary outcomes were the assessment of patient and graft survival, acute rejections during hospitalization, tacrolimus dose, trough concentration, and Trough Concentration/dose (C/D) ratio, and Adverse Events (AEs) dur- ing the study period. A total of 201 patients were enrolled in this study. At discharge, the eGFR was lower in the Suprotac® group compared to the Prograf® group (51.70 ml/min/1.73m2 and 57.48 ml/min/1.73m2, respectively; p=0.042). However, at month 12, there was no significant dif- ference in mean eGFR between the two groups (58.94 ml/min/1.73m2 and 59.78 ml/min/1.73m2, respectively; p=0.772). Other outcomes, including patient and graft survival, acute rejection during hospitalization, tacrolimus dose, trough concentration, and C/D ratio, and overall incidence of AEs were similar between the two groups (p >0.05). The efficacy and safety profile of the generic tacrolimus were shown to be comparable to the reference tacrolimus at month 12. Key Words: tacrolimus, kidney transplantation, estimated glomerular filtration rate, Prograf®, Suprotac®. Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13203, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13203 Evaluation of efficacy and safety of generic tacrolimus (Suprotac®) compared to reference tacrolimus (Prograf®) in kidney transplantation: a phase IV study Mohsen Nafar,1 Behzad Einollahi,2 Mohammad Javanbakht,2 Amirhesam Alirezaei,3 Jalal Azmandian,4 Abbas Etminan,5 Mohammad Reza Ardalan,6 Jalal Etemadi,6 Roghayeh Akbari,7 Vahid Pourfarziani,2 Seyed Sadraddin Rasi Hashemi,6 Maryam Rahbar,8 Shahrzad Shahidi,9 Javid Safa,6 Hamid Tayyebi Khosroshahi,6 Sima Abedi Azar,6 Shahrzad Ossareh,10 Abdolamir Atapour,9 Bahareh Marghoob,10 Fatemeh Nazemian,11 Hamidreza Kafi,12 Araz Sabzvari13 1Chronic Kidney Disease Research Center, Shahid Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 2Nephrology and Urology Research Center, Clinical Science Institute, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 3Department of Nephrology, Shahid Modarres Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 4Physiology Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran; 5Physiology Research Center, Departments of Nephrology, Urology and Renal Transplantation, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran; 6Kidney Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran; 7Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Research Center, Health Research Institute, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran; 8Department of Nephrology, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 9Isfahan Kidney Diseases Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran; 10Nephrology Section, Department of Medicine, Hasheminejad Kidney Center, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 11Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kidney Transplantation Complications Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran; 12Medical Department, Orchid Pharmed Company, Tehran, Iran; 13CinnaGen Medical Biotechnology Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0) which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. - 39 - Efficacy of Suprotac® compared to Prograf® in kidney transplantation Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13203, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13203 - 40 - Kidney transplantation significantly improves the quality of life and life expectancy of individuals with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD).1 The kidney transplantation rates in Iran have been estimated to exceed 2500 transplants per year.2,3 To prevent the rejection of the transplanted organ, patients must adhere to a strict regimen of immunosuppressive medications, such as tacrolimus, an important medication in this regimen.4 Tacrolimus is a type of Calcineurin Inhibitor (CNI). It works by preventing the activation of T lymphocytes, which are important in the immune response and the release of in- flammatory cytokines that can potentially harm the trans- planted organ. When tacrolimus binds to a protein called FKBP-12, it forms complexes that bind to calcineurin. This binding inhibits the activation of T-cells and prevents the release of inflammatory mediators such as interleukin-2.5,6 The availability of tacrolimus, a vital component in trans- plant regimens, is essential for a successful kidney trans- plantation. Generic products play a significant role in ensuring access to these crucial medications and offer a cost-effective alternative without compromising quality. Generic tacrolimus (Suprotac®) is the generic product of the reference comparator, brand-name tacrolimus (Prograf®), and is produced by NanoAlvand Company, Iran. This co- hort