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

Andrew Hill, Sophie L Hughes, Dzintars Gotham, Anton L Pozniak, Andrew Hill, Sophie L Hughes, Dzintars Gotham, Anton L Pozniak

Abstract

Background: Higher plasma tenofovir concentrations are associated with higher risks of renal and bone adverse events. The pharmacokinetic boosters ritonavir (RTV) and cobicistat (COBI) significantly increase plasma area under the curve (AUC) concentrations of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), by 25-37%. When combined with RTV or COBI, the dose of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is lowered from 25 mg to 10 mg daily, but the TDF dose is maintained at 300 mg daily.

Objective: To assess the differences in safety and efficacy between tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in regimens with and without the pharmacokinetic boosters RTV and COBI.

Methods: A PubMed/Embase search inclusive of dates up to 17 July 2017 identified 11 randomised head-to-head trials (8111 patients) of TDF versus TAF. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate pooled risk differences and 95% confidence intervals using random-effects models. A pre-defined sub-group analysis compared TAF with TDF, either when boosted with RTV or COBI, or when unboosted.

Results: Nine clinical trials compared TAF and TDF for treatment of HIV-1 and two were for hepatitis B treatment. The eleven clinical trials documented 4574 patients with boosting RTV or COBI in both arms, covering 7198 patient-years of follow-up. Some 3537 patients received unboosted regimens, totalling 3595 patient-years of follow-up. Boosted TDF-treated patients showed borderline lower HIV RNA suppression <50 copies/mL (P=0.05), more bone fractures (P=0.04), larger decreases in bone mineral density (P<0.001), and more discontinuations for bone (P=0.03) or renal (P=0.002) adverse events. By contrast, there were no significant differences in HIV RNA suppression rates or clinical safety endpoints between unboosted TAF and unboosted TDF.

Conclusions: TDF boosted with RTV or COBI was associated with higher risks of bone and renal adverse events, and lower HIV RNA suppression rates, compared with TAF. By contrast, when ritonavir and cobicistat were not used, there were no efficacy differences between TAF and TDF, and marginal differences in safety. The health economic value of TAF versus low-cost generic TDF may be limited when these drugs are used without cobicistat or ritonavir.

Keywords: antiretroviral therapy; bone density; cobicistat; HIV; kidney; ritonavir; tenofovir.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flowchart denoting study selection process from identification to inclusion.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Summary of trial data for outcome HIV RNA

Figure 3.

Forest plots of comparison through…

Figure 3.

Forest plots of comparison through all follow-up periods for (a) Patients with HIV…

Figure 3.
Forest plots of comparison through all follow-up periods for (a) Patients with HIV RNA
Similar articles
Cited by
References
    1. Vitoria M, Hill AM, Ford NP et al. . Choice of antiretroviral drugs for continued treatment scale-up in a public health approach: what more do we need to know? J Int AIDS Soc 2016; 19: 20504. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Imaz A, Podzamczer D.. Tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, elvitegravir, and cobicistat combination therapy for the treatment of HIV. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2017; 15: 195– 209. - PubMed
    1. Ray AS, Fordyce MW, Hitchcock MJ.. Tenofovir alafenamide: A novel prodrug of tenofovir for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus. Antivir Res 2015; 125: 63– 70. - PubMed
    1. Ruane PJ, DeJesus E, Berger D et al. . Antiviral activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of tenofovir alafenamide as 10-day monotherapy in HIV-1-positive adults. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013; 63: 449– 455. - PubMed
    1. Gotham D, Hill A, Pozniak AL.. Candidates for inclusion in a universal antiretroviral regimen: tenofovir alafenamide. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2017; 12: 324– 333. - PubMed
Show all 55 references
Publication types
Related information
LinkOut - more resources
Full text links [x]
[x]
Cite
Copy Download .nbib
Format: AMA APA MLA NLM
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Forest plots of comparison through all follow-up periods for (a) Patients with HIV RNA

