text:
Equivalence and interchangeability of narrow therapeutic index drugs in organ transplantation
Atholl Johnston
Correspondence to Dr Atholl Johnston, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary, University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; a.johnston{at}qmul.ac.uk
The calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), ciclosporin and tacrolimus, are the mainstay of immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation. Generic formulations of these drugs are now available. With increasing pressure on healthcare budgets and the consequent need to match health expectations to available resources, substitution with a generic product appears an attractive option to reduce costs. Approval of generic products differs from innovator drugs, and narrow therapeutic index drugs (NTIs; including CNIs) bring their own particular considerations. With NTIs, small variations in drug exposure could result in reduced immunosuppression or drug toxicity with potentially adverse effects on patient outcomes. NTIs are subject to stricter regulatory approval versus many other generic drugs. However, different generic formulations may still not necessarily be therapeutically equivalent in individuals, raising the possibility of significant differences in exposure between products. Although regional recommendations vary, many guidelines emphasise the need for NTI drug substitution to be initiated by the transplant physician, thus ensuring careful therapeutic monitoring and reduced negative patient impact. The need for therapeutic monitoring during generic substitution has important implications for the overall costs of generic treatment as these costs have to be factored in to the potential savings made from using generic formulations. The reduced acquisition costs of generic products may not necessarily translate into lower overall healthcare costs. This article examines the issue of equivalence and interchangeability of NTI drugs used in organ transplantation, the implications of the approval process for generic drugs on treatment efficacy and safety, and the effective management of substitutions between products.
Transplant Medicine
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2012-000258
The calcineurin inhibitors, ciclosporin and tacrolimus, have been the mainstay of immunosuppressive therapy in solid organ transplantation over the decades since their introduction.1 For these agents, and the more recently introduced mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus and everolimus), the range of drug exposure between lack of efficacy (under-immunosuppression) and increased toxicity is small, leading them to be described as critical dose drugs or narrow therapeutic index (NTI) drugs.2–4 In addition, these immunosuppressive therapies show a wide degree of variability in pharmacokinetics between individual patients, which means that routine therapeutic drug monitoring is required to ensure optimal immunosuppression.5–8
For many immunosuppressive therapies, generic formulations are now available as an alternative to the original branded product. With increasing pressure on healthcare budgets, and the consequent need to match health expectations to the available resources, substitution with a generic product appears an attractive option to reduce costs. Generics are widely and successfully used across clinical practice; in the Netherlands in 2009, for example, 57% of prescriptions were dispensed as generic products.9 However, NTI immunosuppressive drugs bring their own particular considerations, as small variations in drug concentrations in the blood could result in reduced immunosuppression or increased toxicity, with potentially adverse effects on patient outcomes.2 ,8 ,10
This article builds upon existing knowledge11 by examining the issue of equivalence and interchangeability of NTI drugs used in organ transplantation, the implications of the different approval processes for generic drugs on treatment efficacy and safety, and how substitutions between products can be managed effectively.
Generic drug approval and bioequivalence
The approval process for generic drugs differs from that for innovator products (box 1). While a new drug application (NDA) for an innovator drug requires studies demonstrating safety and efficacy, and postmarketing surveillance data to ensure that any adverse events are tracked effectively, a generic product needs an abbreviated NDA. Provided the generic has the same dosage form, same route of administration and same amount of active ingredient as the innovator, and is produced following good manufacturing practice, the generic product simply has to demonstrate bioequivalence to the branded drug.12 ,13 Safety and efficacy studies are not required as these have already been performed for the original product. Importantly, there is no requirement to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence between the two products; this is assumed based on their bioequivalence.2
The approval process for generic drugs: abbreviated new drug application
Same dosage form
Same route of administration
Same amount of active ingredient(s)
Follow good manufacturing practice (GMP) guidelines
Bioequivalence
Efficacy studies
Same excipients
The same degree of postmarketing surveillance
Demonstration of therapeutic equivalence
Bioequivalence can be regarded as a biological quality assessment test. Both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidelines recommend that bioequivalence is measured using a standard single-dose randomised, two-period, two-sequence single-dose design.14 For this reason, bioequivalence studies are typically crossover studies conducted in a small group of usually between 24 and 52 healthy volunteers.15 ,16 In a typical two-by-two or AB/BA design, one half of the group receives the test (generic) product first, followed by a washout period, and then the reference (innovator) drug; for the other half of the group, the order of the products is reversed.17 Although very rarely done, the crossover design can be extended to include more than two treatments per subject in consecutive periods or more than two sequences, that is, so-called, high-order crossover designs (eg, AABB/BBAA or AA/BB/AB/BA).
Blood concentration data are collected for each group, and pharmacokinetic parameters (maximum drug concentration [Cmax], time to reach Cmax [tmax] and area under the concentration/time curve [AUC]) are calculated to determine the extent and rate of exposure. The relative bioavailability of the two formulations is then evaluated from these parameters to determine equivalence derived from standard reference tests (analysis of variance).18 The ratio of the geometric mean value for the test formulation to the mean value for the reference formulation is calculated for Cmax and AUC, and the 90% CI for the mean ratio has to be within a specified interval in order for bioequivalence to be demonstrated.
For most drugs, a difference of 20% between products is used to define bioequivalence,12 although some regulators have introduced stricter guidelines for NTI drugs (as discussed below). Taking values for the reference formulation of 100 and for the test product of 80, the test to reference ratio (80/100) gives the lower limit for the bioequivalence interval of 0.80 or 80%, while the reference to test ratio (100/80) gives the upper limit of 1.25 or 125%. So for bioequivalence to be established, the mean ratio and its 90% CI must lie between 0.80 and 1.25 or 80% to 125%—a difference of ±20%.12
It is, however, important to note that bioequivalence relates to the mean of the data for the study population, so values for individual subjects may lie outside the bioequivalence intervals, even though the mean ratios (and CIs) are within the limits. For example, data from a bioequivalence study comparing generic and branded formulations of ciclosporin showed that almost 40% of individuals receiving the generic formulation were below the 80% limit for the mean ratio for Cmax, with two individuals receiving a maximum drug concentration approximately 40% lower than with the branded formulation (figure 1). Nevertheless, since the 90% CIs of the mean ratios for Cmax and AUC fell within the 80% to 125% limits, the formulation was considered bioequivalent.
Variation in individual exposure between generic and branded ciclosporin formulations in a bioequivalence study. Data are shown for individual subjects. The large circles show overall mean ratios for Cmax and AUC and encompass the 90% CI of these parameters. AUC, area under the concentration/time curve; Cmax, maximum plasma concentration. Based on study Report Number ANA-97-132, submitted by Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc, Laurelton, New York (USA) to the Illinois (USA) Department of Public Health (n=34).
Bioequivalence and interchangeability
The approval process for generic drugs also raises the question of interchangeability between different generic formulations as each one only has to demonstrate bioequivalence to the innovator drug. Thus, although two generic formulations (A and B) may each show bioequivalence to the branded product, generic A may not be bioequivalent to generic B, as the 90% CIs for the mean ratios could lie outside the 80%–125% limits (figure 2A). In the included example, a patient who was switched from generic A to generic B would, on average, receive 52% more drug, while conversion from B to A would reduce exposure by 28% on average. Furthermore, these differences could be larger for individual patients. There are, however, a number of mathematical models, which claim to address the potential interchangeability between different generic formulations through indirect comparisons.19 ,20 In one such analysis, Herranz and colleagues (2013) concluded that generic products were not only bioequivalent with the reference product but also with each other; however, the 80%–125% limits used in these analyses are now considered inappropriate for NTI drugs.21
Bioequivalence and interchangeability. (A) Normal bioequivalence limits (80%–125%). (B) Bioequivalence limits for narrow therapeutic index drugs (90%–111%). Generic A and generic B each show bioequivalence to the branded product, but generic A is not bioequivalent to generic B, as the 90% CIs for the mean ratios lie outside the bioequivalence limits.
The potential for such large changes in exposure between different formulations has led some regulatory authorities to introduce tighter bioequivalence limits for NTI drugs or critical dose drugs, such as tacrolimus.3 ,4 ,12 In Europe, for these drugs the limit is ±10%, so the mean ratios for test to reference product (and the 90% CIs) have to be in the range of 90% to 111% to show bioequivalence.3 ,12 Although it is still possible that generic products will not show bioequivalence to one another, the stricter bioequivalence limits mean that potential differences in exposure between the generic formulations are reduced (figure 2B). However, this variability is still a concern, particularly where large numbers of different generic formulations are available for a given drug, as multiple substitutions between the various products could lead to considerable variability in exposure, which may result in poor long-term outcomes.22
Therapeutic equivalence
The approval of generic drugs using bioequivalence studies is based on the fundamental assumption that if two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent, they will provide the same therapeutic effect. In other words, they will be therapeutically equivalent and are therefore interchangeable. However, evidence from studies with ciclosporin, and more recently, tacrolimus, suggests that this is not necessarily the case for the NTI drugs in transplantation.