study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Su- protac® in comparison with Prograf® in real-world kidney transplant recipients in Iran who were prescribed tacrolimus as per routine practice. Materials and Methods Study design and participants This open-label, two-armed, parallel, active-controlled, and cohort study was conducted in nine centers in Iran. The pri- mary kidney transplant (De Novo) recipients aging 18 to 65 years were enrolled in the study. The exclusion criteria were as follows: multi-organ transplantation; receiving a kidney with a cold ischemia time of ≥12 hours; contraindi- cation for kidney transplantation or contraindication for im- munosuppressive medications of the study; calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) ≥30; using any other investiga- tional drugs at the time or within 30 days of enrollment, or within five half-lives of those drugs, whichever is longer (except for dialysis-related drugs that were not expected to interact with the study regimens). Intervention and visits Patients received tacrolimus as Suprotac® or Prograf® in two divided doses given every 12 hours. Other medications in the transplant regimen were mycophenolate sodium/ mofetil, prednisolone, with/without Anti-Thymocyte Glob- ulin (ATG). Patients were monitored during the hospital- ization following transplant surgery and underwent periodic assessments at months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 after the surgery. Outcomes The primary outcome was the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at month 12 of the study. The second- ary outcomes included the rate of patient survival, the rate of graft survival, biopsy-proven or clinical acute rejections during hospitalization, tacrolimus dose, trough concentra- tion, and trough Concentration/Dose (C/D) ratio, and Ad- verse Events (AEs). Safety assessments Safety data were collected, recorded, and assessed by phys- icians during the study period. All AEs were classified based on the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA Desktop Browser 4.0 Beta) terms using System Organ Class (SOC) and Preferred Term (PT).7 All the re- ported events were graded according to the Common Ter- minology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5.0).8 Moreover, the seriousness of AEs was assessed ac- cording to ICH-E2B guidelines.9 The causality relation was assessed based on the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria.10 Sample size To assess the hypothesis of equal means of eGFR in the two study groups, 116 patients in the Suprotac® group and 58 patients in the Prograf® group (with 2:1 assignment) were needed to have a power of 95%. In a study the mean eGRF at 12th month was 62.0 (ml/min/1.73m2) in the tacrolimus group.11 Accordingly, the pre-assumed mean of eGRF in Suprotac® group was calculated as 52.7 (ml/min/1.73m2) (considering to be 15% less than the tacrolimus group); and it was assumed that both groups have a Standard Deviation (SD) of 15.9. The significance level of the test was set at 0.05, and a two- sided, two-sample equal-variance t-test was used. After ac- counting for a 10% missing data, it was determined that a sample size of 194 (129 in the Suprotac® group and 65 in the Prograf® group) would be necessary based on the cal- culated estimates. These calculations were performed using the software PASS 15 v.15.0.5. Statistical analysis The descriptive analysis of demographic information and efficacy outcomes involved the use of mean and SD for continuous variables. Categorical variables, on the other hand, were reported using frequency and percentage. The primary endpoint of this study was to analyze the mean eGFR at month 12 in two groups using the Analysis Of the Covariance (ANCOVA) model. The receiving of ATG at baseline and the type of donor (living or cadaver) were used as covariates in this analysis. In addition, the student’s t-test was used to compare the mean eGFR, tacrolimus dose, trough concentration and C/D ratio at different timepoints between the two groups. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare Intra-Patient Variability (IPV) between the two groups and it was described using the median and inter-quartile range. Other secondary endpoints such as patient survival, graft survival, and biopsy-proven or clinically acute rejections were compared using the chi-square test between the two groups. The mean eGFR and C/D ratio were analyzed dur- ing the study time points using the Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model in both groups. Efficacy of Suprotac® compared to Prograf® in kidney transplantation Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13203, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13203 The safety aspect of the study was