References

    1. Vitoria M, Hill AM, Ford NP et al. . Choice of antiretroviral drugs for continued treatment scale-up in a public health approach: what more do we need to know? J Int AIDS Soc 2016; 19: 20504.
    1. Imaz A, Podzamczer D.. Tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, elvitegravir, and cobicistat combination therapy for the treatment of HIV. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2017; 15: 195– 209.
    1. Ray AS, Fordyce MW, Hitchcock MJ.. Tenofovir alafenamide: A novel prodrug of tenofovir for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus. Antivir Res 2015; 125: 63– 70.
    1. Ruane PJ, DeJesus E, Berger D et al. . Antiviral activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of tenofovir alafenamide as 10-day monotherapy in HIV-1-positive adults. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013; 63: 449– 455.
    1. Gotham D, Hill A, Pozniak AL.. Candidates for inclusion in a universal antiretroviral regimen: tenofovir alafenamide. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2017; 12: 324– 333.
    1. Markowitz M, Zolopa A, Ruane P et al. . GS-7340 demonstrates greater declines in HIV-1 RNA than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate during 14 days of monotherapy in HIV-1-infected subjects. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. March 2011. Boston, MA, USA. Abstract 152LB.
    1. Zack J, Doyle E, Graham H et al. . Bioequivalence of a fixed-dose combination of rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide to elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide and rilpivirine. European AIDS Conference. October 2015. Barcelona, Spain. Abstract PE10/6.
    1. Hoetelmans RMW, Mariën K, De Pauw M et al. . Pharmacokinetic interaction between TMC114/ritonavir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 64: 655– 661.
    1. Custodio JM, Garner W, Jin F et al. . Evaluation of the drug interaction potential between the pharmacokinetic enhancer cobicistat and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in healthy subjects. International Workshop on Clinical Pharmacology of HIV Therapy. April 2013. Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Abstract O_07.
    1. Kearney BP, Mathias A, Mittan A, Sayre J, Ebrahimi R, Cheng AK.. Pharmacokinetics and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on coadministration with lopinavir/ritonavir. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2006; 43: 278– 283.
    1. Gallant JE, Staszewski S, Pozniak AL et al. . Efficacy and safety of tenofovir DF vs stavudine in combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive patients. JAMA 2004; 292: 191– 201.
    1. Gallant JE, DeJesus E, Arribas JR et al. . Tenofovir DF, emtricitabine, and efavirenz vs zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz for HIV. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 251– 260.
    1. Cohen CJ, Molina J-M, Cahn P et al. . Efficacy and safety of rilpivirine (TMC278) versus efavirenz at 48 weeks in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: pooled results from the phase 3 double-blind randomized ECHO and THRIVE trials. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2012; 60: 33– 42.
    1. Post FA, Moyle GJ, Stellbrink HJ et al. . 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. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010; 55: 49– 57.
    1. Buti M, Tsai N, Petersen J et al. . Seven-year efficacy and safety of treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 1457– 64.
    1. Lafleur J, Bress A, Crook J et al. . Renal and bone outcomes among HIV-infected patients exposed to EFV/TDF/FTC compared with other tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing antiretroviral regimens: Findings from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Open Forum Infect Dis 2016; 3( Suppl 1).
    1. Poizot-Martin I, Solas C, Allemand J et al. . Renal impairment in patients receiving a tenofovir-cART regimen: Impact of tenofovir trough concentration. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013; 62: 375– 380.
    1. Cooper RD, Wiebe N, Smith N et al. . Systematic review and meta-analysis: Renal safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in HIV-infected patients. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51: 496– 505.
    1. Gallant JE, Daar ES, Raffi F et al. . 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. Lancet HIV 2016; 3: e158– 165.
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S. (Eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 ( updated March 2011). Available at: ( accessed March 2018).
    1. Maggi P, Montinaro V, Mussini C et al. . Novel antiretroviral drugs and renal function monitoring of HIV patients. AIDS Rev 2014; 16: 144– 151.
    1. Gallant J, Brunetta J, Crofoot G et al. . Brief report: efficacy and safety of switching to a single-tablet regimen of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide in HIV-1/hepatitis B-coinfected adults. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2016; 73: 294– 298.
    1. Agarwal K, Fung SK, Nguyen TT et al. . Twenty-eight day safety, antiviral activity, and pharmacokinetics of tenofovir alafenamide for treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection. J Hepatol 2015; 62: 533– 540.
    1. Havens P, Stephensen C, Van Loan M et al. . High dose vitamin D3 increases spine bone density in HIV+ youth on tenofovir (TDF). Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. February 2017. Seattle, WA, USA. Abstract 685LB.
    1. Madruga J, Cassetti I, Etzel A et al. . The safety and efficacy of tenofovir DF (TDF) in combination with lamivudine and efavirenz in antiretroviral naïve patients through seven years. J Int AIDS Soc 2008; 11( Suppl 1): P4.
    1. World Health Organization Transition to new antiretroviral drugs in HIV programmes: clinical and programmatic considerations; 2017. Available at: ( accessed March 2018).
    1. UNAIDS New high-quality antiretroviral therapy to be launched in South Africa, Kenya and over 90 low- and middle-income countries at reduced price; 2017. Available at: ( accessed March 2018).
    1. Mylan Mylan receives tentative approval for combination HIV treatment DTG/FTC/TAF under FDA's PEPFAR program. 2018. Available at: ( accessed: March 2018).
    1. World Health Organization WHO model lists of essential medicines (20th edn) 2017. Available at: ( accessed March 2018).
    1. Vitoria M, Ford N, Clayden P et al. . When could new antiretrovirals be recommended for national treatment programmes in low-income and middle-income countries: results of a WHO think tank. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2017; 12: 414– 422.