Initial retrospective analyses of kidney transplant data from the Collaborative Transplant Study database23 suggested that patients treated with generic ciclosporin may have reduced 1-year graft survival compared with those receiving the branded formulation of ciclosporin, Neoral (Novartis Pharmaceuticals).24 Of 17 198 renal transplant recipients who received organs from deceased donors between 1998 and 2000, graft survival was approximately 90% in 16 801 patients who received the branded formulation compared with around 80% in the 397 patients who received the generic drug. Stratification of the data for geographical region in order to reduce bias showed an unfavourable trend for generic ciclosporin in all of the regions assessed, although limited published details on the methodology and observance to treatment prohibit any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this study.23
A retrospective review of 188 de novo kidney transplant patients at a single centre showed a significantly higher rate of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) with the generic ciclosporin Gengraf (Abbott Laboratories) than with Neoral.24 Patients receiving Gengraf were significantly more likely to have a BPAR episode or a second rejection episode compared with those treated with Neoral (table 1). In addition, significantly more Gengraf-treated patients received an antibody preparation to treat acute rejection than those receiving Neoral (table 1). Although mean 12-h trough concentrations of ciclosporin were similar with the two formulations, patients treated with Gengraf had significantly higher intrapatient variability for ciclosporin trough concentrations than those treated with Neoral (p<0.05).24
Biopsy-proven acute rejection episodes at 6 months post-transplant in adult de novo kidney transplant recipients24
Previous studies have shown that increased within-patient variability in ciclosporin concentrations is associated with poorer outcomes and higher treatment costs following transplantation.25–28 An analysis of 204 transplant recipients showed that the time to chronic rejection over 5 years was significantly longer among patients with less variable ciclosporin concentrations than those with variable concentrations.27 Similar findings have been observed with tacrolimus therapy. A study of 297 kidney transplant recipients at a single centre showed that low within-patient variability in tacrolimus clearance was associated with significantly better graft survival compared with high within-patient variability (figure 3).29 Patients with low variability in tacrolimus trough levels also showed significantly lower acute rejection rates and higher 1-year graft survival than those with high variability in a recent study of over 250 adult kidney transplant recipients.22 Within this setting, other factors, such as interaction with food or other drugs and timing of trough levels, are also important considerations in ensuring low within-patient variability. Data comparing generic and branded formulations of tacrolimus are more limited than for ciclosporin, as generic tacrolimus has only recently become available, whereas generic ciclosporin has been available for over a decade. However, a recent study examined the effects on predose tacrolimus trough concentrations of switching from the branded formulation (PROGRAF; Astellas Pharma) to a generic formulation (Adoport; Sandoz) in 103 clinically stable kidney and liver transplant patients.30 Treatments were switched on a milligram-for-milligram basis, and patients were carefully monitored before and after conversion. Both kidney and liver transplant patients showed marked changes in tacrolimus trough concentrations following the switch to generic tacrolimus. Among the subgroup of 30 kidney and 30 liver transplant recipients who remained on the same dosing regimen throughout the study period, mean reductions in tacrolimus trough concentrations were 0.87 ng/mL and 1.98 ng/mL, respectively, after adjusting for all significant covariates.30 The changes seen in both groups were appreciable, considering the low target trough levels in the study (kidney, 5–7 ng/mL; liver, 6–8 ng/mL). Decreases in tacrolimus blood levels of at least 25% were observed in 40% of the kidney transplant patients and 33% of the liver transplant recipients (figure 4).30 Despite the lower concentration-to-dose (C/D) ratios and a small but significant drop in tacrolimus concentrations, the authors concluded that transplant patients can be safely switched from the branded formulation to the generic tacrolimus formulation 'provided trough concentrations are closely monitored following the substitution'.30
Graft survival for kidney transplant patients with low and high within-patient variability for tacrolimus clearance. Reprinted from Borra et al, 2010.29
Percentage change in tacrolimus blood trough concentrations following conversion to generic tacrolimus in liver and kidney transplant recipients. Data shown for transplant recipients (kidney, n=30; liver, n=30) whose dosing regimen remained unchanged following 1:1 dose conversion. Adapted from Momper et al, 2011.30
Two subsequent studies31 ,32 have shown that trough levels are similar before and after conversion from branded to generic tacrolimus. However, McDevitt-Potter et al31 reported a substantial increase in the number of dose adjustments required in patients after conversion from the branded formulation to the generic formulation compared with 6 months prior to conversion (21% vs 7%, respectively; p=0.028). Both groups suggest that switching should be performed carefully with vigilance and increased therapeutic drug monitoring, thus recognising that variability between formulations is an issue.31 ,32 With reference to interchangeability between different tacrolimus formulations, the correlation between C12 and AUC across different formulations needs to be established. In the absence of this information it cannot be presumed that when patients are switched between formulations (either branded to generic or from generic to generic formulations) that the same trough levels will achieve the same AUC. Alloway et al33 assessed the correlation between C12 and AUC for conversion from branded formulation to a single generic formulation; this information, however, cannot be applied to other generic formulations. Furthermore, there is a risk for uncontrolled switching between generic formulations where the correlation between C12 and AUC is not established, thereby exposing the patient to substantial risk and inconsistencies in tacrolimus exposure.
These findings are echoed in recent advice from Sandoz to transplant centres in the UK about the use of the generic tacrolimus formulation, Adoport, which states that 'oral tacrolimus formulations are not interchangeable without careful therapeutic monitoring' and warns that 'inadvertent, unintentional or unsupervised switching between different oral formulations of tacrolimus can lead to graft rejection or an increased incidence of undesirable effects'.34 So even though the generic formulation has demonstrated bioequivalence to the branded formulation, the two are not interchangeable without therapeutic drug monitoring.
The need for careful monitoring is also emphasised in an editorial published in response to the study by Momper et al.35 This calls for the introduction of tighter regulations by the US FDA for demonstrating bioequivalence for generic immunosuppressive drugs, together with a requirement for the studies to be performed in transplant recipients (one study for each organ recipient group) rather than healthy volunteers, as drug pharmacokinetics are known to be different in liver and kidney transplant patients. The author concluded that until such changes are in place, patients' health is being jeopardised if 'vigilant therapeutic drug monitoring' is not performed.35 In practice, however, it would be difficult to control for significant confounders, such as the impact of drug interactions on tacrolimus serum concentrations, and for this reason, differences in the drug formulations would be extremely difficult to detect.36
Recommendations for generic substitution
The rise in the availability of generic formulations coupled with concerns over the therapeutic equivalence of NTI drugs has led to a number of transplantation organisations offering guidance on the use of generic immunosuppressive agents.37–39 Typically, these recommendations emphasise the need for the transplant physician to authorise any substitutions.38 ,39 The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guidelines advise caution in choosing a generic formulation for treating kidney transplant recipients, as head-to-head comparison data for efficacy and toxicity are generally not available for most generics.37 They state that 'ideally, a generic formulation should be used only after its safety and efficacy have been established in kidney transplant recipients'. The Efficacy and Safety of PRescribing In Transplantation Group (ESPRIT) website (http://www.esprit.org.uk/) provides information and resources to support the safe use of generic substitution.
The European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) recently published its advisory committee recommendations on the generic substitution of immunosuppressive drugs.39 ESOT makes clear that, as a society, it is not against the use of generic immunosuppressive products. Rather, its aim is to ensure that substitutions occur in a controlled manner, with the appropriate therapeutic monitoring in place to ensure that drug exposure is maintained and outcomes are unaffected. ESOT therefore provides a number of key recommendations regarding generic substitutions, outlined below.
Generic formulations that do not meet the current stricter bioequivalence criteria should not be used, while the use of compounds that were approved before the current guidelines were introduced and are still available should be discouraged until they have demonstrated bioequivalence according to the new EMA guidelines.
Substitution of the brand name drug for the generic formulation should only be initiated by the transplant physician, to ensure that the appropriate monitoring of drug blood concentrations takes place following the switch, and pharmacists and health insurance providers should refrain from forcing generic substitutions. This aims to avoid the situation where drug exposure is not monitored because the prescriber is unaware of the substitution, leading to the risk of underexposure or overexposure.
Repetitive (consecutive) substitutions between different generic formulations of the same drug should be avoided. Prescribers are often unaware of such substitutions, and changes in exposure can be more pronounced than for the change from branded product to generic product (as discussed above). Furthermore, the repeated switching between generic formulations can prove confusing for patients and lead to mistakes with dosing.
Patients should be informed about generic substitution and taught how to identify the different formulations of the same drug, and they should alert the transplant physician if an uncontrolled substitution is made. The guidelines emphasise that pharmacists have an active role to play in both informing the patient about the newly prescribed formulation when generic substitution is initiated by the prescribing physician, and protecting the patient from subsequent substitutions.
The simultaneous use of different formulations in the same patient should be avoided as this could be confusing for the patient and lead to unpredictable pharmacokinetics and increased variability in exposure.
The guidelines also emphasise the role of the transplant community in collecting data on the use of generic immunosuppressive formulations in transplant patients, so enabling a comprehensive picture of all aspects of these drugs (including pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety) to be assembled.
McDevitt-Potter et al showed that when dose requirements and trough levels are similar between branded and generic tacrolimus, generic substitutions may be associated with cost savings. However, this paper discusses switching from the branded drug to only one generic formulation and the impact of switching to other or between generic formulations was not tested.31 Indeed, there is potential for switching to multiple formulations of generic drugs that enter the market at various time points. The need for careful therapeutic monitoring during generic substitution has important implications for the overall costs of generic treatment, as the costs of monitoring and dealing with patients' concerns have to be factored in.40 The reduced acquisition costs of generic products may not translate into lower overall healthcare costs if the additional monitoring outweighs the reductions in drug costs. In the absence of data on interchangeability between different generic formulations, it is therefore not possible to conclude on the economic impact of switching from branded to generic formulations.
To date, published direct healthcare cost assessments are limited to generic substitution from product brands. One such US study in de novo renal transplant recipients showed that patients receiving generic ciclosporin incurred significantly higher total healthcare costs over the course of a year compared with those treated with branded ciclosporin, despite initial perceived cost savings associated with the generic formulation.41 Potential savings from reduced drug costs associated with generic substitution therefore need to be evaluated in light of the overall healthcare costs within each healthcare setting.
A large number of generic formulations of immunosuppressive drugs are currently available, with the numbers set to rise over the next few years as more patents expire, while increasing pressures on healthcare budgets are likely to increase the demand for their use. However, approval of generic products differs from innovator drugs. It is based on bioequivalence to the innovator drug (but not to other generic formulations), while therapeutic equivalence is assumed based on bioequivalence. Consequently, different generic formulations may not necessarily be bioequivalent to each other, raising the possibility of significant differences in exposure between different products. In addition, it is not clear how different generic products compare with existing formulations in terms of therapeutic efficacy and the risk of adverse events. Immunosuppressive drugs, such as tacrolimus and ciclosporin, are NTI drugs, and so small changes in exposure could result in increased toxicity or reduced immunosuppression. Conversion to a generic formulation therefore requires careful clinical and therapeutic drug monitoring to ensure that optimal immunosuppression is maintained; hence, generic substitution must only be performed under the close supervision of a transplant specialist. Moreover, the costs of this supervision need to be taken into account when assessing the overall healthcare costs associated with generic substitution.