measured by calculating the incidence rate for each AE. The data was then sum- marized based on the PT of the AE. Patients who experi- enced one AE multiple times were only counted once in the incidence calculation. Additionally, a causality assessment was conducted, and its results were reported in incidence and percentage. A chi-square test was performed to com- pare the number of people who experienced at least one AE, at least one AE with grade 3 or higher and at least one SAE between different groups. The statistical analyses were con- ducted using STATA version 17.0 and R 4.2.1. Results A total of 201 patients were enrolled in this study, including 125 patients in the Suprotac® group and 76 patients in the Prograf® group. The demographics and baseline character- istics are shown in Table 1. The percentage of living donors was significantly lower in the Suprotac® group (p- value=0.022). eGFR Assessments The mean (SD) eGFR at discharge day was 51.70 (18.37) ml/min/1.73m2 and 57.48 (20.28) ml/min/1.73m2 in the Su- protac® and Prograf® groups, respectively (p=0.042). The mean (SD) eGFR at month 12 was 58.94 (18.65) ml/min/1.73m2 and 59.78 (17.39) ml/min/1.73m2 in the Su- protac® and Prograf® groups, respectively (p=0.772). ANCOVA assessment of eGFR showed the least square means (95% confidence interval [CI]) of eGFR at month 12 were 59.7 (56.3, 63.1) ml/min/1.73m2 and 59.2 (54.8, 63.6) ml/min/1.73m2 in the Suprotac® and Prograf® groups, respectively (p=0.858). Moreover, the GEE model showed no significant difference between the groups (p=0.121). The longitudinal changes in eGFR and serum creatinine during the 12-month study period are shown in Figure 1. Tacrolimus dosing, trough concentration, and C/D ratio The mean (SD) of tacrolimus dose decreased from 6.92 (2.74) mg at discharge to 4.07 (1.89) mg at month 12 in the Suprotac® group, and from 6.40 (2.46) mg to 3.92 (1.65) mg in the Prograf® group (p=0.181 and 0.605, at discharge and month 12, respectively). The mean (SD) of tacrolimus trough concentration decreased from 7.79 (2.52) ng/mL at discharge to 7.53 (1.90) ng/mL at month 12 in the Suprotac® group, and from 7.90 (2.64) ng/mL to 7.36 (1.97) ng/mL in the Prograf® group (p=0.773 and 0.565, at discharge and month 12, respectively). The mean (SD) C/D ratio at discharge day was 1.35 (0.82) ng/ml/mg and 1.49 (0.97) ng/ml/mg in the Supro- tac® and Prograf® groups, respectively. The mean (SD) C/D ratio at month 12 was 2.48 (1.73) ng/ml/mg and 2.25 (1.28) ng/ml/mg in the Suprotac® and Prograf® groups, respectively. The mean (SD) difference of tacrolimus dose between the discharge day and month 12 was -3.01 (3.10) in the Su- protac® group and -2.49 (2.93) in the Prograf® group (p=0.579). Similarly, the mean (SD) difference of tacroli- mus trough concentration between the discharge day and month 12 was -0.43 (2.72) in the Suprotac® group and - 0.55 (2.53) in the Prograf® group (p=0.829). Furthermore, the mean (SD) difference of C/D ratio between the dis- charge day and month 12 was 1.16 (1.58) in the Suprotac® group and 0.78 (1.18) in the Prograf® group (p=0.617). The means and standard errors of C/D ratio (ng/ml/mg) trend from discharge to month 12 are demonstrated in Fig- ure 2. The mean tacrolimus C/D ratio significantly in- creased over time (p < 0.001) and there was no significant difference between the groups (p=0.291). The trough concentrations at months 3, 6, 9, and 12 were used for the assessment of IPV. The median (Q1, Q3) IPV was 17.92% (9.23, 27.18) and 18.70% (10.37, 26.27) in the Suprotac® and Prograf® groups, respectively (p=0.712). - 41 - Table 1. Patients’ demographics and baseline characteristics. Variable Suprotac® (N=125) Prograf® (N=76) Gender (Female) 47 (37.60) 23 (30.26) Age (Year) 40.88±11.39 41.43±11.69 Weight (kg) 70.26±13.97 68.15±15.52 Current smoking 8 (6.40) 4 (5.26) Current alcohol consumption 4 (3.20) 2 (2.63) Donor (Living) 50 (40.00) 43 (56.58) Received ATGa 69 (55.20) 42 (55.26) Data in this table are number (% of total participants in the treatment group) or mean±standard deviationa. aATG, anti-thymocyte globulin. Efficacy of Suprotac® compared to Prograf® in kidney transplantation Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13203, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13203 Acute rejection during the hospitalization, graft survival, and patient survival During the hospital stay after surgery, a total of 16 trans- plant rejections occurred; nine in the Suprotac® group (three based on biopsy and six with clinical criteria) and seven in the Prograf® group (three based on biopsy and four with clinical criteria). However, there was no significant differ- ence between the two groups (p=0.610). Out of the 16 re- jections, three graft losses occurred, with one in the Suprotac® group and two in the Prograf® group (p=0.306). During one year follow-up, similar graft survival rates were found in both groups, with 116 (92.8%) and 70 (92.1%) pa- tients in the Suprotac® and Prograf® groups, respectively (p=0.855). Additionally, 118 (94.4%) patients in the Supro- tac® group and 72 (94.7%) patients in the Prograf® group survived, with no significant difference found between the two groups (p=0.928). The total graft and patient survival were 92.