    1. HIV i-Base Fit for purpose: antiretroviral treatment optimisation for adults and children. 2017. Available at: ( accessed March 2018).
    1. Walensky RP, Horn TH, Paltiel AD.. The epi-TAF for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate? Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62: 915– 918.
    1. Treatment Action Group 2017. Pipeline Report: HIV, TB, and HCV. Available at: ( accessed March 2018).
    1. World Health Organization Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: recommendations for a public health approach. 2nd edn 2016. Available at: ( accessed March 2018).
    1. Hill A, Barber M, Gotham D et al. . Generic treatments for HIV, HBV, HCV, TB could be mass produced for <$90 per patient. International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science. July 2017. Paris, France. Abstract TUAD0104.
    1. Mills A, Crofoot G, McDonald C et al. . Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in the first protease inhibitor-based single-tablet regimen for initial HIV-1 therapy: a randomized Phase 2 study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2015; 69: 439– 445.
    1. Sax PE, Zolopa A, Brar I et al. . Tenofovir alafenamide vs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in single tablet regimens for initial HIV-1 therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2014; 67: 52– 58.
    1. Sax PE, Wohl D, Yin MT et al. . 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. Lancet 2015; 385: 2606– 2615.
    1. Arribas JR, Thompson M, Sax PE et al. . Brief report: randomized, double-blind comparison of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) vs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), each coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine (E/C/F) for initial HIV-1 treatment: week 144 results. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2017; 75: 211– 218.
    1. Wohl D, Oka S, Clumeck N et al. . Brief report: a randomized, double-blind comparison of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, each coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine for initial HIV-1 treatment: week 96 results. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2016; 72: 58– 64.
    1. Molina JM, Gallant J, Orkin C et al. . Efficacy and safety of switching from boosted-protease inhibitors plus emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimens to the single-tablet regimen (STR) of darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) in virologically suppressed, HIV-1-infected adults through 24 weeks: EMERALD Study. International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science. July 2017. Paris, France. Abstract TUAB0101.
    1. DeJesus E, Ramgopal M, Crofoot G et al. . Switching from efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide coformulated with rilpivirine and emtricitabine in virally suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, Phase 3b, non-inferiority study. Lancet HIV 2017; 4: e205– 213.
    1. Orkin C, DeJesus E, Ramgopal M et al. . Switching from rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (RPV/FTC/TDF) to rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (RPV/FTC/TAF): safety and efficacy through 48 weeks. International Congress of Drug Therapy in HIV Infection. October 2016. Glasgow, UK. Abstract O124.
    1. Raffi F, Orkin C, Clarke A et al. . Long-term (96-week) efficacy and safety after switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) in HIV-infected, virologically suppressed adults. International Congress of Drug Therapy in HIV Infection. October 2016. Glasgow, UK. Abstract O125.
    1. Orkin C, DeJesus E, Ramgopal M et al. . Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide coformulated with rilpivirine and emtricitabine in virally suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3b, non-inferiority study. Lancet HIV 2017; 4: e195– 204.
    1. Buti M, Gane E, Seto WK et al. . Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a randomised, double-blind, Phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 1: 196– 206.
    1. Seto W, Asahina Y, Peng C et al. . Reduced changes in bone mineral density in chronic HBV (CHB) patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Hepatology 2016; 64( 1 Suppl): 35A (abstract 67).
    1. Chan HLY, Fung S, Seto WK et al. . Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a randomised, double-blind, Phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 1: 185– 195.
    1. Chan A Phase 3 study of tenofovir alafenamide compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in patients with HBeAg-positive chronic HBV: Week 48 efficacy and safety results. GS12. International Liver Congress. April 2016. Barcelona, Spain. Abstract GS12.
    1. Post FA, Yazdanpanah Y, Schembri G et al. . Efficacy and safety of emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (FTC/TAF) vs emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) as a backbone for treatment of HIV-1 infection in virologically suppressed adults: subgroup analysis by third agent of a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled Phase 3 trial. HIV Clin Trials 2017; 18: 135– 140.
    1. Gallant JE, Daar E, Raffi F et al. . Switching tenofovir DF to tenofovir alafenamide in virologically suppressed adults. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. February 2016. Boston, MA, USA. Abstract 29.
    1. Raffi F, Orkin C, Clarke A et al. . Brief report: long-term (96-week) efficacy and safety after switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in HIV-infected, virologically suppressed adults. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2017; 75: 226– 231.
    1. Mills A, Arribas JR, Andrade-Villanueva J et al. . Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in antiretroviral regimens for virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, active-controlled, multicentre, open-label, Phase 3, non-inferiority study. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16: 43– 52.
    1. Thompson M, Morales-Ramirez J, McDonald C et al. . Switching from a TDF to a TAF-based single tablet regimen: week 48 data in HIV-1 infected virologically suppressed adults. ID Week 2015. October 2015. San Diego, CA, USA. Abstract 725.
    1. DeJesus E, Haas B, Segal-Maurer S et al. . Superior efficacy and improved renal and bone safety after switching from a tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen to a tenofovir alafenamide-based regimen through 96 weeks of treatment. ASM Microbe. June 2016. Boston, MA, USA. Abstract LB 087.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren