Literature DB >> 28272164

Brief Report: Long-Term (96-Week) Efficacy and Safety After Switching From Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate to Tenofovir Alafenamide in HIV-Infected, Virologically Suppressed Adults.

François Raffi1, Chloe Orkin, Amanda Clarke, Laurence Slama, Joel Gallant, Eric Daar, Keith Henry, Jorge Santana-Bagur, David K Stein, Nicholaos Bellos, Anthony Scarsella, Mingjin Yan, Michael E Abram, Andrew Cheng, Martin S Rhee.   

Abstract

In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, 663 HIV-infected, virologically suppressed adults were randomized to switch to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF; n = 333) vs. remain on tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; n = 330), each coformulated with emtricitabine (FTC), while continuing their third agent (boosted protease inhibitor or unboosted third agent). At week 96, 88.6% on FTC/TAF and 89.1% on FTC/TDF had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter [adjusted difference -0.5% (95% confidence interval: -5.3 to 4.4%)]. Proteinuria, albuminuria, proximal renal tubular function, and bone mineral density improved after switching to TAF- from TDF-containing regimens. These longer-term data support FTC/TAF as a safe, well-tolerated, and durable nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28272164      PMCID: PMC5427981          DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001344

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr        ISSN: 1525-4135            Impact factor:   3.731


INTRODUCTION

Although tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a prodrug of tenofovir (TFV), is a potent and generally well-tolerated nucleotide analog, it has been associated with an increased risk of nephrotoxicity and greater reductions in bone mineral density (BMD) compared with other nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors.[1-6] Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a novel TFV prodrug that is associated with 91% lower plasma TFV levels compared with TDF,[7] which leads to less adverse impact on bone and kidneys.[8,9] Recent HIV treatment guidelines have either replaced TDF with TAF or include both as part of recommended initial regimens.[10,11] In this large, double-blind, multicenter trial, we compared the switch to fixed-dose emtricitabine (FTC) with TAF versus continued use of fixed-dose FTC with TDF in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02121795). Results from week 48 were previously reported and demonstrated that switching to FTC/TAF was noninferior to continued use of FTC/TDF while remaining on the same third agent in maintaining viral suppression and led to improvements in markers of bone and renal safety.[12] We present safety and efficacy data through 96 weeks, with a focus on outcomes depending on third agent.

METHODS

Study Design and Participants

The design and inclusion criteria of this randomized, double-blind, multicenter, active-controlled phase 3 trial have been previously described.[12] Briefly, we enrolled HIV-infected adults (aged ≥18 years) who were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL) for ≥6 months on regimens containing fixed-dose FTC with TDF and had estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >50 mL/min (calculated by the Cockcroft–Gault equation). Eligible participants were randomized (1:1) to either switch to coformulated FTC/TAF or to continue FTC/TDF without changing their third agents. Participants on boosted protease inhibitors (PIs) (atazanavir, darunavir, and lopinavir all boosted with ritonavir) who were randomly assigned to switch treatment received coformulated 200 mg FTC with 10 mg TAF; those on other third agents received coformulated 200 mg FTC with 25 mg TAF. Participants also received placebo tablets matching the alternative treatment. The study remained blinded until the last participant receiving study drug completed week 96. Postbaseline study visits occurred at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, and 48, after which participants continued treatment with visits every 12 weeks until week 96. Laboratory tests included hematological analysis, serum chemistry tests, fasting lipid parameters, CD4+ cell counts, measures of renal function, including eGFR, urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, tubular proteinuria (retinol-binding protein-to-creatinine ratio, β2-microglobulin-to-creatinine ratio, fractional excretion of uric acid, and fractional excretion of phosphate) (Covance Laboratories, Indianapolis, IN), and measurement of HIV RNA concentration (Roche TaqMan 2.0; Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland). Participants with confirmed virologic failure (2 consecutive HIV RNA >50 copies/mL) and an HIV RNA >400 copies per milliliter at week 8 or later had the second, confirmatory sample sent for resistance analysis by GeneSeq Integrase, PhenoSense GT, and PhenoSense Integrase (Monogram Biosciences, South San Francisco, CA). Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry of the hip and lumbar spine was conducted at baseline and weeks 24, 48, 72, and 96 [analyzed centrally by BioClinica (Newton, PA)]. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by central or site-specific review boards or ethics committees. Each participant provided written informed consent.

