BACKGROUND: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is the prodrug of the acyclic nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor tenofovir that is indicated for use in the treatment of HIV. Tenofovir is eliminated as unchanged drug in the urine, with a significant component of active tubular secretion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of tenofovir in subjects with renal or hepatic impairment, both of which are common in HIV-infected individuals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HIV seronegative and otherwise healthy subjects with varying degrees of renal or hepatic function were recruited, and tenofovir pharmacokinetics were evaluated over 48 hours (hepatic impairment study) and 96 hours (renal impairment study) following a single tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg dose. Subjects with hepatic dysfunction were categorised based upon Child-Pugh-Turcotte score, and subjects with renal impairment were categorised based upon their calculated creatinine clearance (CL(CR)) using the Cockcroft-Gault method. RESULTS: As expected for a renally eliminated drug, subjects with and without hepatic impairment displayed similar tenofovir systemic exposures without evidence of substantial alterations in drug disposition, and therefore no dosage adjustments were warranted in these patients. In contrast, in subjects with renal impairment, two distinct groups were observed: (i) subjects with CL(CR)>/=50 mL/min in whom tenofovir pharmacokinetics were similar to subjects with normal renal function; and (ii) subjects with CL(CR) <50 mL/min (moderate or severe impairment) in which tenofovir renal clearance was substantially reduced and thus drug exposures increased. Subjects with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) demonstrated no extrarenal route of tenofovir elimination. Simulations of once-daily or modified dosing regimens demonstrated the need for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate dose-interval adjustment to prevent unnecessary drug accumulation. In patients with ESRD, high-flux haemodialysis efficiently removed tenofovir, with an elimination rate of 134 mL/min and an extraction coefficient of 54%. CONCLUSION: No tenofovir disoproxil fumarate dose adjustment is warranted in the setting of hepatic impairment. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg every 48 hours in individuals with moderate renal impairment and twice weekly corresponding to every 72-96 hours in those with severe renal impairment is recommended in order to target steady-state tenofovir exposures consistent with those observed in subjects with normal renal function receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg once daily. For subjects receiving thrice-weekly 4-hour maintenance haemodialysis sessions, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg administered every 7 days after a haemodialysis session is recommended. HIV-infected patients with significant end-organ dysfunction should be monitored in accordance with clinical practice, including close management of their viral suppression and clinical chemistries.
BACKGROUND:Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is the prodrug of the acyclic nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor tenofovir that is indicated for use in the treatment of HIV. Tenofovir is eliminated as unchanged drug in the urine, with a significant component of active tubular secretion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of tenofovir in subjects with renal or hepatic impairment, both of which are common in HIV-infected individuals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HIV seronegative and otherwise healthy subjects with varying degrees of renal or hepatic function were recruited, and tenofovir pharmacokinetics were evaluated over 48 hours (hepatic impairment study) and 96 hours (renal impairment study) following a single tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg dose. Subjects with hepatic dysfunction were categorised based upon Child-Pugh-Turcotte score, and subjects with renal impairment were categorised based upon their calculated creatinine clearance (CL(CR)) using the Cockcroft-Gault method. RESULTS: As expected for a renally eliminated drug, subjects with and without hepatic impairment displayed similar tenofovir systemic exposures without evidence of substantial alterations in drug disposition, and therefore no dosage adjustments were warranted in these patients. In contrast, in subjects with renal impairment, two distinct groups were observed: (i) subjects with CL(CR)>/=50 mL/min in whom tenofovir pharmacokinetics were similar to subjects with normal renal function; and (ii) subjects with CL(CR) <50 mL/min (moderate or severe impairment) in which tenofovir renal clearance was substantially reduced and thus drug exposures increased. Subjects with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) demonstrated no extrarenal route of tenofovir elimination. Simulations of once-daily or modified dosing regimens demonstrated the need for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate dose-interval adjustment to prevent unnecessary drug accumulation. In patients with ESRD, high-flux haemodialysis efficiently removed tenofovir, with an elimination rate of 134 mL/min and an extraction coefficient of 54%. CONCLUSION: No tenofovir disoproxil fumarate dose adjustment is warranted in the setting of hepatic impairment. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg every 48 hours in individuals with moderate renal impairment and twice weekly corresponding to every 72-96 hours in those with severe renal impairment is recommended in order to target steady-state tenofovir exposures consistent with those observed in subjects with normal renal function receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg once daily. For subjects receiving thrice-weekly 4-hour maintenance haemodialysis sessions, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg administered every 7 days after a haemodialysis session is recommended. HIV-infectedpatients with significant end-organ dysfunction should be monitored in accordance with clinical practice, including close management of their viral suppression and clinical chemistries.
Authors: J A Winston; L A Bruggeman; M D Ross; J Jacobson; L Ross; V D D'Agati; P E Klotman; M E Klotman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-06-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P Barditch-Crovo; S G Deeks; A Collier; S Safrin; D F Coakley; M Miller; B P Kearney; R L Coleman; P D Lamy; J O Kahn; I McGowan; P S Lietman Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: F J Palella; K M Delaney; A C Moorman; M O Loveless; J Fuhrer; G A Satten; D J Aschman; S D Holmberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-03-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brian P Kearney; Srinivasan Ramanathan; Andrew K Cheng; Ramin Ebrahimi; Jaymin Shah Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Michael D Miller; Nicolas Margot; Biao Lu; Lijie Zhong; Shan-Shan Chen; Andrew Cheng; Michael Wulfsohn Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2004-02-10 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Tim R Cressey; Oraphan Siriprakaisil; Rachel W Kubiak; Virat Klinbuayaem; Pra-Ornsuda Sukrakanchana; Justice Quame-Amaglo; Hideaki Okochi; Yardpiroon Tawon; Ratchada Cressey; Jared M Baeten; Monica Gandhi; Paul K Drain Journal: Int J Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-14 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: S M Baxi; R M Greenblatt; P Bacchetti; M Cohen; J A DeHovitz; K Anastos; S J Gange; M A Young; B E Aouizerat Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Joseph M Custodio; Martin Rhee; Gong Shen; Kah Hiing J Ling; Brian P Kearney; Srinivasan Ramanathan Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: James E Slaven; Brian S Decker; Angela D M Kashuba; Mohamed G Atta; Christina M Wyatt; Samir K Gupta Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 3.731