| Literature DB >> 24625530 |
Michael Kasonde1, Richard W Niska2, Charles Rose2, Faith L Henderson1, Tebogo M Segolodi1, Kyle Turner2, Dawn K Smith2, Michael C Thigpen2, Lynn A Paxton2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been found to be effective for prevention of HIV infection in several clinical trials. Two studies of TDF PrEP among men who have sex with men showed slight bone mineral density (BMD) loss. We investigated the effect of TDF and the interaction of TDF and hormonal contraception on BMD among HIV-uninfected African men and women.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24625530 PMCID: PMC3953113 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090111
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Study design and participant flow diagram.
Baseline characteristics of TDF2 DXA sub study participants who had at least one DXA bone mineral density scan at forearm, spine and hip: Botswana, 2007–2010.
| Characteristic | Baseline Only | Longitudinal Cohort | P-value |
|
| 0.88 | ||
| 18–24 years | 42 (56.8) | 85 (57.8) | |
| 24–29 years | 32 (43.2) | 62 (42.2) | |
|
| 0.42 | ||
| Female | 41 (55.4) | 73 (49.7) | |
| Male | 33 (44.6) | 74 (50.3) | |
|
| 0.21 | ||
| Primary or less | 0 (0.0) | 6 (4.1) | |
| Secondary | 51 (68.9) | 99 (67.3) | |
| Postsecondary | 23 (31.1) | 42 (28.6) | |
|
| 0.72 | ||
| Married | 1 (1.4) | 3 (2.0) | |
| Single | 73 (98.6) | 144 (98.0) | |
|
| 49 (66.2) | 90 (61.2) | 0.47 |
|
| 0.75 | ||
| Underweight | 14 (18.9) | 26 (17.7) | |
| Normal, Overweight, or Obese | 58 (78.4) | 121 (82.3) | |
| Missing | 2 (2.7) | 0 (0.0) |
These are the 74 participants that only had a baseline DXA scan.
These are the 147 participants that had at least one follow-up DXA scan (Longitudinal cohort).
The univariate prevalence ratios (PR) for low bone mineral density at baseline for at least one DXA scan site (forearm, spine, hip) estimated by z-scores less than −2.0, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values, by demographic characteristics, risk factors and laboratory parameters (N = 220): Botswana, 2007–2010.
| Characteristic | Prevalence | 95% CI for prevalence | PR | 95% CI for PR | P-value |
|
| |||||
| Placebo | 0.0714 | (0.0366, 0.1393) | 1.10 | (0.41, 2.93) | 0.85 |
| TDF/FTC | 0.0648 | (0.0317, 0.1327) | REF | ||
|
| |||||
| 18–24 years | 0.0794 | (0.0438, 0.1438) | REF | ||
| 25–29 years | 0.0532 | (0.0227, 0.1248) | 0.67 | (0.24, 1.90) | 0.45 |
|
| |||||
| Female | 0.0263 | (0.0086, 0.0804) | REF | ||
| Male | 0.1132 | (0.0664, 0.1929) | 4.30 | (1.25, 14.82) | 0.02 |
|
| |||||
| Secondary or less | 0.0645 | (0.0354, 0.1175) | REF | ||
| Postsecondary | 0.0769 | (0.0331, 0.1786) | 1.19 | (0.42, 3.35) | 0.74 |
|
| |||||
| Single | 0.0694 | (0.0426, 0.1131) | |||
|
| |||||
| Yes | 0.0725 | (0.0399, 0.1316) | REF | ||
| No | 0.0610 | (0.0261, 0.1426) | 0.84 | (0.30, 2.38) | 0.74 |
|
| |||||
| Oral contraceptive | 0.0164 | (0.0023, 0.1145) | REF | ||
| Injection or implant | 0.0392 | (0.0101, 0.1526) | 2.39 | (0.22, 25.63) | 0.47 |
|
| |||||
| Underweight | 0.1538 | (0.0737, 0.3212) | 3.06 | (1.16, 8.10) | 0.02 |
| Normal, overweight, or obese | 0.0503 | (0.0266, 0.0950) | REF | ||
|
| 4.42 | (0.28, 69.26) | 0.29 | ||
|
| 0.98 | (0.97, 1.00) | 0.04 | ||
|
| 1.07 | (1.01, 1.13) | 0.02 | ||
|
| 0.57 | (0.25, 1.29) | 0.18 | ||
|
| 1.00 | (0.94, 1.06) | 0.99 | ||
|
| 0.61 | (0.10, 3.88) | 0.60 | ||
|
| 1.01 | (1.00, 1.03) | 0.03 | ||
|
| 1.00 | (1.00, 1.00) | 0.66 | ||
|
| 1.00 | (0.94, 1.06) | 0.88 |
There are 4 subjects who were married, and none had a low BMD.
There were 2 with no hormonal method, and neither had low BMD.
Prevalence ratios for laboratory values refer to a one unit change in that parameter.
Figure 2Mean percent bone mineral density (BMD) change (with 95% confidence intervals) from baseline to subsequent months by treatment group (TDF-FTC versus placebo).
Univariate and multivariable model results for the net difference between TDF/FTC and placebo in mean percent change in bone mineral density for months 6–30 from the baseline: Botswana, 2007–2010.
| Model | Comparison | Mean Percent Change in BMD | 95% CI | P-value |
|
| ||||
|
| TDF/FTC vs. placebo | −1.55% | (−2.48, −0.62) | 0.001 |
|
| Slope | +0.62 | (+0.17, +1.07) | 0.007 |
| TDF/FTC vs. placebo | −1.64% | (−2.48, −0.80) | 0.0002 | |
|
| Slope | +0.37 | (+0.08, +0.67) | 0.01 |
| TDF/FTC vs. placebo | −0.86% | (−1.49, −0.23) | 0.008 | |
|
| ||||
|
| TDF/FTC vs. placebo | −1.51% | (−2.49, −0.54) | 0.003 |
|
| Slope | +0.43 | (−0.04, +0.90) | 0.07 |
| TDF/FTC vs. placebo | −1.62% | (−2.46, −0.78) | 0.0002 | |
|
| Slope | +0.42 | (+0.11, +0.72) | 0.008 |
| TDF/FTC vs. placebo | −0.84% | (−1.52, −0.17) | 0.01 | |
| Underweight vs. Others | +1.03 | (+0.29, +1.77) | 0.007 |
Slope was not significant in models for Hip.
Slope is for a one unit (1 year) change.
BMI underweight vs. others (normal, overweight, obese).