Statistical Analyses

The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who had plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter at week 48 as defined by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) snapshot algorithm.[13,14] Secondary endpoints included the proportion of participants with virologic success (maintenance of HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL) at week 96. The percentage differences and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed with Mantel–Haenszel proportion stratified by previous treatment regimens. Noninferiority between treatment groups was assessed using a conventional 95% CI approach and a margin of 10% (1-sided 0.025 level). Safety outcomes included renal, bone, and metabolic endpoints. Changes from baseline were summarized by visit using descriptive statistics, and median change from baseline was analyzed by a 2-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Subgroup analyses were performed for select endpoints by third agent (boosted PI or unboosted third agent). Adverse events (AEs) were coded with the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (version 19).

RESULTS

We randomized 668 participants; 663 received at least 1 dose of study drug (333 switched to FTC/TAF and 330 remained on FTC/TDF). Baseline characteristics were previously reported, with a median age of 49 years.[12] The distributions of third agents were similar between the 2 treatment groups (boosted PI: FTC/TAF 47%, FTC/TDF 45%; unboosted third agent: FTC/TAF 53%, FTC/TDF 55%). Median (interquartile range) time of FTC/TDF use before dosing was 5.1 years (3.0–7.2 years) overall. Switching to an FTC/TAF-containing regimen continued to be noninferior to continuing the FTC-/TDF-containing regimen at week 96 for the secondary efficacy outcome of proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter [295/333 (88.6%) vs. 294/330 (89.1%), adjusted difference −0.5%, 95% CI: −5.3 to 4.4%] (Supplemental Digital Content, Table 1, http://links.lww.com/QAI/A980). Of the 38 (of 333) participants remaining in the FTC/TAF group who did not have HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter at week 96, 33 discontinued study drug because of reasons other than lack of efficacy (16 after week 48); 5 with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies per milliliter at week 96 (all were < 200 copies/mL) were later suppressed while continuing study drug. Of the 36 (of 330) participants remaining in the FTC/TDF group who did not have HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter at week 96, 33 discontinued study drug because of reasons other than lack of efficacy (15 after week 48); 1 who was suppressed before missing the week 96 visit, and 2 with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies per milliliter at week 96 (both were <200 copies/mL) were later suppressed while continuing study drug. Noninferiority was also demonstrated regardless of third agent [boosted PI: 85.8% vs. 88.1%; difference −2.3% (95% CI: −9.8 to 5.3%) or unboosted third agent: 91.0% vs. 89.9%; difference 1.1% (95% CI: −5.0 to 7.2%)]. The median (interquartile range) increase from baseline in CD4 cell count at week 96 was 44 (−54 to 144) cells per microliter for the FTC/TAF group and 33 (−44 to 134) cells per microliter for the FTC/TDF group. Other than the previously reported participant receiving FTC/TAF plus darunavir boosted by ritonavir who had emergent resistance M184V mutation, no other participants have developed HIV resistance since week 48. Both regimens were well tolerated through a median exposure of 96 weeks. AEs leading to study drug discontinuation occurred in 8 (2%) participants in the FTC/TAF group vs. 4 (1%) in FTC/TDF group (1 in each group after week 48). For the FTC/TAF group, these AEs included affective disorder/acquired lipodystrophy (after week 48), atrial fibrillation, diarrhea, dysphagia, insomnia/altered mood, lymphoma, overdose, and peripheral edema. For the FTC/TDF group, these AEs included headache, increased blood creatinine, rectal tenesmus, and renal tubular disorder (after week 48). The type and frequency of treatment-emergent AEs were similar between groups. The incidence of serious AEs was similar in both groups, FTC/TAF 8% vs. FTC/TDF 9%. Two participants in the FTC/TAF group died [1 due to lymphoma and elevated lipase and 1 due to respiratory failure (after week 48)]; 1 participant in the FTC/TDF group died because of drowning (as reported by the investigator) (after week 48). None of the deaths were deemed related to study drugs. We noted increases from baseline in eGFR for participants who switched to FTC/TAF, mostly occurring in the first 24 weeks, as compared with minimal changes among those who remained on an FTC/TDF regimen (10.0 vs. 4.0 mL/min). We observed significant differences between groups favoring FTC/TAF in changes of total proteinuria, albuminuria, and tubular proteinuria (urine retinol-binding protein/creatinine ratio and urine β2-microglobulin/creatinine ratio) (Fig. 1). Of note, in the FTC/TDF group, albuminuria and tubular proteinuria continued to worsen in the second year. Improvement of these markers of renal safety in the FTC/TAF group was similar regardless of third agent (Table 1). No participants in the FTC/TAF group and 2 in the FTC/TDF group discontinued study drug because of renal AEs. One participant with underlying hypertension on FTC/TDF plus ritonavir-boosted darunavir had an increase in serum creatinine that led to discontinuation of study drug. The second participant on FTC/TDF plus ritonavir-boosted atazanavir had laboratory findings consistent with proximal tubulopathy (proteinuria, normoglycemic glycosuria, hypophosphatemia, and an increase in serum creatinine). No cases of proximal tubulopathy or Fanconi syndrome were reported in the FTC/TAF group.
FIGURE 1.

