| Literature DB >> 36081603 |
David C Knox1, Robert Pilarski2, Harvinder S Dhunna3,4, Amit Kaushal5, Jonathan D Adachi6.
Abstract
According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, approximately 62,050 people were living with HIV in Canada in 2018, and of those, 13% were undiagnosed. Currently, no single strategy provides complete protection or is universally effective across all demographic groups at risk for HIV. However, HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is the newest HIV prevention strategy that shows promise. To date, two products have received an indication for PrEP by Health Canada: emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (Truvada®; FTC/TDF) and emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (Descovy®; FTC/TAF). Despite the high efficacy of these PrEP intervention methods, access to PrEP in Canada remains low. Identifying and addressing barriers to PrEP access, especially in high-risk groups, are necessary to reduce HIV transmission in Canada. While guidelines published by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) include FTC/TAF information, the efficacy of FTC/TAF for PrEP has not yet been considered in Canada's clinical practice guidelines. Thus, the current paper reviews data regarding the use of FTC/TDF and FTC/TAF for PrEP, which may be useful for Canadian healthcare providers when counseling and implementing HIV prevention methods. The authors highlight these data in relation to various at-risk populations and review ongoing clinical trials investigating novel PrEP agents. Overall, FTC/TDF PrEP is effective for many populations, including men who have sex with men, transgender women, heterosexuals with partners living with HIV, and people who use drugs. While there is fewer data reported on the efficacy of FTC/TAF to date, recent clinical trials have demonstrated noninferiority of FTC/TAF in comparison to FTC/TDF. Notably, as studies have shown that FTC/TAF maintains renal function and bone mineral density to a greater extent than FTC/TDF, FTC/TAF may be a safer option for patients experiencing renal and/or bone dysfunction, for those at risk of renal and bone complications, and for those who develop FTC/TDF-related adverse events.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36081603 PMCID: PMC9448580 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3913439
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol ISSN: 1712-9532 Impact factor: 2.585
Laboratory assessments [80, 123–126].
| Assay type | Baseline | Every three months | Every six months | Every 12 months |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serum creatinine | X | X | ||
| eGFR | X | X | ||
| eCrCL | X | Xa | Xb | |
| ACR | X | X |
aPatients over the age of 50 or those who have an estimated CrCl (eCrCl) less than 90 mL/min/1.73 m2 at initiation. bAll other daily oral PrEP patients.
Estimated fracture risk reduction associated with BMD improvement [83].
| Vertebral fracture (%) | Hip fracture (%) | Non-vertebral fracture (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| 2% | 28 | 16 | 10 |
| 4% | 51 | 29 | 16 |
| 6% | 66 | 40 | 21 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| 2% | 28 | 15 | 11 |
| 4% | 55 | 32 | 19 |
| 6% | 72 | 46 | 27 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| 2% | 28 | 22 | 11 |
| 8% | 62 | 38 | 21 |
| 14% | 79 | 51 | 30 |
BMD, bone mineral density.
People living without HIV that may benefit from PrEP [23, 70].
| (i) MSM or transgender women who engage in unprotected anal sex, particularly receptive anal sex |
| (ii) MSM or transgender women with multiple anal sex partners |
| (iii) MSM or transgender women with syphilis or rectal STIs |
| (iv) Individuals with one or more HIV-positive sex partners who have detectable viral loads or are not taking ART |
| (v) Individuals who have been prescribed one or more courses of nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) with ongoing high-risk behavior |
| (vi) Serodiscordant couples who want a safer conception strategy |
| (vii) Injection drug users |
| (viii) Commercial sex workers or individuals who engage in transactional sex |
| (ix) Individuals who use stimulant drugs, such as methamphetamine, while engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors |
| (x) Individuals who request PrEP |
Pharmacokinetics parameters of TDF, TAF, and FTC.
| TDF | TAF | FTC | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absorption | (i) Plasma half-life: ∼0.4 minutes | (i) Plasma half-life: ∼30 minutes | (i) Plasma half-life: ∼10 hours |
| (ii) Bioavailability: ∼25% (fasting) | (ii) Bioavailability: not reported | (ii) Bioavailability: 93% (hard capsule) | |
|
| |||
| Distribution | Transported by renal transport proteins hOAT 1 and 3, and MRP4. | Transported by P-glycoprotein, BCRP, OATP1B1, and OATP1B3. | Emtricitabine is a substrate of MATE1 but not of OCT1, OCT2, P-glycoprotein, BCRP or MRP2 transporters. |
| Unlike tenofovir, TAF is not a substrate for renal transporters OAT1 and OAT3. | |||
|
| |||
| Metabolism | No P450 involvement | Minimal CYP3A4 metabolism | Undergoes minimal biotransformation via oxidation and glucuronide conjugation |
|
| |||
| Excretion | 32 ± 10% renally excreted unchanged | <1% renally excreted unchanged | ∼86% renally excreted (13% as metabolites) |
| Tenofovir is renally eliminated by both glomerular filtration and active tubular secretion. | Tenofovir is renally eliminated by both glomerular filtration and active tubular secretion. | ||
BCRP, breast cancer resistance protein; FTC, emtricitabine; hOAT, human renal organic anion transporter; MRP2, multidrug resistance-associated protein; OAT, organic anion transporter; OATP, organic anion-transporting polypeptides; OCT, organic cation transporter; TAF, tenofovir alafenamide; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.
Figure 1Higher TFV-DP levels in PBMCs with TAF vs TDF [95].