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Safety results Among all patients, 27.20% in the Suprotac® group and 38.16% in the Prograf® group experienced at least one AE - 42 - Figure 1. Longitudinal changes in eGFR and serum creatinine during the study period (mean±standard error). eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate. Efficacy of Suprotac® compared to Prograf® in kidney transplantation Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13203, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13203 (p-value=0.104). The most common reported PTs in both groups were “coronavirus infection” and “infection”, re- spectively. Regarding severity, 26/125 (20.80%) patients in the Supro- tac® group and 23/76 (30.26%) patients in the Prograf® group experienced at least one AE with grade three or higher (p-value=0.130). Furthermore, 22/125 (17.60%) pa- tients in the Suprotac® group and 18/76 (23.68%) patients in the Prograf® group experienced at least one Serious Ad- verse Event (SAE) (p-value=0.295). SAEs predominantly resulted in “in-patient hospitalization or prolongation of ex- isting hospitalization”. Further details regarding the re- ported AEs are shown in Table 2. With respect to the causal relationship to the study inter- vention, 30 (24.00%) patients in the Suprotac® group and 24 (31.58%) patients in the Prograf® group experienced at least one AE that was at least possibly related to the inter- vention. Additionally, 15 (12.00%) patients in the Suprotac® group and 13 (17.11%) patients in the Prograf® group re- ported at least one SAE with at least possible causal relation to the study intervention. Discussion According to the findings of this study, the mean eGFR and other efficacy parameters including graft and patients’ sur- vival were comparable between the Suprotac® and Prograf® groups after 12 months of treatment. Moreover, there was no significant difference regarding safety profile between the two groups. In this study, the mean eGFR of patients was comparable to that of other studies, indicating appropriate kidney func- tion in transplant recipients. In a Spanish study on a large population of transplant recipients, the greatest number of patients had an average annualized eGFR of 51.4 mL/min/1.73 m2.12 In another study comparing a generic ta- crolimus with Prograf® in renal transplant recipients, the mean eGFR in the Prograf® group was 54.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 after six months.13 The graft (92.5%) and patient (94.5%) survival outcomes in this study were consistent with the results of previous trials. A study evaluating the long-term outcomes of kidney transplants showed a 1-year graft survival of 94.3% and 97.8% in recipients with deceased and living donors, re- spectively.14 In a systematic review, the 1-year graft and pa- tient survival rates among Iranian transplant recipients were 92.48% and 91.27%, respectively.15 A large-scale study in Korea revealed that the rate of acute rejection during hospitalization decreased from almost 17% in 2002 to 6% in 2017.16 The later years’ results aligned with the percentage of acute rejection observed in our study. The previous studies have shown that patients with a C/D - 43 - Figure 2. The mean of tacrolimus trough concentration/dose (ng/ml/mg) during the study. Efficacy of Suprotac® compared to Prograf® in kidney transplantation Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13203, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13203 ratio of more than 1.05 ng/mL/mg at month 3 after trans- plantation are slow metabolizers of tacrolimus.17,18 Based on the results of the present and previous studies, it appears that most Iranians are slow metabolizers.19,20 Despite the re- duction in tacrolimus dosage over time, the C/D ratio in- creased gradually in this study. This may be due to the decreased activity of metabolizing enzymes and the decline in tacrolimus clearance, as observed in the study by de Jonge et al.21.The dosing and trough concentration of tacro- limus, the C/D ratio, and IPV results were not statistically different between the two groups and were similar to pre- vious studies.22-25 Since this study was conducted during COVID-19 pan- demic, the most common reported AE was “coronavirus