The author would like to thank iS Health for editorial support in the preparation of the manuscript.
Shapiro R,
Young JB,
Milford EL,
. Immunosuppression: evolution in practice and trends, 1993–2003. Am J Transplant 2005;5:874–86.
Uber PA,
Ross HJ,
Zuckermann AO,
. Generic drug immunosuppression in thoracic transplantation: an ISHLT educational advisory. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009;28:655–60.
European Medicines Agency. Committee for Human Medicinal Products. Questions & Answers: positions on specific questions addressed to the Pharmacokinetics Working Party. EMA/618604/2008 Rev 5. September 2012.
Health Canada. Guidance document: comparative bioavailability standards: formulations used for systemic effects. Ottawa, Ontario: February 2012.
Kahan BD,
Keown P,
Levy GA,
. Therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressant drugs in clinical practice. Clin Ther 2002;24:330–50.
Büchler M,
Johnston A
. Seeking optimal prescription of cyclosporine ME. Ther Drug Monit 2005;27:3–6.
Jorga A,
Holt DW,
. Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 2004;36(Suppl 2S):396S–403S.
Wallemacq P,
Armstrong VW,
Brunet M,
. Opportunities to optimize tacrolimus therapy in solid organ transplantation: report of the European consensus conference. Ther Drug Monit 2009;31:139–52.
Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics. Facts and figures 2010. The Hague, The Netherlands: February 2011.
Johnston A,
Belitsky P,
Frei U,
. Potential clinical implications of substitution of generic cyclosporine formulations for cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) in transplant recipients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004;60:389–95.
Keown PA,
Holt DW
. Simple bioequivalence criteria: are they relevant to critical dose drugs? Experience gained from cyclosporine. Ther Drug Monit 1997;19:375–81.
European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98. Rev 1/Corr. London: January 2010.
Food and Drug Administration. US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry: bioequivalence recommendations for specific products. Silver Spring, MD: June 2010.
García-Arieta A,
Gordon J
. Bioequivalence requirements in the European Union: critical discussion. AAPS J 2012;14:738–48.
van der Meersch A,
Dechartres A,
Ravaud P
. Quality of reporting of bioequivalence trials comparing generic to brand name drugs: a methodological systematic review. PLoS One 2011;6:e23611.
van Gelder T,
Gabardi S
. Methods, strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of bioequivalence tests with special regard to immune-suppressive drugs. Transplant Int 2013;26:771–7.
Wang D,
Bakhai A
Lorch U,
. Crossover Trials. In: Wang D, Bakhai A. eds. Clinical Trials—A Practical Guide to Design, Analysis, and Reporting. London, UK: Remedica, 2006:91–9.
Karalis V,
Macheras P
. Current regulatory approaches of bioequivalence testing. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2012;8:929–42.
Krauss GL,
Caffo B,
Chang YT,
. Assessing bioequivalence of generic antiepilepsy drugs. Ann Neurol 2011;70:221–8.
Gwaza L,
Gordon J,
Welink J,
. Statistical approaches to indirectly compare bioequivalence between generics: a comparison of methodologies employing artemether/ lumefantrine 20/120 mg tablets as prequalified by WHO. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2012;68:1611–18.
Herranz M,
Morales-Alcelay S,
Corredera-Hernández MT,
. Bioequivalence between generic tacrolimus products marketed in Spain by adjusted indirect comparison. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2013;69:1157–62.
Stevenson KS,
Glen J,
Stevens KK,
. High tacrolimus intrapatient variability is associated with acute rejection and graft loss (Abstract MO-021). Transplant Int 2011;24(Suppl 2):111.
Pollard S,
Nashan B,
. A pharmacokinetic and clinical review of the potential clinical impact of using different formulations of cyclosporin A. Berlin, Germany, November 19, 2001. Clin Ther 2003;25:1654–69.
Taber DJ,
Baillie GM,
Ashcraft EE,
. Does bioequivalence between modified cyclosporine formulations translate into equal outcomes? Transplantation 2005;80:1633–5.
Kahan BD
. Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine: 20 years of progress. Transplant Proc 2004;36:S378–91.
He X,
. Variable cyclosporine exposure: a risk factor for chronic allograft nephropathy and graft loss? Transplant Proc 2004;36:1321–6.
Welsh M,
Urbauer DL,
. Low intraindividual variability of cyclosporin A exposure reduces chronic rejection incidence and health care costs. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000;11:1122–31.
Waiser J,
Slowinski T,
Brinker-Paschke A,
. Impact of the variability of cyclosporin A trough levels on long-term renal allograft function. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002;17:1310–17.
Borra LC,
Roodnat JI,
Kal JA,
. High within-patient variability in the clearance of tacrolimus is a risk factor for poor long-term outcome after kidney transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;25:2757–63.
Momper JD,
Ridenour TA,
Schonder KS,
. The impact of conversion from Prograf to generic tacrolimus in liver and kidney transplant recipients with stable graft function. Am J Transplant 2011;11:1861–7.
McDevitt-Potter LM,
Sadaka B,
Tichy EM,
. A multicenter experience with generic tacrolimus conversion. Transplantation 2011;92:653–7.
Spence MM,
Nquyen LM,
Hui RL,
. 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. Pharmacotherapy 2012;32:981–7.
Alloway RR,
Trofe-Clark J,
. A randomized pharmacokinetic study of generic tacrolimus versus reference tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2012;12:2825–31.
Sandoz. Adoport®. Important advice: meticulous attention to detail is required when prescribing or dispensing oral tacrolimus products, and patients must always know which medicine they are taking. 28 June 2010. http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/websiteresources/con087633.pdf. (accessed Oct 2012).
Klintmalm GB
. Immunosuppression, generic drugs and the FDA. Am J Transplant 2011;11:1765–6.
Latran M
. Response to Klintmalm on the use of generic immunosuppression. Am J Transplant 2012;12:791; Author reply 794.
Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2009;9(Suppl 3):S1–S155.
Sociedad Española de Trasplante. Consensus statement on generic substitution for immunosuppressants with a narrow therapeutic index. 29 March 2011.
van Gelder T
. European Society for Organ Transplantation Advisory Committee recommendations on generic substitution of immunosuppressive drugs. Transplant Int 2011;24:1135–41.
Parker K,
Zagadailov EA,
Bruno AS,
. Transplant coordinators' perceived impact of availability of multiple generic immunosuppression therapies on patients, workload, and posttransplant maintenance therapy. J Transplant Published Online First: 8 Jan 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/897434
Helderman JH,
Kang N,
Legorreta AP,
. Healthcare costs in renal transplant recipients using branded versus generic ciclosporin. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2010;8:61–8.
Contributors AJ interpreted the data, was involved in drafting the article, revised it critically once drafted for important intellectual content and approved the final version prior to publication.
Funding The editorial services of iS Health, involved in the preparation of this manuscript, were supported by Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd.
Competing interests Professor Johnston has been, and is, a consultant for, and owns stock in, several pharmaceutical and biotech companies. He is a director of ESPRIT (Efficacy and Safety of PRescribing In Transplantation)—a not-for-profit company committed to the continued, effective and safe treatment of transplant patients through the education of healthcare professionals and patients. Professor Johnston, his family members and friends use generic and branded drugs. He is also a tax payer and funds, at least in part, the National Health Service in the UK.
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
Squeaky clean?
Phil Wiffen
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy: Science and Practice 2013; 20 261-261 Published Online First: 19 Sep 2013. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2013-000387


text:
Please sign in to join the discussion (or create an account)
Small number of computer-aided rifles could be hacked in contrived scenario
The internet is reeling today at the "news" that a rare make of computer-aided gunsight can under certain circumstances be hacked into, permitting a hacker to interfere with a suitably-equipped rifle's aim. The gunsight in question is the much-hyped but seldom purchased TrackingPoint kit, a system with a Linux machine at its …
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics'
Thursday 30th July 2015 17:42 GMT Derpity
Right on
I think, for once, I agree with LP. Whole thing is for click bait headlines to get interest for Wired and Black Hat. I do remember watching videos about TrackingPoint and thinking it was pretty cool but as usual it turned out to be a lot of marketing. Thankfully(?) humans are still needed inline in the long range precision killing field.
Thursday 30th July 2015 18:18 GMT Munin
Re: Right on
Mostly because of ATF regulations; the way the rules are written, if you don't want to be classified as a machine gun or summat like, you have to only allow one bullet per trigger pull. This necessarily precludes automatically actuating triggers.
Of course, that only matters if you want a -legal- gun that you can sell to other folks in the United States. If you're not constrained by those considerations, there's nowt preventing you from taking the same general 'tag this target' notions and actuating the trigger with a servo - which takes the human out of the firing decision entirely.
Basically, the only thing preventing the production of a self-targeting sniper turret is some red tape.
Friday 28th August 2015 02:27 GMT Getmo
There's a similar system - if you want to call it that - already in use on some newer US APCs. Basically a turret on the roof with a camera controlled by a guy on the inside with a monitor and a joystick. Technically it can't fire without a human controlling it, but it does have a servo motor actuating the trigger.
Thursday 30th July 2015 18:05 GMT Dave 32
Excellent analysis. You know your stuff.
Tuesday 18th August 2015 16:10 GMT TMe
Thursday 30th July 2015 18:07 GMT Paul Kinsler
spin drift.
But in order to break the rotational symmetry (and get this `spin drift'), we also need something else, presumably gravity. So the bullet deviates right because gravity pulls it to (errrrm) sit slightly below the barrel's central axis, hence kicks off (in some sense) the bottom of the barrel (or the gas layer between bullet & barrel) harder than off the top ... thus a clockwise bullet deviates right.