Changes in BMD and renal markers, through week 96. RBP, retinol-binding protein.

TABLE 1.

Changes in Quantitative Measures of Proteinuria and Lipid Parameters at Week 96*

Changes in BMD and renal markers, through week 96. RBP, retinol-binding protein. Changes in Quantitative Measures of Proteinuria and Lipid Parameters at Week 96* From baseline to week 96, BMD increased in the FTC/TAF group but not in the FTC/TDF group [median change: hip 1.78% vs. −0.17% (P < 0.001) and spine 1.85% vs. −0.33% (P < 0.001)] (Fig. 1). Of note, in the FTC/TAF group, BMD continued to increase in the second year. Results were similar regardless of third agent (Table 1). More participants in the FTC/TAF group had increase in BMD of at least 3% [spine 40% vs. 18% (P < 0.001) and hip 29% vs. 11% (P < 0.001)]. There were 4 fractures (1 on FTC/TAF and 3 on FTC/TDF), all related to mechanical trauma and considered by the investigator to be unrelated to study drug. The incidence of laboratory abnormalities through week 96 was similar for both treatment groups. Fasting lipid values increased from baseline in the FTC/TAF group while remaining stable in the FTC/TDF group at week 96 [total cholesterol, FTC/TAF 14 vs. FTC/TDF 1 mg/dL, P < 0.001; low-density lipoprotein 14 vs. 4 mg/dL, P < 0.001; high-density lipoprotein (HDL) 1 vs. −1 mg/dL, P = 0.023]; however, median changes were minimal from a clinical standpoint and the median changes in total cholesterol to HDL ratio were similar (0.1 vs. 0.1; P = 0.26). The rate of initiating lipid-modifying medications was similar between the groups at week 96 (FTC/TAF 7.2%, FTC/TDF 6.4%, P = 0.76).

DISCUSSION

Our findings demonstrated that switching to FTC/TAF was noninferior to continuing FTC/TDF in maintaining virological suppression at 96 weeks in individuals with HIV receiving a large variety of third agents. Although overall safety was similar, renal parameters improved in patients who switched to FTC/TAF, with an increase in eGFR and a reduction in proteinuria, especially in the excretion of β2-microglobulin and retinol-binding protein, which are considered specific markers of proximal tubulopathy.[15] BMD also improved in patients who switched, and changes were significantly greater in the FTC/TAF group at 96 weeks, with a greater likelihood of improvement in clinical bone density status (osteoporosis, osteopenia, or normal). The efficacy and safety results, including those of bone and renal, did not differ by third agent; particularly, improvement was also seen in patients receiving a ritonavir-boosted PI. The results for the markers of renal safety were consistent with recent data from studies comparing TAF vs. TDF as part of 2 single-tablet regimens also containing elvitegravir, cobicistat, and FTC (E/C/F/TAF vs. E/C/F/TDF). Importantly, these data corroborate the clinical data, as there were no renal discontinuations or proximal renal tubulopathy in patients receiving FTC/TAF in this study (n = 333) nor in treatment-naive patients receiving E/C/F/TAF (n = 866) through week 96.[16] By contrast, 2 patients receiving FTC/TDF in this study and 6 receiving E/C/F/TDF in the treatment-naive study[16] had renal discontinuations; 1 in each group had proximal renal tubulopathy. The BMD results are also reassuring in their consistency with those from E/C/F/TAF studies. One interesting aspect is the fact that there is continuous improvement over the 96-week period, with no plateau effect, and the BMD increase by week 96 (around + 2% for both hip and spine) is clinically important in this population of patients with a median previous exposure to TDF of over 5 years. Lipids increased in the FTC/TAF group while remaining stable in the FTC/TDF group. Because TDF is associated with lower lipids, it is likely that lower TFV exposures through switching TDF to TAF is leading to increase in lipids.[17-20] However, no differences in total cholesterol to HDL ratio or initiation of lipid-modifying medications were noted between groups, suggesting that the increases in lipids on switching to FTC/TDF from FTC/TDF are probably of minimal clinical relevance. FTC/TAF is now part of recommended initial regimens in treatment guidelines; E/C/F/TAF is also one of the recommended initial regimens.[10,11] In addition, FTC/TAF is available as part of rilpivirine/FTC/TAF and is being developed as part of darunavir/COBI/FTC/TAF and bictegravir/FTC/TAF. In addition, FTC/TAF uniquely provides clinicians with the flexibility to combine with other agents that are not part of currently available single-tablet regimens. Lastly, FTC/TAF is also being developed for preexposure prophylaxis of HIV infection. The longer-term data in this study confirm the potential of FTC/TAF to be an important nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone in the treatment of patients with HIV, with the flexibility to be combined with a variety of third agents and safety advantages over FTC/TDF. In patients exposed to FTC/TDF for many years, who represent a large majority of patients with HIV currently in care, and in those who are aging with potential for renal and or bone comorbidities from various causes, proactive switching from FTC/TDF to FTC/TAF can improve renal and bone parameters, while maintaining antiviral efficacy.
  15 in total