in- fection”, followed by unspecified infections. A study by Kim et al. reported upper respiratory tract as the most frequently reported site of infection (8.5%).26 Hyperglycemia is a common complication following transplantation and could represent the initial stage in the development of post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM).27 Heisel et al. observed a hyperglycemia inci- dence of 15.4% in patients treated with tacrolimus. In the current study, “hyperglycemia” was among the frequently reported AEs.28 Based on the safety data obtained in this study, and consid- ering the overall incidence of AEs and those classified as grade 3 or higher, it appears that Physicians predominantly reported only the more severe AEs or SAEs. As highlighted by Dalia Jacob et al. and Muaed Alomar et al. in their studies, under-reporting is a major limitation of post-market surveillance studies. According to these studies, severity and seriousness of AEs as well as the required time for physicians to report them, are among the most common contributing factors.29,30 Additionally, the Weber effect rep- resents a well-known bias in AE reporting. It is character- ized by a decrease in AE reports after the initial years of a drug’s regulatory approval, which is attributed to a decline in the reporting of clinically mild or trivial reactions.31 Con- sequently, these factors can lead to non-reporting or under- reporting of known and well-established AEs. Conclusions Overall, the findings of this study suggest that tacrolimus is well tolerated among kidney transplant recipients, with no safety concerns that stand out compared to similar studies. Furthermore, Suprotac® and Prograf® demonstrated comparable safety profiles. According to these results, the efficacy and safety of Suprotac® were comparable to those of Prograf® in kidney transplant patients. List of abbreviations eGFR, Estimated glomerular filtration rate C/D, concentration/dose AEs, adverse events PTDM, post-transplant diabetes mellitus SAE, serious adverse event CI, confidence interval ANCOVA, analysis of the covariance IPV, intra-patient variability GEE, generalized estimating equations SOC, System Organ Class PT, Preferred Term CTCAE v5.0, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 WHO, World Health Organization ESRD, end-stage renal disease - 44 - Table 2. Safety results the reported AEs. Suprotac® (N=125)a Prograf® (N=76)a Number of patients with at least one AEb (P-value: 0.104) 34 (27.20) 29 (38.16) AEs ≥3%c Corona virus infection 6 (4.80) 6 (7.89) Infection 5 (4.00) 5 (6.58) Blood creatinine increased 2 (1.60) 6 (7.89) Polyomavirus test positive 4 (3.20) 4 (5.26) Hyperglycaemia 5 (4.00) 1 (1.32) Myocardial infarction 1 (0.80) 3 (3.95) Patients with at least one AE with grade 3 or higher (P-value=0.130) 26 (20.80) 23 (30.26) Patients with at least one SAEd (P-value=0.295) 22 (17.60) 18 (23.68) Data in this table is presented as incidence (% of total participants in safety analysis set). aSafety analysis set; bAE, adverse event; cadverse events which reported in more than 3% of patients in either group; dSAE, serious adverse event. Efficacy of Suprotac® compared to Prograf® in kidney transplantation Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13203, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13203 CNI, calcineurin inhibitor Suprotac®, Generic tacrolimus Prograf®, brand-name tacrolimus cPRA, calculated panel reactive antibody Ethics approval The study was approved by the local ethics committee of Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences (IR.BMSU.REC.1399.375). All experiments were per- formed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regula- tions such as the Declaration of Helsinki and the participants signed the informed consent form and agreed to be published. Informed consent All patients participating in this study signed a written in- formed consent form for participating in this study. Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analyzed in the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Funding This study has been funded by NanoAlvand Company. Authors’ contributions All authors participated the draft, design, supervision, edit- ing, analysis, writing, and data interpretation. All authors read and approved final manuscript. