4.3 Article

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

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000940

Keywords

tenofovir alafenamide; integrase inhibitor; randomized controlled trial; HIV; bone mineral density; renal safety

Funding

  1. Gilead Sciences
  2. Gilead
  3. Merck
  4. ViiV
  5. Janssen
  6. AbbVie
  7. MSD
  8. Torii Pharmaceutical
  9. Japan Tobacco Inc.
  10. BMS
  11. Synergy
  12. Shionogi
  13. Astra Zeneca
  14. Sangamo
  15. GSK
  16. Novo Nordisc
  17. Theratech
  18. Sliagen
  19. Jansen
  20. Tibotech
  21. Roche
  22. CytoDyn
  23. Themis
  24. Vertex

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 2 double-blinded Phase 3 trials, 1733 antiretroviral-naive participants were randomized to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), a tenofovir prodrug versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), each coformulated with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine (E/C/F). At 96 weeks, 86.6% in the TAF arm and 85.2% in the TDF arm had HIV-1 RNA <50 c/mL [difference 1.5%; (95% CI: -1.8% to 4.8%)]. With TAF, there are smaller declines in bone mineral density and more favorable changes in proteinuria, albuminuria, and tubular proteinuria, and no cases of proximal tubulopathy compared with 2 for TDF. These longer-term data support E/C/F/TAF as a safe, welltolerated, and durable regimen for initial HIV-1 treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available