So if the marksperson were to fire whilst hanging upside down, the bullet would (to them) deviate left; while to a non-upside down bystander, it still deviates right.
Any comments or corrections?
Thursday 30th July 2015 20:16 GMT Dan Paul
Re: spin drift. (Coriolis Effect?)
The coriolis effect is a possible suspect as it exerts a small force on an object towards the right in the Northern Hemisphere and towards the left in the Southern Hemisphere. That force will change as the mass of the object changes and this is in keeping with the larger bullet having greater deflection than the smaller one. This is used in many brands of mass flow meters.
It is also why toilet water rotates in a different direction for Aussies (counterclockwise) versus Yanks (clockwise)
Thursday 30th July 2015 21:47 GMT Destroy All Monsters
You can also be certain that planetary coriolis forces are not going to affect your bullet outside a zero.centered error bar. This is not a fucking neutron star!
11 1 Reply
Thursday 30th July 2015 22:08 GMT Trigonoceps occipitalis
Shooters on Stickledown (up to 1200 yards) at Bisley adjusted sights slightly from zero to allow for the coriolis effect at the longer ranges. 100+ years of accumulated long rage marksmenship experience could, of course, be claptrap. Take your pick.
Friday 31st July 2015 13:12 GMT The First Dave
Shooters at Bisley will have adjusted their sights for many reasons, but if any of them can prove it was the coriolis effect I would be more than impressed. For most shooters, adjustment consists purely of "which side did I miss?", with a bit of "which way is the wind blowing?" thrown in.
Tuesday 11th August 2015 08:59 GMT chris 48
That's because the earth has rotated by a tiny but just about measurable distance in the time it takes your bullet to travel 1200 yards.
For the Coriolis effect to be the cause of the transient yaw it would have to have a measurable effect in the time it takes the bullet to travel the length of the barrel, much less likely.
Wednesday 19th August 2015 06:55 GMT Wzrd1
"Shooters on Stickledown (up to 1200 yards) at Bisley adjusted sights slightly from zero to allow for the coriolis effect at the longer ranges."
I've fired out to two clicks, was fair to middling, but then I wasn't a sniper. I was just familiarizing with the system.
As for the author, I've fired UK forces L85A2 and L86A1 nice weapons. Much nicer to clear a building than our M4's. The MP5 was a fine weapon, the MP7 is occasionally used as well. As for 12 gauge shotguns, they made fine door knockers, nobody could pretend to not be home when we knocked with one. Fired various sniper systems, squad designated marksman rifles and fell in love with the M14 (now, M1A, as full automatic was removed as unnecessary and ineffective). I also performed explosive demolitions and rapid explosive neutralization.
Fortunately, I'm now retired from all of that unpleasantness.
Friday 31st July 2015 16:36 GMT Dan Paul
I have been involved in flow measurement technology for 31 years and have a rather good understanding of the Coriolis effect and it is already being compensated for in many ballistics calculations particularly as it applies to spin drift of bullets which is what the article is about.
Complain all you want about my mention of rotation in drains and toilets, I only used that the give some reference to the uninitiated. You will note that the Coriolis effect does affect the way large weather systems rotate between the north and south hemispheres.
At several hundred yards or more, the effect on a bullet is significant.
Below are only a few links to pages dealing with the subject out of some 10,000 hits for "Coriolis effect in Ballistics"
http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/spindrift.html
http://minuteofangle.blogspot.com/p/spin-drift-coriolis-effect.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_ballistics#Coriolis_drift
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs
"Complain all you want about my mention of rotation in drains and toilets..."
That is a myth. Toilet flow direction is determined by the design of the jets in the rim of the bowl. The coriolis effect is too weak to effect that small amount of water flowing into the bowl.
I believe that Snopes has a write-up on the subject.
Saturday 1st August 2015 10:46 GMT Julian Bradfield
demonstrates almost a foot of difference in impact point between shooting east and west at 1000 yards.
"You can also be certain that planetary coriolis forces are not going to affect your bullet outside a zero.centered error bar."
Actually, with extreme distance shots (measured in kilometers), there is Coriolis effect present. The effect isn't great enough to avoid damaging something the size of a heart, but it's great enough to prevent an accurate zero reflex shot if not taken into account.
Wind, of course, still has a much greater effect, which can get downright complicated with real world cross winds moving in different directions along long distance trajectories.
As for this not being a fucking neutron star, my back and knees disagree with you in the morning.
Thursday 30th July 2015 22:51 GMT Charles Manning
Re: spin drift.
"But in order to break the rotational symmetry (and get this `spin drift'), we also need something else"
Yes, that is indeed so.
Think for a moment of the air forces on the sides of the bullet as it flies along. If they are not the same then the side with the higher pressure is more viscous and the side with the lower pressure is less viscous. That means a spinning bullet gets more "traction" against the higher density air and less against the lower density air. This puts a sideways thrust on the bullet.
This is most notable with side winds. If the bullet is spinning clockwise and the wind is from the right, then the air on the right hand side of the bullet is more viscous than on the left. The bullet gains more traction on the air on the right and is thus deflected upwards (as well as obviously being pushed leftwards by the wind).
Similarly for the same rifle, a wind from the left deflects the bullet downwards and right.
Then there are a bunch of other effects some of which are only meaningful on large projectiles (eg. ships' guns).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_ballistics
Thursday 30th July 2015 19:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
I wouldn't have thought that too many people are going to be keen on getting into wifi range to hack someone holding a sniper rifle (doubt they'll be left turned on and unattended at that price)
I suppose the question would be which is longer - the range of your high-gain wifi antenna or the rifle? ;-)
Friday 31st July 2015 05:31 GMT Anonymous Coward
Under ideal conditions, the high gain antenna would win easily; but you only need some rain or a few trees dotted about to give the sniper the advantage.
I suppose the attacker could use repeaters. Or -if the hack can be scripted so that a return signal from the rifle isn't necessary- you could crank up the power and just blast your signal though any obstructions.
Friday 7th August 2015 10:22 GMT DropBear
I would certainly expect the range of the high-gain wifi antenna to be longer than the rifle, otherwise we're either talking about a spectacularly crap antenna or a spectacularly unwieldy... erm... steel hose with a trigger.
Thursday 30th July 2015 19:45 GMT Caff
wind Lidar
For wind speed measurement it is surprising they havent jumped on to wind LIDAR, seems the Israelis have some patents on it though.
Re: wind Lidar
I've been toying with that notion myself, just lack the time to consider putting something together. Over the entire course of beam to target, one can acquire full information on wind directions and compensate for the entire bullet path.
About the only people who could benefit from it would be specialty military niche applications.
Dead reckoning always assumes you have an accurate measurement of all the parameters affecting the bullet's trajectory - which is of course impossible. What is really needed is a feedback system so that the bullet can modify its trajectory in flight to try to compensate for errors. That apparently is the achievement of the new sniper technologies that have been developed.
Thursday 30th July 2015 21:37 GMT PacketPusher
Metric rifle
>>>(in the case of normal US-style clockwise rifling twist)
Do we rifle our barrels differently from everybody else too?
Thursday 30th July 2015 23:40 GMT Mark 85
Meh...
Interesting concept, but if as a civilian, you don't really need one of these sights. I seriously doubt home-defense or even sporting hunters would ever use one because of the a) the cost b) the effectiveness a longer ranges (which isn't home defense) and for the hunters, they want c) bragging rights.
As for the so-called hack, I'm wondering who paid them for this? The TrackingPoint company? The anti-gun side of politics? Or.. maybe the defense department or LEA's in a moment of worry about civilian snipers?
Overall though, Lewis is spot on about the hack and the capabilities of the sight.
Friday 31st July 2015 05:17 GMT Donkey Molestor X
Wow, Lewis. Chill out. It's not like they claimed that there could be as such a thing as anthropogenic global warming or anything crazy and scientific like that.
Absolute clickbait
This is pretty usual stuff for pre-blackhat conferences... they always pick their speakers based on shock power not actual technical prowess... did you hack a car? something that could affect BILLIONS of android devices?? A gun?!?!?!? OMG... this article is spot on however... the hackers don't understand ballistics or guns for that matter... and don't have much of a grasp of linux to boot if it took them that long to come up with such trifling modifications to the gun....
Friday 31st July 2015 12:14 GMT macjules
Curses! Foiled again!
North Korea's dastardly plans to stop US snipers arrayed along the DMZ have been thwarted by their not switching on the WiFi on their rifles and by the Pentagon having changed the default root password, plus removing 'supreme_leader' from the sudoers list.
Friday 31st July 2015 12:15 GMT Jediben
Clearly 'research' for the next terrible Tom Clancy-esque Hollywood adaptation, staring Channing Tatum as the expert covert ops sniper who is betrayed by his superiors into 'accidentally' (via the researched 'hack' of all things) assassinating the President of Africanistan (who actually turns out to have been a Russian plant who was trying to develop biological weapons with North Korean money) while the POTUS was visiting on a ground breaking trip to broker a weapons non-proliferation pact.
Mr Tatum will thusly pacify many many Africanistans and COMMIES in his hunt for justice, whereby the end scene will be Mr Tatum using an old fashioned Lee-Enfield to take out a fancy TrackingPoint Kit rifle owning sniper from 900 yards and protect the POTUS.
Then he will kill the evil 2nd in command of Africanistan (it was a double double cross!) with his Colt 45 and fly an AC130 away while the President acts as gunner, shooting the living shit out of many many technicals and freeing the people of Africanistan to live in Democracy (Woo!) and Freedom (Fuck yeah!) and do jobs for Huge US Conglomerates (USA! USA! USA!)
Box office gold, mate.
"...whereby the end scene will be Mr Tatum using an old fashioned Lee-Enfield..."
I was going to suggest a superior rifle for that purpose and found that, due to longevity and preference of certain workers in heavily forested areas in Canuckistan despite a newer and fancier rifle removed all possible alternative contenders.