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Corresponding author Behzad Einollahi, Nephrology and Urology Research Center, Clinical Science Institute, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ORCID ID: 0000-0001-5827-0239 E-mail: behzadeinollahi@finmail.com Co authors Mohsen Nafar ORCID ID: 0000-0001-5636-2666 E-mail: m.nafar.md@gmail.com Mohammad Javanbakht ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0837-9591 E-mail: mhmjvbt81@gmail.com Amirhesam Alirezaei ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9720-6723 E-mail: amirhesam124@gmail.com Jalal Azmandian ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1971-050X E-mail: J-Azmandian@yahoo.com Abbas Etminan ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1691-2827 E-mail: abbas_etminan@yahoo.com Mohammad Reza Ardalan ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0926-5684 E-mail: ardalan34@yahoo.com Jalal Etemadi ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8963-7494 E-mail: jalaletemadi@yahoo.com Roghayeh Akbari ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3720-3077 E-mail: roghayeh.akbari@yahoo.com Vahid Pourfarziani ORCID ID: 0009-0000-7282-5261 E-mail: pourfarziani@gmail.com Seyed Sadraddin Rasi Hashemi ORCID ID: 0000-0003-0208-6672 E-mail: S_rasihashemi@yahoo.com Maryam Rahbar ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7472-2290 E-mail: mrahbar@tums.ac.ir Shahrzad Shahidi ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5442-6424 E-mail: shahidi_shahrzad@yahoo.com Javid Safa ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3455-7467 E-mail: drsafa2003@yahoo.com Hamid Tayyebi Khosroshah ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1131-0413 E-mail: drtayebikh@yahoo.com Sima Abedi Azar ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7925-1747 E-mail: Sima_abedi@yahoo.com Shahrzad Ossareh ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3020-9465 E-mail: ossareh_s@hotmail.com - 45 - https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5827-0239 mailto:behzadeinollahi@finmail.com mailto:m.nafar.md@gmail.com mailto:mhmjvbt81@gmail.com mailto:amirhesam124@gmail.com mailto:J-Azmandian@yahoo.com mailto:abbas_etminan@yahoo.com mailto:jalaletemadi@yahoo.com mailto:roghayeh.akbari@yahoo.com mailto:pourfarziani@gmail.com mailto:S_rasihashemi@yahoo.com mailto:mrahbar@tums.ac.ir mailto:shahidi_shahrzad@yahoo.com mailto:drsafa2003@yahoo.com mailto:drtayebikh@yahoo.com mailto:Sima_abedi@yahoo.com mailto:ossareh_s@hotmail.com Efficacy of Suprotac® compared to Prograf® in kidney transplantation Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13203, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13203 Abdolamir Atapour ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4925-6491 E-mail: atapour@med.mui.ac.ir Bahareh Marghoob ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1895-2785 E-mail: baharehmarghoob@yahoo.com Fatemeh Nazemian ORCID ID: 0000-0003-2257-661X E-mail: Nazemianf@mums.ac.ir Hamidreza Kafi ORCID ID: 0009-0008-1246-8969 E-mail: Kafi.H@orchidpharmed.com Araz Sabzvari ORCID ID: 0009-0002-4368-1806 E-mail: sabzvari.a@orchidpharmed.com References 1. Kaballo MA, Canney M, O’Kelly P, et al. A compara- tive analysis of survival of patients on dialysis and after kidney transplantation. Clin Kidney J 2018;11:389-93. 2. Malekshahi A, MortezaNejad HF, Taromsari MR, et al. An evaluation of the current status of kidney transplant in terms of the type of receipt among Iranian patients. Renal Replacement Ther 2020;6:1-5. 3. Saidi RF, Broumand B. Current challenges of kidney transplantation in Iran: moving beyond the “Iranian Model”. Transplantation 2018;102:1195-7. 4. Enderby C, Keller CA. An overview of immunosup- pression in solid organ transplantation. Am J Manag Care 2015;21:s12-23. 5. Duncan MD, Wilkes DS. Transplant-related immuno- suppression: a review of immunosuppression and pul- monary infections. Proc Am Thor Soc 2005;2:449-55. 6. Lee H, Myoung H, Kim SM. Review of two immuno- suppressants: tacrolimus and cyclosporine. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surgeons 2023;49:311. 7. MedDRA. Available from: https://www.meddra.org/ about-meddra/evolving-meddra 8. Services USDOHAH. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 2017 Version 5.0 [up- dated November 27, 2017. Available from: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/elec- tronic_applications/docs/ctcae_v5_quick_reference_5x 7.pdf. 9. Use ICoHoTRfRoPfH. maintenance of the ICH guide- line on clinical safety data management: Data elements for transmission of individual case safety reports E2B(R2), 2001 [updated 5 February 2001. Available from: https://admin.ich.org/sites/default/files/inline- files/E2B_R2_Guideline.pdf 10. Centre UM. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardised case causality assessment 2018 [updated 4 June 2018]. Available from: https://who-umc.org/ media/164200/who-umc-causality-assessment_new- logo.pdf 11. Glotz D, Charpentier B, Abramovicz D, et al. Thymo- globulin induction and sirolimus versus tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and steroids. Transplantation 2010;89:1511-7. 