4.3 Article

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

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001350

关键词

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

资金

  1. Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead)
  2. Gilead Sciences (Gilead)
  3. ViiV
  4. Janssen Therapeutics (Janssen)
  5. AbbVie
  6. Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS)
  7. Merck Laboratories (Merck)
  8. Gilead Sciences
  9. BMS
  10. GeoVax
  11. Kowa Research Institute
  12. Merck
  13. Pfizer
  14. Tobira
  15. Janssen
  16. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
  17. Gilead
  18. GSK
  19. Abbott Laboratories
  20. Achillion Pharmaceuticals
  21. Avexa
  22. Idenix
  23. Sangamo
  24. Taimed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 2 double-blind phase 3 trials, 1733 antiretroviral-naive adults were randomized to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), each coformulated with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine (E/C/F). At 144 weeks, TAF was superior to TDF in virologic efficacy, with 84.2% vs 80.0% having HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (difference 4.2%; 95% confidence interval: 0.6% to 7.8%). TAF had less impact than TDF on bone mineral density and renal biomarkers. No participants on TAF had renal-related discontinuations vs 12 on TDF (P < 0.001), with no cases of proximal tubulopathy for TAF vs 4 for TDF. There were greater increases in lipids with TAF vs TDF, with no difference in the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein ratio. For initial HIV therapy, E/C/F/TAF is superior to E/C/F/TDF in efficacy and bone and renal safety.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据