The US has occasionally considered invading Canuckistan, but demurs due to memory of the last time folks from there tried and was resoundingly beaten and sent running away like frightened children, astonished over how such polite people could fight so effectively and politely.
"They were amazingly polite as they knocked my last tooth out, apologizing for the necessity as I ran back south", said one of the expeditionary force from middle North America, now known as the United States.
"They were astonishingly brash and stupid, attacking people who outnumber them by over one thousand to one, but they seemed earnest enough, we hated to see them go so quickly!", said one Canuckistan veteran of the abortive campaign.
"We 'ardly noticed that they were here, they departed so quickly.", said one of His Majesty's finest, spoken under conditions of anonymity, as he was not permitted to speak to anyone, let alone the press.
Friday 31st July 2015 12:21 GMT Paul Crawford
Amusing concidence
Funny when I read the article the last part was:
Have also fired 12-bore shotguns on a few occasions and was once even present at a grouse shoot.
Sponsored: How to deal with Windows Server 2003 end of support
Related I wonder?
Friday 31st July 2015 14:57 GMT knarf
If you are close enough to hack it it won't make much difference to the shot. If you far enough away then it won't matter as the wifi is out of range.
Pointless but interesting never the less.
Could the sight be hacked so that
All targets look like George Osborne?
Friday 31st July 2015 16:07 GMT Rick Brasche
and still even with all the doors opened
they still cannot force the rifle to fire without user authorization. Which means the primary safety design was met. Better than GM cars which we were told not too long ago, "there was nothing to fear from car hackers" as they "could not" affect drive systems remotely.
as a recreational shooter the tracking point device is useless to me. It's like google glass. the only instance where as a civilian I would want a tracking point system is one where I *needed* it to put food on the family's table and missing a shot would have serious consequences. But if I had the money to buy the TP rifle, well, I have enough to make sure I have grocery money.
kudos to the design team to make sure that even user security stupidity does not significantly affect the safety of the rifle (the hacks at best would cause a significant miss at distance, but if you have people or animals behind your target within the scope's FOV you should NOT be taking the shot-and the hack cannot physically realign the scope mount for serious risks)
Re: and still even with all the doors opened
I competitively fire and hunt, that thing, even when it was first announced, was a boondoggle and not worth one hundredth of the price that they demand.
Bloody hell, if you can put your sight onto the target, designate it, might as well have fired.
The crap locks the target that you designate (if it's the wrong area, too bad, it's locked), you depress the trigger and when you manage to get your sight back onto the target area, the rifle fires.
If you can designate that target, you can squeeze the trigger and shoot that target.
Monday 3rd August 2015 15:21 GMT sisk
No story here
This entire article can be summed up thusly:
A really expensive computerized sniper rifle scope that no one is really interested in can be easily hacked if the wifi is turned on and left on the default password. So it's pretty much like any other computerized device with wifi then, except this one is attached to a gun. Not to worry though, because a successful attacker can only prevent the gun from firing or make it miss its target. Actually making it fire without a trigger pull is not possible.
Thursday 6th August 2015 06:01 GMT Sponge
US readers...
As one of your US readers, I must take exception to one of your statements:
".. some of our US readers may doubt that any Limey journo wiener could know anything of guns, weaponry, tactics etc."
While there *might* be _some_, I think that the majority of us Yanks are of the same opinion as myself:
I view anyone with a Brit accent as a viable hero in any sticky situation, - a potential James Bond, as it were - all being trained in 007-spy-like techniques and masters of any possible weapon - not being limited to firearms, but to include missile systems, broom sticks, bottle caps, string, silly putty, any number of pointy objects, cafeteria trays, and plates filled with food.
Even tho' your political system doesn't allow for silly things like free men (and women) with bear arms, castle homes, the right to self-defense, and what not, I believe that - in a pinch - any one of you could buckle down, grimace, and pick up a pop-bottle and proceed to mop the floor with evil doers, if necessity called for such.
Of course, one of the reasons you have to resort to newspapers and shoe laces is that you're much too civilized to want to freely own firearms for self-defense. And of course, you hardly NEED to use The Great Equalizer, what with the easy availability of bumbershoots and razor-rimmed bowler hats.
However, in the event that Germany does ever launch Operation Sea Lion, I'm afraid that we won't be able to send you shipments of personally owned firearms as was our habit in the past... it's not just the melt 'em down and dump 'em off shore attitude that occurred after the last unpleasantness on the continent, it's that -- well, we don't know how long WE'LL be "allowed" to keep our arms bare without all of us being chipped, tracked, and what not. We'll have to be a little more circumspect in our lending habits when it comes to long range percussive precision paper punches and other tools of self-determination. I'm sure you all understand, and anyway, you've got bicycle sprockets and pens and pencils to defend yourselves with.
One of the lost, in the colonies.
P.S. I'm not disparaging other UK accents... They certainly can fight and defend also. Scots - the original Bonds, with their dirks and sgian-dubhs, the Irish, with their shillelaghs and size 11's, the Welsh, with their - eh... pixies..., oh, and delightful melodic words... and... CANES. Yes. Distracting pixies, speaking so beautifully, and then WHACK in the shins or aside the melon. Did I miss anybody? Oh, um, yes.. the.. uh, West Country...-ites. With their... cows. And tractors. OK, I am evidently out of my element here. I'm going to go have a cider and consider my sins. Ta.
Tuesday 18th August 2015 20:58 GMT Malcolm Weir
Re: US readers...
FYI... in the UK, "castle homes" means homes that are castles. There are a fair few around...
"FYI... in the UK, "castle homes" means homes that are castles. There are a fair few around..."
As I recall, those castles were dreadfully drafty and murderously expensive to heat.
Quite a few are also annoyingly damp.
I'll stick with masonry in part, wood in greater parts and reinforced with hubris, as all US homes are.
OK, I'll be reinforcing with concrete, but that isn't as humorous or accurate.
Indeed, as having overlapped SAS and Royal Marines, rescuing and being rescued when nasty surprises reared their misshapen heads, yeah, those Brits can fight damned well. As well as we can.
Our northern neighbors have very similar forces and they kicked ass and didn't bother wasting time on names, lest it delay more asses being kicked.
The Australians as well.
Aw, screw it, the entire Commonwealth are quite good at defense (or as it's spelt across the pond, defence).
Although, I will admit to some consternation for some from Great Britain, for to be honest, I have absolutely know clue whatinhell language he was speaking. It sounded as close to English as is spoken in the West Virginia mountains, although nowhere near like the cat being strangled sounds from West Virginia.
I understood Liverpool, beyond that, I've nary a clue what he was going on about.
A chap from London kept trying to correct my abuses of language, but I set him straight by reminding him that I was speaking and abusing the residuum of what King George left us, undocumented at the time and only documented two years after a bit of an ugly divorce between our lands and we remained rather irritated with them after that mess in 1812. That paint bill for the Presidential Palace was quite great, having to turn it into a White House.
Apparently, all of those bare arms didn't slow the British forces sacking our White House and Library of Congress.
Saturday 15th August 2015 02:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
waste of time
you have to be within wi fi range AND he has to have the technical knowledge to turn on the wifi.
Waste of time. If you got someone that close to the sniper just pull out a pistol and shoot him. It's not like you can hack him from Utah or something.
Boots on the ground cannot be helped. They got guns, they got badges , being a computer techie with a portable lap top and tons of skill is far, far down on the list of things to worry about when dealing with people within fifty feet of you.
Re: waste of time
"They got guns, they got badges , being a computer techie with a portable lap top and tons of skill is far, far down on the list of things to worry about when dealing with people within fifty feet of you."
Having been inside of Eric Raymond's home, well, he's a very, very, very well armed computer techie.
He also happens to be quite a good shot.
Not as good as I am, being also a computer techie, former SF veteran, but still quite competent. Where he and I depart skills is, I'm proficient with all small arms, edged weapons and hand to hand combat.
Beyond his firearms skills, the worst he could do is write a really, really nasty letter.
As for Eric's personality, the term wanker comes to mind.
POST COMMENT House rules
Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.
Your email address is never published
Remember me on this computer? Post anonymously?
Enter your comment
Add an icon
Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Home » 10 Best At Home Ice Cream Makers for Yummy Homemade Ice Cream
10 Best At Home Ice Cream Makers for Yummy Homemade Ice Cream
Ice cream is the ultimate indulgence; the food we turn to for fun, comfort, broken hearts, holidays on the beach and for any other excuse we can find.
But, better than any store bought product, which can contain additives and preservatives that we really don't want or need, an at home ice cream maker can produce some of most delicious indulgence of all. The first place to start indulging is choosing the best at home ice cream maker to buy.
The basic concept of an ice cream maker is that it stirs the ingredients whilst the freezing occurs which stops ice crystals forming and thus results in a smooth and creamy dessert.
Note: Some ingredients such as alcohol can inhibit freezing so only add them in the last 2 minutes of churning.
What's the Best At Home Ice Cream Maker?
There are many models on the market and they can usually be classified into three categories: budget friendly, medium priced and premium. If you're in a hurry and don't want to read the full list below, we select the best we think you should consider, based upon your budget.
Recommended Budget/Cheap Ice Cream Maker
The Sweet Alice Ice Cream Maker is our first consideration. It is a budget friendly at home ice cream maker that is quite light and, for its price, offers everything you could possibly need for the occasional ice cream indulgence.
It has a 30 minute timer to remind you when everything is ready, but usually takes about 25 minutes to finish the ice cream. It's also easy to clean, and the clear acrylic lid will allow you to monitor the ice cream's progress.
One of its main attractions is that it is small, light and easy to store in smaller kitchens as well as it having a quaint, slightly dumpy design which we liked.
Recommended Bargain Ice Cream Maker
Following is the Cuisinart Ice-21, which tops many of the favorite reviews. It's still within reach for the lower price bracket of medium priced machines, but prepares 1 ½ quarts in 20 minutes. This is very quick. There are no extras here such as timers or alerts but its simplicity is part of its charm.