1.  The lipid-lowering effect of tenofovir/emtricitabine: a randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Authors:  José R Santos; María Saumoy; Adrian Curran; Isabel Bravo; Josep M Llibre; Jordi Navarro; Carla Estany; Daniel Podzamczer; Esteban Ribera; Eugènia Negredo; Bonaventura Clotet; Roger Paredes
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 9.079

2.  Randomized comparison of renal effects, efficacy, and safety with once-daily abacavir/lamivudine versus tenofovir/emtricitabine, administered with efavirenz, in antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected adults: 48-week results from the ASSERT study.

Authors:  Frank A Post; Graeme J Moyle; Hans Jürgen Stellbrink; Pere Domingo; Daniel Podzamczer; Martin Fisher; Anthony G Norden; Matthias Cavassini; Armin Rieger; Marie-Aude Khuong-Josses; Teresa Branco; Helen C Pearce; Naomi Givens; Cindy Vavro; Michael L Lim
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.731

3.  Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: two randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trials.

Authors:  Paul E Sax; David Wohl; Michael T Yin; Frank Post; Edwin DeJesus; Michael Saag; Anton Pozniak; Melanie Thompson; Daniel Podzamczer; Jean Michel Molina; Shinichi Oka; Ellen Koenig; Benoit Trottier; Jaime Andrade-Villanueva; Gordon Crofoot; Joseph M Custodio; Andrew Plummer; Lijie Zhong; Huyen Cao; Hal Martin; Christian Callebaut; Andrew K Cheng; Marshall W Fordyce; Scott McCallister
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  A pilot study to determine the impact on dyslipidemia of adding tenofovir to stable background antiretroviral therapy: ACTG 5206.

Authors:  Marisa Tungsiripat; Douglas Kitch; Marshall J Glesby; Samir K Gupta; John W Mellors; Laura Moran; Lynne Jones; Beverly Alston-Smith; James F Rooney; Judith A Aberg
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 4.177

Review 5.  Tenofovir-associated kidney toxicity in HIV-infected patients: a review of the evidence.

Authors:  Andrew M Hall; Bruce M Hendry; Dorothea Nitsch; John O Connolly
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 8.860

6.  Comparison of changes in bone density and turnover with abacavir-lamivudine versus tenofovir-emtricitabine in HIV-infected adults: 48-week results from the ASSERT study.

Authors:  Hans-Jürgen Stellbrink; Chloe Orkin; Jose Ramon Arribas; Juliet Compston; Jan Gerstoft; Eric Van Wijngaerden; Adriano Lazzarin; Giuliano Rizzardini; Herman G Sprenger; John Lambert; Gunta Sture; David Leather; Sara Hughes; Patrizia Zucchi; Helen Pearce
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Switching to tenofovir/emtricitabine from abacavir/lamivudine in HIV-infected adults with raised cholesterol: effect on lipid profiles.

