Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: is there a true difference in efficacy and safety?

被引:0
|
作者
Hill, Andrew [1 ]
Hughes, Sophie L. [2 ]
Gotham, Dzintars [2 ]
Pozniak, Anton L. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Liverpool, Dept Pharmacol & Therapeut, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[2] Imperial Coll London, Fac Med, London, England
[3] Chelsea & Westminster Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, London, England
关键词
antiretroviral therapy; bone density; cobicistat; HIV; kidney; ritonavir; tenofovir; VIROLOGICALLY SUPPRESSED ADULTS; SINGLE-TABLET REGIMEN; B-VIRUS INFECTION; DOUBLE-BLIND; HIV-1; INFECTION; ANTIRETROVIRAL-NAIVE; COMBINATION THERAPY; ANTIVIRAL ACTIVITY; PHASE; 3B; EMTRICITABINE;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background: Higher plasma tenofovir concentrations are associated with higher risks of renal and bone adverse events. The pharmacokinetic boosters ritonavir (RTV) and cobicistat (COBI) significantly increase plasma area under the curve (AUC) concentrations of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), by 25-37%. When combined with RTV or COBI, the dose of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is lowered from 25 mg to 10 mg daily, but the TDF dose is maintained at 300 mg daily. Objective: To assess the differences in safety and efficacy between tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in regimens with and without the pharmacokinetic boosters RTV and COBI. Methods: A PubMed/Embase search inclusive of dates up to 17 July 2017 identified 11 randomised head-to-head trials (8111 patients) of TDF versus TAF. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate pooled risk differences and 95% confidence intervals using random-effects models. A pre-defined sub-group analysis compared TAF with TDF, either when boosted with RTV or COBI, or when unboosted. Results: Nine clinical trials compared TAF and TDF for treatment of HIV-1 and two were for hepatitis B treatment. The eleven clinical trials documented 4574 patients with boosting RTV or COBI in both arms, covering 7198 patient-years of follow-up. Some 3537 patients received unboosted regimens, totalling 3595 patient-years of follow-up. Boosted TDF-treated patients showed borderline lower HIV RNA suppression <50 copies/mL (P=0.05), more bone fractures (P=0.04), larger decreases in bone mineral density (P<0.001), and more discontinuations for bone (P=0.03) or renal (P=0.002) adverse events. By contrast, there were no significant differences in HIV RNA suppression rates or clinical safety endpoints between unboosted TAF and unboosted TDF. Conclusions: TDF boosted with RTV or COBI was associated with higher risks of bone and renal adverse events, and lower HIV RNA suppression rates, compared with TAF. By contrast, when ritonavir and cobicistat were not used, there were no efficacy differences between TAF and TDF, and marginal differences in safety. The health economic value of TAF versus low-cost generic TDF may be limited when these drugs are used without cobicistat or ritonavir.
引用
收藏
页码:72 / 79
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: is there a true difference in efficacy and safety?
    Hill, A.
    Hughes, S.
    Pozniak, A.
    [J]. HIV MEDICINE, 2018, 19 : S30 - S30
  • [2] Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is there a true difference in safety?
    Pepperrell, T.
    Hughes, S.
    Gotham, D.
    Pozniak, A.
    Boffito, M.
    Pilkington, V.
    Hill, A.
    [J]. HIV MEDICINE, 2019, 20 : 92 - 92
  • [3] Efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naive Asian adults
    Oka, Shinichi
    Chetchotisakd, Ploenchan
    Clarke, Amanda
    Supparatpinyo, Khuanchai
    Kiertiburanakul, Sasisopin
    Ryu, Julie
    Piontkowsky, David
    Guo, Susan
    Nguyen-Cleary, Thai
    Das, Moupali
    McCallister, Scott
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL AIDS SOCIETY, 2016, 19
  • [4] A Review and Clinical Understanding of Tenofovir: Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate versus Tenofovir Alafenamide
    Wassner, Chanie
    Bradley, Nicole
    Lee, Yuman
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROVIDERS OF AIDS CARE, 2020, 19
  • [5] RENAL AND BONE SAFETY OF TENOFOVIR ALAFENAMIDE VS TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE
    Post, Frank
    Sax, Paul
    Saag, Michael
    Yin, Michael
    Oka, Shinichi
    Koenig, Ellen
    Trottier, Benoit
    Andrade, Jaime
    Cao, Huyen
    Fordyce, Marshall
    [J]. SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS, 2015, 91 : A48 - +
  • [6] Efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B
    Lim, Jihye
    Choi, Won-Mook
    Shim, Ju Hyun
    Lee, Danbi
    Kim, Kang Mo
    Lim, Young-Suk
    Lee, Han Chu
    Choi, Jonggi
    [J]. LIVER INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 42 (07) : 1517 - 1527
  • [7] Retreatment Efficacy and Renal Safety of Tenofovir Alafenamide, Entecavir, and Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate After Entecavir or Tenofovir Cessation
    Shao-Ming Chiu
    Kuo-Chin Chang
    Tsung-Hui Hu
    Chao-Hung Hung
    Jing-Houng Wang
    Sheng-Nan Lu
    Chien-Hung Chen
    [J]. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2023, 68 : 665 - 675
  • [8] Retreatment Efficacy and Renal Safety of Tenofovir Alafenamide, Entecavir, and Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate After Entecavir or Tenofovir Cessation
    Chiu, Shao-Ming
    Chang, Kuo-Chin
    Hu, Tsung-Hui
    Hung, Chao-Hung
    Wang, Jing-Houng
    Lu, Sheng-Nan
    Chen, Chien-Hung
    [J]. DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 2023, 68 (02) : 665 - 675
  • [9] Efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B
    Lim, Jihye
    Choi, Won-Mook
    Shim, Ju Hyun
    Lee, Danbi
    Kim, Kang Mo
    Lim, Young-Suk
    Lee, Han Chu
    Choi, Jonggi
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY, 2022, 77 : S842 - S842
  • [10] Atherosclerotic CVD risk profile of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate
    Huhn, G.
    Shamblaw, D.
    Baril, J. G.
    Baker, D.
    Ward, D.
    Guo, S.
    Haubrich, R.
    Nguyen-Cleary, T.
    McCallister, S.
    Das, M.
    [J]. ANTIVIRAL THERAPY, 2016, 21 : A45 - A45