It is a sturdy, solid machine which feels like it will last through a lot of uses. All the Cuisinart ice cream machines also come with a 3 year domestic use warranty which is very reassuring for the consumer.
The reason we love it is that it is very simple to use and to clean and is relative light and small compared to other machines.
Recommended Premium Ice Cream Maker
If you want the best, and willing to pay for it, then we're happy to suggest the Breville BCI600XL Smart Scoop Ice Cream Maker. We loved the Breville because it has every feature imaginable. Of course, as mentioned, there is a higher price tag attached, but we felt that it's well worth it. It has 12 speeds so the user can control the making of frozen yogurt, sorbet, gelato and ice cream but can also be operated in a manual mode for those who need to-the-second precise control.
Depending on the temperature of the ingredients, it can take up to 60 minutes but, of course, there is no need to pre-freeze the bowl for 24 hours beforehand. Its pre-cool feature also speeds up the process if the ingredients are not as cool as possible.
It has a variety of timers, telling the user as when it is time to add the final ingredients as well as when the ice cream is finished or the Keep Cool feature is finished. Even better, instead of an annoying and irritating beep, it plays a choice of tunes to alert you.
One of the things we especially loved is the Keep Cool feature which means that, once the ice cream is ready, it can be kept in the machine for up to 3 hours before being served.
This really is a machine for people who love their ice cream and make copious amounts of it.
The Top 10 Best at Home Ice Cream Makers
If the three above do not suit your fancy, let's take look at the following to see which suits your fancy.
Cuisinart ICE-21 1.5 Quart Frozen Yogurt-Ice Cream Maker
See price & buyer reviews @ Amazon
The Cuisinart ICE-21 is a lower priced medium category ice cream maker with a separate freezer bowl which tops many popularity lists.
This slick white machine is both elegant and compact. It weighs 9lbs and is 16 inches tall, and the bowl makes 1 ½ quarts of ice cream in approximately 20 minutes. It has a new style of paddle to help ensure the ice cream is extra smooth and creamy as well as a pouring spout so ingredients can be added during the freezing process. (Ingredients like nuts and chocolate chips should be added in the last 5 minutes of the churning process.)
The machine sits on rubberized non-slip feet and the power cord winds easily into a space in the base for tidy storage.
Cuisinart offers a 3 year warranty, a long period for this type of appliance.
Simplicity to use
Sturdy enough for regular use
Extremely easy to clean
It's small size is perfect for smaller kitchens
Freezer bowl is not dishwasher safe
Ice cream may stick to bowl if not emptied once ready
Buyer Impressions
Those that buy the at home ice cream maker generally have very good things to say about it. Buyers seem to love the simplicity of this machine as well as how quickly it produces their delicious treat. One customer even asked how she could have lived without it! Many comment that it doesn't even need the advertised 20 minutes but works in approximately 15 minutes.
Some even claim they can make one successive batch without re-freezing the bowl although the 2nd batch takes about 20 minutes to freeze. The recipes in the manual work very well and are truly delicious.
Any negative impressions? Sure. They seem to be with regards to the bowl being awkward to handle when full and that it can overflow. Some customers also request a timer alarm so that they do not forget the machine is churning. But, considering the low price of the machine, the fact that it has few bells and whistles does not seem to bother the vast majority of users.
Overall this is a star machine in the budget friendly bracket. It is simple and quick to use, easy to clean and store and represents real value for money for the regular ice cream eater.
Nostalgia ICMP400WD Electric Wood Bucket Ice Cream Maker
The Nostalgia ICMP400WD doesn't get its name for no reason. It looks like the traditional ice cream making bucket that our great-grandmothers used. A budget friendly priced product, it is ideal for those who want some fun in their ice cream making process.
One of the lightest electric at home ice cream makers on the market, the Nostalgia weighs less than 7lbs and is 16 inches tall and is really an attractive machine. The outside is real solid wood with an easy to clean plastic lining and an aluminum canister which can hold 4 quarts of ice cream.
There is no need to pre-freeze the bowl but the manufacturer recommends that the bowl and the ingredients are cold before use to ensure freezing. 4 quarts of ice cream can be made in 30 minutes but only fill the canister 2/3 of the way as ice cream expands during freezing.
Approximately 2 medium bags of ice and 2lbs rock salt are required to make 4quarts of ice cream. Ice and salt is added in layers between the container and the canister until the drainage-hole level. Then the ice and salt mix needs to be topped up and stirred throughout the 30 minutes churning.
Salt is the key to success here, too much salt will result in freezing too quickly and ice crystals forming. Too little salt will result in the ice cream not freezing properly at all.
It is important to note that the ice/salt mix can stain the outside wood so this needs to be wiped clean urgently if contact is made.
The machine comes with a handy plastic lid which can be clipped onto the canister so it can be used as an ice cream storage container in your freezer. All components are hand washable only, no dishwasher.
(The manufacturer also sells ice cream pre-mixes in chocolate, vanilla and strawberry flavors but the instructional leaflet has many delicious recipes to use.)
The Nostalgia model has a 1 year warranty.
Makes a lot of ice cream for its size
Requires no pre-freezing
Requires lots of ice and salt to freeze
Many of the customers seem to enjoy the more hands-on process involved with the Nostalgia machine, referring to having fun times making ice cream with their kids. The finished product is quite soft according to many reviews which some people love but it can also be placed in the freezer to harden up if that is what you prefer. For those used to making ice cream with ice and salt, this is one of the best at home ice cream makers.
There are very few legitimate complaints. The few of which are from users complaining about the smell when the shipping box was opened, but this soon dissipates and is probably a result of wood preservative.
This is a low pried machine for making large quantities of ice cream. The need for large quantities of ice and salt can be seen as either a great fun activity, especially for kids, or an irritating and unnecessary addition to your workload. You choose!
Breville BCI600XL Smart Scoop Ice Cream Maker
The Breville 600XL is the king of the ice cream makers in this buying guide. This by the fact that it is the highest priced and has all the bells and whistles any user could need. Let's take a look at some of these features and see why.
At 30 lbs and just under one square foot, this brushed metal model is a substantial sized machine. It is fully automatic; no need for ice and salt; no need for pre-freezing the bowl as it has a self-refrigerating compressor (which explains the heavy weight). It can make up to 1 ½ quarts of ice cream at a time.
You're not out of options, since it has 12 settings for ice cream, gelato, frozen yoghurt and sorbet. There's also a very handy Keep Cool function of keeping the ice cream at the right temperature for up to 3 hours when it has finished churning without the need to put the canister in the freezer. The automatic facility can be switched to manual if the user prefers to maintain control for special recipes.
The pre-churn feature cools down the canister in advance of you adding the ingredients. This is so that it will prepare the ice cream freeze faster. Depending on the temperature of the ingredients, it can take between 50 and 60 minutes to make the ice cream. The manufacturer recommends using fridge cooled ingredients wherever possible.
Even more, it has an easy to read LCD display to select the degrees of hardness as well as the Keep Cool facility as well as an alarm system, which plays a selection of tunes (including Camptown Races!) when the ice cream is ready or when it is time to add the final ingredients such as nuts through the easy to open flip-top lid.
It is also the only machine we reviewed that has a child lock to prevent little fingers getting too curious. And there's a lift out handle for easy removal of the canister once complete.
The canister is not dish-washer safe, however, but the other removable components are dish-washable in the top rack for easy cleaning.
Although heavy duty, the instruction manual states it is for domestic use only otherwise the 1 year warranty will not be applicable.
Ease and speed
Canister gets cold quickly
Lots of features and options
A pretty tune tells you when it is done
Higher price range
Very heavy
Customers generally love this at home ice cream maker. A funny anecdote comes from one describes it as the reason she can no longer fit into her jeans. Most find it very aesthetically attractive and relatively easy to use. A few mention that they only use a few of the functions and ignore the others but those who have investigated all the speeds and functions are very happy with the results and the fact that Oprah Winfrey has it listed as the best at home ice cream maker doesn't hurt either.
Criticisms are few and tend to refer to the fact that the paddles don't reach the sides of the canister so ice builds up on the inside after a while. A few had problems with a noisy motor.
For regular ice cream eaters with plenty of counter-top space or excellent biceps for lifting, this is an excellent, solid and durable machine. It is very much "press and go" and is easy to use. However, its price makes it worth thinking twice before buying.
Cuisinart ICE-100 Compressor Ice Cream and Gelato Maker
The Cuisinart ICE100 is a fully automatic at home ice cream maker. If you want a premium ice cream maker, but still willing for a bargain, you'll be happy to know that this ice cream machine sits at the lower price range of the premium category.
The Cuisinart brushed metal compressor ice cream maker weighs 24 lbs and takes up approximately 1 square foot of counter-top space so, although not exactly a light-weight machine, it is lighter than some of the more expensive models and makes up to 1 ½ quarts per batch.
Fully automatic means no ice, no salt and no pre-freezing of the bowl so it is a question of mixing your ingredients and switching on the machine.
There is a simple Power On/Power off display with a timer of up to 60 minutes. The machine defaults to 60 minutes which is the average time for making regular ice cream. When the timer is finished, it beeps to alert the user that the ice cream is ready
It has a brief 10 minute Keep Cool period after the end of the cycle but, after the 10 minutes, the machine will switch off making it important to place the ice cream in the freezer quickly.
The machine has a clear plastic lid (so users can stare in awe as their ice cream churns) as well as a flip top section to allow the addition of nuts and chocolate chips towards the end of the churn without interrupting the process. The canister has a lift out handle for easy removal once frozen.
Like most automatic ice cream makers, the bowl is not dishwasher safe and the only the top shelf of the dishwasher can be used for the accessories.
Cuisinart's standard 3 year warranty applies but, although it claims a commercial standard compressor, the warranty only covers it for domestic use.
Premium quality at a good price
Has a basic timer
A 10 minute Keep Cool feature
Only works on one speed
Takes approximately 20 minutes to cool down between uses
Many customers were happy to discover that the ice cream tends to set quicker than the default 60 minutes. The machine has a default cutoff if the mixture gets too thick which is reassuring and prevents motor burn-out. They also seem very happy with their machines and offer all types of tricks and hacks to make the best tasting ice cream.