12. Marcén R, Morales JM, Fernández-Rodriguez A, et al. Long-term graft function changes in kidney transplant recipients. NDT Plus 2010;3:ii2-ii8. 13. Connor A, Prowse A, Newell P, Rowe PA. A single-cen- tre comparison of the clinical outcomes at 6 months of renal transplant recipients administered Adoport® or Prograf® preparations of tacrolimus. Clin Kidney J 2013;6:21-8. 14. Poggio ED, Augustine JJ, Arrigain S, et al. Long-term kidney transplant graft survival—Making progress when most needed. Am J Transplant 2021;21:2824-32. 15. Ghelichi-Ghojogh M, Ghaem H, Mohammadizadeh F, et al. Graft and patient survival rates in kidney trans- plantation, and their associated factors: a systematic re- view and meta-analysis. Iranian J Public Health 2021;50:1555. 16. Lee HS, Kang M, Kim B, Park Y. Outcomes of kidney transplantation over a 16-year period in Korea: An anal- ysis of the National Health Information Database. Plos One 2021;16:e0247449. 17. Schütte-Nütgen K, Thölking G, Steinke J, et al. Fast Tac Metabolizers at Risk � It is Time for a C/D Ratio Cal- culation. J Clin Med 2019;8:587. Erratum in: J Clin Med 2019;8:E1870. 18. von Samson-Himmelstjerna FA, Messtorff ML, Kaka- vand N, et al. The tacrolimus concentration/dose ratio does not predict early complications after kidney trans- plantation. Transpl Internat 2023;36:11027. 19. Hagh EJ, Mousavi A, Hejazian SM, et al. The impact of single nucleotide polymorphisms on the pharmaco- kinetics of tacrolimus in kidney allograft recipients of northern-west, Iran. Adv Pharmaceut Bull 2023;13:393. 20. Dashti-Khavidaki S, Ghaffari S, Gohari M, et al. Tacro- limus dose requirement in iranian kidney transplant re- cipients within the first three weeks after transplantation. Int J Organ Transplantation Med 2016;7:167. 21. de Jonge H, Vanhove T, de Loor H, et al. Progressive decline in tacrolimus clearance after renal transplanta- tion is partially explained by decreasing CYP3A4 ac- tivity and increasing haematocrit. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2015;80:548-559 22. Alghanem SS, Soliman MM, Alibrahim AA, et al. Mon- itoring tacrolimus trough concentrations during the first year after kidney transplantation: a national retrospec- tive cohort study. Frontiers Pharmacol 2020;11:566638. 23. Nowicka M, Górska M, Nowicka Z, et al. Tacrolimus: Influence of the posttransplant concentration/dose ratio - 46 - mailto:atapour@med.mui.ac.ir mailto:baharehmarghoob@yahoo.com mailto:Nazemianf@mums.ac.ir mailto:Kafi.H@orchidpharmed.com mailto:sabzvari.a@orchidpharmed.com Efficacy of Suprotac® compared to Prograf® in kidney transplantation Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13203, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13203 on kidney graft function in a two-year follow-up. Kid- ney Blood Pressure Res 2019;44:1075-88. 24. Del Bello A, Gaible C, Longlune N, et al. Tacrolimus intrapatient variability after switching from immediate or prolonged-release to extended-release formulation, after an organ transplantation. Front Pharmacol 2021;12:602764. 25. Kim H, Han A, Ahn S, et al. Association of high intra- patient variability in tacrolimus exposure with calcineu- rin inhibitor nephrotoxicity in kidney transplantation. Sci Reports 2023;13:16502. 26. Kim S, Huh K, Han D-J, et al. A 6-month, multicenter, single-arm pilot study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of generic tacrolimus (TacroBell) after primary renal transplantation. Transplantation proceedings; 2009: El- sevier. 27. Pérez-Flores I, Sánchez-Fructuoso A, Calvo N, et al. In- cidence and risk factors for the metabolic syndrome and posttransplant diabetes in renal transplant recipients tak- ing tacrolimus. Transplantation proceedings; 2010: El- sevier. 28. Heisel O, Heisel R, Balshaw R, Keown P. New onset diabetes mellitus in patients receiving calcineurin inhib- itors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Transpl 2004;4:583-95. 29. Jacob D, Marrón B, Ehrlich J, Rutherford PA. Pharma- covigilance as a tool for safety and monitoring: a review of general issues and the specific challenges with end- stage renal failure patients. Drug Healthc Patient Saf 2013;5:105-112. 30. Alomar M, Tawfiq AM, Hassan N, Palaian S. Post mar- keting surveillance of suspected adverse drug reactions through spontaneous reporting: current status, chal- lenges and the future. Therapeutic Adv Drug Safety 2020;11:2042098620938595. 31. Arora A, Jalali RK, Vohora D. Relevance of the Weber effect in contemporary pharmacovigilance of oncology drugs. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2017;13:1195-203. Disclaimer All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their af- filiated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Submitted: 5 October 2024. Accepted: 29 October 2024. Early access: 21 January 2025. - 47 -