Authors:  Georg Behrens; Renato Maserati; Armin Rieger; Pere Domingo; Florian Abel; Hui Wang; Gill Pearce
Journal:  Antivir Ther       Date:  2012-08-15

Review 8.  Bone health and human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Authors:  Jason J Schafer; Kristine Manlangit; Kathleen E Squires
Journal:  Pharmacotherapy       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 4.705

9.  Efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate given as fixed-dose combinations containing emtricitabine as backbones for treatment of HIV-1 infection in virologically suppressed adults: a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Joel E Gallant; Eric S Daar; François Raffi; Cynthia Brinson; Peter Ruane; Edwin DeJesus; Margaret Johnson; Nathan Clumeck; Olayemi Osiyemi; Doug Ward; Javier Morales-Ramirez; Mingjin Yan; Michael E Abram; Andrew Plummer; Andrew K Cheng; Martin S Rhee
Journal:  Lancet HIV       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 12.767

10.  Tenofovir-associated Fanconi syndrome: review of the FDA adverse event reporting system.

Authors:  Samir K Gupta
Journal:  AIDS Patient Care STDS       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 5.078

View more
  19 in total

1.  Update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B: AASLD 2018 hepatitis B guidance.

Authors:  Norah A Terrault; Anna S F Lok; Brian J McMahon; Kyong-Mi Chang; Jessica P Hwang; Maureen M Jonas; Robert S Brown; Natalie H Bzowej; John B Wong
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 17.425

2.  Changes in renal function with long-term exposure to antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults in Asia.

Authors:  Kedar Joshi; David Boettiger; Stephen Kerr; Takeshi Nishijima; Kinh Van Nguyen; Penh Sun Ly; Man Po Lee; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; Wingwai Wong; Pacharee Kantipong; Do Duy Cuong; Adeeba Kamarulzaman; Jun Yong Choi; Fujie Zhang; Romanee Chaiwarith; Oon Tek Ng; Sasisopin Kiertiburanakul; Benedict Lim Heng Sim; Tuti Parwati Merati; Evy Yunihastuti; Rossana Ditangco; Jeremy Ross; Sanjay Pujari
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 2.890

3.  Antiretroviral therapy options in people living with HIV at risk of or with osteoporosis : Comment on "Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of bone fragility in people living with HIV: a position statement from the Swiss Association against Osteoporosis".

Authors:  S Noe; H Jaeger; E Wolf
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  Bone mineral density in people living with HIV: a narrative review of the literature.

Authors:  M J Kruger; T A Nell
Journal:  AIDS Res Ther       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 2.250

5.  Towards an ideal antiretroviral regimen for the global HIV epidemic.

Authors:  Beatriz Grinsztejn; Lara E Coelho; Paula M Luz; Valdilea G Veloso
Journal:  J Virus Erad       Date:  2017-07-01

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

Authors:  Andrew Hill; Sophie L Hughes; Dzintars Gotham; Anton L Pozniak
Journal:  J Virus Erad       Date:  2018-04-01

7.  Comparative study of antiretroviral drug regimens and drug-drug interactions between younger and older HIV-infected patients at a tertiary care teaching hospital in South Korea.

Authors:  Mi Seon Park; Young-Mo Yang; Ju-Sin Kim; Eun Joo Choi
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 2.423

8.  Prevalence of chronic kidney disease among HIV-1-infected patients receiving a combination antiretroviral therapy.

Authors:  Leonardo Calza; Michele Sachs; Vincenzo Colangeli; Marco Borderi; Bianca Granozzi; Pietro Malosso; Giorgia Comai; Valeria Corradetti; Gaetano La Manna; Pierluigi Viale
Journal:  Clin Exp Nephrol       Date:  2019-07-20       Impact factor: 2.801

9.  Highlights of the International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection, 23-26 October 2016, Glasgow, UK.

Authors:  Julio Montaner; Pablo Rojo; Tarandeep Anand; Jürgen Rockstroh
Journal:  J Virus Erad       Date:  2017-04-01

10.  Switching to coformulated rilpivirine (RPV), emtricitabine (FTC) and tenofovir alafenamide from either RPV, FTC and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or efavirenz, FTC and TDF: 96-week results from two randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  D Hagins; C Orkin; E S Daar; A Mills; C Brinson; E DeJesus; F A Post; J Morales-Ramirez; M Thompson; O Osiyemi; B Rashbaum; H-J Stellbrink; C Martorell; H Liu; Y-P Liu; D Porter; S E Collins; D SenGupta; M Das
Journal:  HIV Med       Date:  2018-08-12       Impact factor: 3.180

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.