There are some negative opinions about the fact that the liquid ingredients need to be poured in very carefully otherwise they drip under the bowl. Another problem is that the bowl can freeze onto the base but, a few minutes of patience with the machine turned off, will soon release it.
There are also a few complaints that the ice cream is too soft but, in general, all of the best at home ice cream makers will produce a soft ice cream that can be placed in the freezer if a harder ice cream is needed.
Offering true value for money in the premium range, this Cuisinart really serves its purpose. It may not have all the bells and whistles of the more expensive premium models but the buyer should ask themselves if they really need 2 different functions or if they want to just "press and go".
Cuisinart ICE-45 Mix It In Soft Serve
The Cuisinart ICE-45 is made from white BPA free plastic, this is a different type of ice cream machine than the others we tested. It looks more like a dispenser which can be seen in fast food outlets, and the soft serve ice cream is reminiscent of the Mr Whippy ice cream vans from childhood. It falls into the medium price range but is really in a category of its own.
The Cuisinart Soft Serve machine is only 14lbs in weight but taller than many other ice cream makers at 18 inches. It has a separate freezer bowl which the manufacturer recommends only needs 12 hours to be completely frozen and it can make 1 ½ quarts of soft serve in a batch.
Another variance from the traditional ice cream makers are the condiment dispensers, one for sprinkles and 2 for larger toppings such as mini chocolate chips. Simply pull on one of the levers and the condiments will drop onto the ice cream down the chute. There is also a handy slot to store ice cream cones.
Other than these clever gadgets, the machine works in the same way as the other separate freezer bowl machines. Pre-freeze the bowl, put it in the top of the machine, start the churning paddles and add the chilled ingredients. It takes approximately 20 minutes for soft serve ice cream to be ready but be aware that over churning will result in ice cream which will not pass through the dispenser and will have to be eaten separately as regular ice cream.
Once the ice cream is ready, place a bowl or cone under the ice cream dispenser nozzle and pull the lever, turning the bowl/cone to achieve the Mr Whippy look. When finished, push back the lever to stop dispensing.
Then, choose the condiments and enjoy.
Like all Cuisinart products, this has a 3 year domestic use only warranty
A fun machine to use
For soft serve ice cream lovers
It is relatively inexpensive and looks fun to display
Clean-up can be a hassle
Customer reviews are generally very good, especially when following the recipes in the manufacturer's leaflet. The ice cream comes out thick and soft after 20 minutes if the ingredients are chilled beforehand, 30 minutes if not. Plus, many rave about what fun it is for using with the kids.
A few users had a problem with the consistency and that it took several attempts to get it so it really did swirl. It seems very important that the freezer be set at 0˚ F or below as there were issues with the bowl temperatures. Cleaning all the fiddly bits involved also seemed to inconvenient for some.
This is really a fun kitchen appliance and very reasonably priced. The enjoyment may come after a few attempts but for those who master the machine, it is truly a great buy and very enjoyable to use, if not to clean afterwards.
Homia Ice Cream Maker Soft Serve Electric
The Homia Ice Cream Maker is a member of the separate freezer bowl group. This comes in at the budget friendly category and is a very basic white and clear plastic model… but that doesn't mean it's not an excellent buy. Let's see why.
This is a small machine, weighing just under 6lbs and 8 inches tall. It makes only ½ quart at a time, but this is certainly ideal for 2 people. Due to the smaller size of the bowl, it only takes approximately 8 hours to pre-freeze and then another 30 minutes to make the ice cream.
As with other separate freezer bowl models, you'd need to have it running with the paddle circling before the chilled ingredients are added. Otherwise the ingredients will freeze together in to the bowl.
It has a digital timer function that can be set for between 20 and 40 minutes and will beep when the cycle is finished, as well as an automatic cut off if the ice cream becomes too thick for the paddles to turn. It also comes with a free ice cream scoop and a QR code on the side of the machine to scan for free recipes.
It has a 1 year warranty.
Very much a value for money
Compact size makes it ideal for small kitchens and storage space
Thoughtful design
Might seem flimsy
½ quart it is not practical for large servings
Customers observe that it is a good basic model for what they need. And many like the smaller size, those that have small kitchens with even smaller freezers are happy with it.
On the other hand, others struggled with the speed that the ingredients freeze in the bowl and complain about wasted ice cream at the base of the bowl where the paddles don't quite reach.
This is a good machine for ice cream making beginners; especially for singles or couples who just need an occasional ice cream treat.
Cuisinart ICE-70 Electronic Ice Cream Maker
The Cuisinart ICE-70 is a brushed chrome ice cream maker. It's in the higher range of the medium priced ice cream makers with a separate freezer bowl, so you can expect a little more value and quality.
Weighing 14 lbs and standing at 14 inches tall, it is not a small machine but it makes 2 whole quarts of ice cream per batch and only takes 25-30 minutes to do so.
It has three speeds operated by a digital display for sorbet, ice cream, frozen yogurt and gelato and turns off automatically when completed as well as beeping to alert that it's finished. The ingredient spout allows the user to add final ingredients such as nuts towards the end of the cycle without interrupting the freezing process.
Like most of these separate bowl machines, the bowl cannot be cleaned in the dishwasher but its paddle can be cleaned on the top rack.
It also has the standard 3 year Cuisinart home use only warranty.
Large separate bowl freezer
Ideal for families or for parties
The three speeds for different types of frozen desserts
Will take up more freezer space
Longer time to freeze is needed
There are excellent reviews for this product and most users are exceptionally happy with the ease of use and cleaning as well as a delicious ice cream as a result. Otherwise, there have been some problems with the lids not fitting properly but Cuisinart replaced them. The operating noise is louder than some people want, but these people seem to be in the minority.
This is an extremely popular machine which produces large amounts of delicious ice cream and is easy to use.
Klarstein Sweet Dreams Ice Cream Maker
The Klarstein Sweet Dreams Ice Cream Maker is a fully automatic, brushed metal ice cream maker with built-in compressor. But thought it is full automatici, it is at the lower price range of the premium models, making it great for those who prefer premium without the price tag.
At 22 lbs and 13 inches tall, this is not a light-weight model and is one of the heaviest in this guide. The in-built compressor is the cause of the extra weight, but it produces 1 ½ quarts of ice cream in between 40 and 60 minutes, depending on how cool the ingredients are when added. The convenient timer will beep to alert when the batch is ready.
It has a digital display timer which can be set in 10 minute increments from 10-60 minutes as well as a Keep Cool function which will keep the ice cream at the correct temperature for one hour after it has finished churning. The display also shows the temperature (in Celsius) of the churning mix.
The brushed metal ice cream machine comes with a free scoop and measuring cup and a 1 year warranty. It also has a child-friendly button so the kids can join in the fun.
Non-pre-freeze the bowl
Lower priced than many other in-built compressor models
Lacks the automatic cut-off feature
Doesn't offer different stirring speeds
(for US users) Temperature readings are in Celsius and measurements are metric
Customers love this machine for its efficiency and speed of ice cream making. The instructions say it takes up to 60 minutes but buyers found that, if the ingredients are chilled in advance, it can take as little as 25 minutes for 1 ½ quarts of delicious ice cream.
On the other hand, many wanted a recipe book to give them ideas. But also some seem to have received the item without an instruction manual which is available online.
This is an efficient and easy-to-use machine which is great value for money in the premium range if the user does not want to pre-freeze their bowl.
Sweet Alice Ice Cream Maker
The Sweet Alice Ice Cream Maker is a separate freezer bowl model, but from the budget friendly category. This has a different design from other models, however, which can be described as not as sleek, but a lot more quaint-looking.
Weighing just 6lbs and standing at 9 inches tall, it is a white and clear plastic, smaller-sized model but can still produce 1 ½ quarts of ice cream despite its light weight.
It has a timer for up to 30 minutes but is able to produce ice cream from chilled ingredients in approximately 25 minutes and the churning can be seen through the see-through lid of the unit.
The company offers a 1 year warranty.
This is a small, easy to use and clean model at a reasonable price. It works quickly and efficiently so is ideal for those with smaller kitchens and storage space.
Its size means it is not as sturdy as other machines but the price reflects this.
All customer reviews are very positive, with only a few comments about it being somewhat noisy when operating.
This is a relatively new model of ice cream makers but it really does offer big value for little money and is a cute looking machine too as an added bonus.
Aicok Ice Cream Maker, Frozen Yogurt and Sorbet Machine
Price-wise, Aicok Ice Cream Maker is very much part of the budget friendly range. However, it is electric, and comes with a separate freezer bowl which makes it very well suited for those that need the options but on a limited budget.
With its white aluminum design, this is light weight model at only 7 lbs and 11 inches tall, making this Aicok a small machine which can make 1.4 quarts of ice cream in less than 20 minutes for soft. If you want firmer ice cream, as well as yogurt or sorbet, it will take you around 25-30 minutes.
It has a 6 setting timer, with increments of 5 minutes that give you a beeping alarm when the churning is complete.
Different from other separate freezer bowl machines, this one requires you to add the ingredients to the pre-frozen bowl and then turn on the paddles.
Unusually for a lower priced model, it has a 2 year warranty.
Remarkable value value for money
Makes ice cream quickly
Not very sturdy
Customers are generally very happy with the Aicok at home ice cream maker, with most people being happy for a functioning machine for a low price.
As with many of the separate freezer bowl models, there are some comments about the liquid mix freezing to the bottom and sides of the bowl which is perhaps caused by their instructions to place the ingredients inside the bowl before turning on the paddles.
This definitely falls into the cheap and cheerful range of electric ice cream makers and, although not by a well known brand, it does what it says it will do, make great ice cream.
Buying Guide – How to Choose the Best at Home Ice Cream Maker
When deciding which ice cream maker to buy, undoubtedly you need to consider what sort features and specifications you need. If you're not new to ice cream makers, their various properties will not be foreign to you. But if this is your first time buying one, here are a few general specifications to take notice of.
