BACKGROUND: Tenofovir (TDF) and didanosine (ddI) are both adenosine analogues with convenient posology, strong potency and a relatively high genetic barrier for resistance. The popularity of this combination, however, has been questioned due to concerns about pharmacokinetic interactions and increased risk of pancreatitis and hyperglycemia. Less information is available about other possible side effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HIV-infected individuals who initiated a protease inhibitor-sparing regimen between September 2002 and June 2003 at five hospitals, and had at least one subsequent visit within the next 12 months, always with complete virus suppression, were retrospectively assessed. Only drug-naive individuals and patients who simplified a prior successful antiretroviral regimen were analysed. RESULTS: Outcomes were analysed in 570 individuals according to treatment modality (98 drug-naive versus 472 simplified); the nucleoside analogue (NA) backbone (298 with TDF + ddI, 88 with ddI, 44 with TDF, and 140 with neither ddI nor TDF); and the third agent used (378 with non-nucleoside analogues versus 192 with NA). Significant CD4+ T-cell declines were seen in patients taking ddI + TDF with respect to all other NA combinations, including ddI or TDF separately. Patients exposed to high ddI doses or taking a third NA showed more pronounced CD4 declines. Plasma levels of ddI correlated with the extent of CD4+ T-cell loss. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving ddI + TDF-based combinations show CD4+ T-cell declines despite achieving complete virus suppression. This effect generally progresses with time. An imbalance in adenosine metabolites within CD4+ T lymphocytes may explain this phenomenon, which resembles the genetic purine nucleoside phosphorylase deficiency syndrome.
BACKGROUND:Tenofovir (TDF) and didanosine (ddI) are both adenosine analogues with convenient posology, strong potency and a relatively high genetic barrier for resistance. The popularity of this combination, however, has been questioned due to concerns about pharmacokinetic interactions and increased risk of pancreatitis and hyperglycemia. Less information is available about other possible side effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HIV-infected individuals who initiated a protease inhibitor-sparing regimen between September 2002 and June 2003 at five hospitals, and had at least one subsequent visit within the next 12 months, always with complete virus suppression, were retrospectively assessed. Only drug-naive individuals and patients who simplified a prior successful antiretroviral regimen were analysed. RESULTS: Outcomes were analysed in 570 individuals according to treatment modality (98 drug-naive versus 472 simplified); the nucleoside analogue (NA) backbone (298 with TDF + ddI, 88 with ddI, 44 with TDF, and 140 with neither ddI nor TDF); and the third agent used (378 with non-nucleoside analogues versus 192 with NA). Significant CD4+ T-cell declines were seen in patients taking ddI + TDF with respect to all other NA combinations, including ddI or TDF separately. Patients exposed to high ddI doses or taking a third NA showed more pronounced CD4 declines. Plasma levels of ddI correlated with the extent of CD4+ T-cell loss. CONCLUSION:Patients receiving ddI + TDF-based combinations show CD4+ T-cell declines despite achieving complete virus suppression. This effect generally progresses with time. An imbalance in adenosine metabolites within CD4+ T lymphocytes may explain this phenomenon, which resembles the genetic purine nucleosidephosphorylase deficiency syndrome.
Authors: Alice Tseng; Michelle Foisy; Christine A Hughes; Deborah Kelly; Shanna Chan; Natalie Dayneka; Pierre Giguère; Niamh Higgins; Cara Hills-Nieminen; Jeff Kapler; Charles J L la Porte; Pam Nickel; Laura Park-Wyllie; Carlo Quaia; Linda Robinson; Nancy Sheehan; Shannon Stone; Linda Sulz; Deborah Yoong Journal: Can J Hosp Pharm Date: 2012-03
Authors: Francesc Vidal; Joan Carles Domingo; Jordi Guallar; Maria Saumoy; Begoña Cordobilla; Rainel Sánchez de la Rosa; Marta Giralt; Maria Luisa Alvarez; Miguel López-Dupla; Ferran Torres; Francesc Villarroya; Tomas Cihlar; Pere Domingo Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2006-08-28 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Trevor Hawkins; Wenoah Veikley; Lucie Durand-Gasselin; Darius Babusis; Y Sunila Reddy; John F Flaherty; Adrian S Ray Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: P Costa; F Bozzano; D Fenoglio; A Beltrame; G Cenderello; A Di Biagio; G Ferrea; G Pagano; A De Maria Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Elizabeth Nies-Kraske; Timothy W Schacker; David Condoluci; Jan Orenstein; Jason Brenchley; Cecil Fox; Marybeth Daucher; Robin Dewar; Elizabeth Urban; Brenna Hill; Javier Guenaga; Shelley Hoover; Frank Maldarelli; Claire W Hallahan; Judith Horn; Shyamasundaran Kottilil; Tae-Wook Chun; Marlene Folino; Sara Palmer; Ann Wiegand; M Angeline O'Shea; Julia A Metcalf; Daniel C Douek; John Coffin; Ashley Haase; Anthony S Fauci; Mark Dybul Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 5.226