There are generally two types of at home ice cream makers.
A separate freezer bowl machine requires planning for preparing the ice cream. This is because the bowl, depending on its size, needs pre-freezing for between 8 and 24 hours.
A in-built freezer ice cream maker with a compressor needs no planning. However, these machines are larger, heavier and considerably more expensive.
As far as price is concerned, we know the saying, "You get what you pay for."
However, one can make sacrifices on things that do not compromise on quality.
For instance, there are completely manual models which are extremely low priced. Mid-range priced ice cream makers usually have separate freezer bowl, and some are fully automatic. Whereas a fully automatic with multiple features such as firmness setting, speed options, auto shut off, etc. will come at a premium price tag.
Time it takes to Make Ice Cream
Just like with cooking with fire, making ice cream require time, this is due to the freezing process.
Once the bowl is frozen, a separate freezer bowl ice cream maker will take between 20-30 minutes to make 1 ½ quarts of ice cream.
As the in-built freezer models need to freeze the bowl whilst churning, the same amount of 1 ½ quarts of ice cream takes between 50-60 minutes.
Again, if you're on a budget, some of the budget friendly models are aimed at singles or a couple, thus they can make only ½ quart machines. But for the majority, we would suggest working with 1 ½ quarts and up.
Ice Cream Maker Size
If you are in a small kitchen, this is certainly something to pay attention to. Separate freezer bowl machines tend to be smaller and lighter, making them ideal for storage, moving about, or for small apartment kitchens.
The in-built freezer models, due to the weight and size of the compressor, are a little more cumbersome, and therefore require more forethought. Therefore it is important to assess your counter-top and storage space when buying.
Machine Speeds
All models, except for the soft serve machines, default to making regular ice cream. Home-made ice cream tends to be slightly softer than supermarket bought ice cream, but they can be frozen after completion if a firmer ice cream is needed.
The quicker the ice cream is churned, the more air enters the mix so the lighter and fluffier the result.
Therefore, frozen yogurt, gelato and sorbet are all best churned at a lower speed to achieve that thicker, denser taste.
Clearly all machines have an on/off function, but, after that, the options are numerous:
Extra Freezer Bowl
This is strongly recommended so that you don't have to wait 24 hours to make the next batch of ice cream.
Built-in Timers
These are very useful if you tend to want to press "Go" and walk away. Some machines have timers that work in increments of 5 or 10 minutes whilst other more advanced models allow specific minute by minute timers.
There are also machines which alert when the machine is 5 minutes from the end of its cycle to allow the user to add final ingredients such as nuts, chocolate chips or alcohol.
Those machines with a Keep Cool feature will alert when that cycle is over to remind the user to either eat or freeze the ice cream.
These displays are associated with the timer function and allow you to pre-time the machines. Some also show the progress of the churning by giving content temperature read-outs.
Auto Shut-Off
This function means the machine recognizes when the ice cream is too thick and there is too much strain on the paddle and motor. This is an important feature to prevent complete failure of the machine.
10 Best Coffee Maker with Thermal Carafe (& Single Serve) 2020
Best Pantry Storage Containers for Food Storage and Leftovers


Everkool has a proven track record of working alongside a number of Liverpool's highest profile property developers in recent years; playing our part in the renovation of some of the City's most iconic buildings.
We are proud to be able to add Ei8ht Water Street to this portfolio of properties.
A redevelopment conceived by Prospect Capital, and its lead partner Craig Blackwell, the building's overhaul includes its façade, the creation of 96 individual residential units comprising studios, one and two-bedroom apartments with a vision for a further two additional storeys. Modern roof gardens to the second and fifth floors will provide stunning city-wide views.
Wholly aware of our local reputation as HVAC specialists, main M&E contractor STL Heating approached us to oversee the air conditioning needs for Phase 1 of the development – namely specifying, sourcing and undertaking the installation across the Ground, First & Second floors, all for commercial use with tenants including Aviva and Ascot Property Management.
The first three floors, approximately 20% of the total floor space, is to be for commercial use only, with the remainder designated for residential use.
As part of the clearance of the building and separation of the residential from the commercial space, we worked closely with appointed specialist Mees Demolition to decommission and remove the existing equipment, using cranes where required.
Once again our natural choice of industry partner for the project was Daikin, with whom we are an approved D1 Installer. Following a site survey, discussions with the architects and Daikin themselves we opted to specify the Daikin VRV (Variable Refrigerant Volume) HVAC System.
The Daikin VRV system is a multi-zone air conditioner ideally suited to commercial buildings because of its variable refrigerant flow control, which provides individual zonal control to each room and floor. A total of three systems, one per floor, were installed by our highly skilled, Daikin-trained team of air conditioning engineers during October and November 2016.


interior mustang 2013 phase 3 interior mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 mustang a c vent 3 trim kit brushed w mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 mustang gt mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 ford mustang gt high resolution interior image mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 ford mustang gt track pack interior mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 regular price mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 ford mustang gt interior mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 mustang interior mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 mustang gt interior mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 ford mustang technical specifications mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 add to my lists mustang mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 ford mustang mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 forums at modded mustangs mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 mustang gt premium belonging to nature coast mustangs member mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 ford mustang interior mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 full option leather interior ford mustang gt call on mustang 2013 interior parts.
interior mustang 2013 ford mustang prices and values coupe gt full dashboard mustang 2013 interior parts.


text:
Tib to Batan
Artist: Bannister
"It's based on the comicbook series created by Bannister and Grimaldi "Tib & Tumtum".
It pays homage to the old 8-16bits games from the late '80s early '90s, mostly the NEC school (PC Engine and such).
It's a 2 players cooperative platform game, about a kid and his new found dinosaur friend, in the prehistoric era.
Friendship, adventure and a lot of fun awaits them in this journey through the land and various spectacular landscapes, to reach the sea!
The music has been created especially for the game by a talented 14 years old French musician called NoEon.
He perfectly captured the vibe of the project, with a touch of modernity."
Featuring music created by NoEoN
MORE FROM Bannister
Back to the Future 2 - DeLorean
Akira - Kaneda's Bike
Breaking Bad - The RV
What Will You Wish For? - Dragonball
He's A Spaceman - ET


text:
Everything revealed at September's Ubisoft Forward livestream
By Giovanni Colantonio	 September 10, 2020
The latest Ubisoft Forward livestream featured several new announcements and updates to current Ubisoft games.
Prior to the stream, Ubisoft released a four-minute video in which CEO Yves Guillemot apologized for recent sexual harassment and racism issues at the studio.
Here's all the news to come out of Ubisoft Forward so far.
Ubisoft Forward preshow
The Ubisoft Forward preshow featured exclusive premieres, including the recently rumored Far Cry VR: Dive Into Insanity and Agos, a VR spaceflight game coming later this year. Ubisoft confirmed that The Division 2 will be backward-compatible with next-gen consoles.
The action-adventure game Immortals: Fenyx Rising, formerly Gods & Monsters, will arrive December 3. A gameplay trailer showed off the game's over-the-top combat system and stylized open world. The game will offer a free playable demo exclusive to Google Stadia players.
The 2003 game Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is getting remade with enhanced graphics and a new targeting system. The game will be released on January 21, 2021, on PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. There was no mention, however, about whether the game will be on next-generation consoles.
The free-to-play battle royale game Hyperspace is getting a limited-time mode featuring high-level gear and faster health regeneration.
Rainbow Six: Siege is getting a next-gen update this year that supports 4K and 120 frames per second. Current console owners will get the upgrade for free. The new season of Rainbow Six: Siege, which features Sam Fisher, is live right now.
The long-lost Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game is finally coming back to consoles. A complete edition of the game will drop this holiday season and come with two new characters: Knives Chau and Wallace Wells.
Ubisoft revealed that rapper Stormzy will provide music for the upcoming Watch Dogs: Legion. A new trailer for the game showed off new characters and abilities, including a hacker who can shock enemies, a street artist with a nonlethal paintball gun, and a beekeeper who attacks enemies with swarms of bees. The game features characters with negative attributes as well, like low mobility. Characters can be customized with tools like the spider bot.
Aiden Pearce from the original Watch Dogs game will be a fully playable character in Legion post launch. A new story chapter will be included in the game's season pass, as well.
Riders Republic is a new mass multiplayer, extreme sports franchise. Built around social interaction, players ski, ride bikes, and more around different environments like snowy mountains. The game has a zany style that looks similar to games like Trials Rising. The game features competitions similar to the X Games and community challenges where players can compete with one another.
Riders Republic launches on February 25 and is available for pre-order now.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: The Game — Complete Edition coming in early 2021
Everything we know about Beyond Good and Evil 2
The most anticipated Xbox Series X/S games of 2021
Best Black Friday PS5 video game deals 2020
The best Ubisoft games
Everything we know about Monster Hunter Rise
The best multiplayer games on Nintendo Switch
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: The Game — Complete Edition review: Double nostalgia
These are the best cheap gaming headset deals for January 2021


text:
Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Adding New Books > "I Had This Thought Once"
message 1: by Cherry (new)
* Title: "I Had This Thought Once"
* Author(s) name(s): Cherry Tigris
* ISBN (or ASIN): 978-1511975025
* Publisher: Tigris Creations
* Publication date: May 1, 2015
* Format: Paperback, Kindle
* Description: Cherry Tigris (artist, humanitarian, anti-diva) is committed to defending our most vulnerable humans with her written words, music, and activism. "I Had This Thought Once" experiments with the weight of words and notions in an attempt to bring meaning to the complicated state of the human condition. Nothings is off-limits in her latest offering as she explores the deeper lessons hidden in the most regular tasks. Readers of every age and stripe will find tasty morsels of perspective hidden in between the lines and verses.
* Link to cover: http://cherrytigris.blogspot.com/2015...
message 2: by free (new)
done...
https://www.goodreads.com/work/editio...
Goodreads Librarians Group