Treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or entecavir in chronic hepatitis B virus-infected patients with renal impairment: results from a 7-year, multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BackgroundLimited data exist regarding tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) safety and effectiveness in chronic hepatitis B virus-infected (CHB) patients with renal impairment (RI).AimsTo compare real-world data on renal safety and effectiveness of TDF vs entecavir (ETV) in CHB patients with moderate-to-severe RI.MethodsRetrospective, non-interventional, cohort study analysing medical records for TDF/ETV-treated CHB patients (54 European centres). Included patients experienced moderate-to-severe RI (creatinine clearance 20-60 mL/min [Cockcroft-Gault]) either before TDF/ETV initiation ('before' subgroup [baseline = treatment initiation]) or after TDF/ETV initiation ('after' subgroup [baseline = first RI occurrence]). The primary objective was TDF safety, particularly renal-related adverse events of special interest (AESI). TDF and ETV safety and effectiveness were compared and multivariate analyses were performed using inverse probability treatment weighting.Results'Before' subgroup included 107 TDF- and 91 ETV-treated patients; 'after' subgroup included 212 TDF- and 77 ETV-treated patients. Mean baseline creatinine clearance was higher for TDF- vs ETV-treated patients (both subgroups). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (both treatments). AESI were more frequent with TDF vs ETV ('before': 18.7% vs 8.8%; 'after': 9.9% vs 3.9%); however, differences were not significant by multivariate analysis. Only TDF-treated patients experienced renal tubular dysfunction (6.5% 'before'; 1.9% 'after') as well as renal adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (8.4% 'before'; 7.1% 'after'). Effectiveness was similar between treatments.ConclusionsOverall safety was similar for TDF vs ETV (both subgroups). Given that renal tubular dysfunction occurred with TDF and not with ETV, renal safety concerns may be greater with TDF in CHB patients with RI

Results of a prospective non-interventional post-authorization safety study of idelalisib in Germany

Background: In pivotal studies, idelalisib demonstrated remarkable efficacy and manageable tolerability in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and follicular lymphoma (FL). This prospective, multicenter, non-interventional post-authorization study assessed the characteristics, clinical management, and outcome of CLL and FL patients receiving idelalisib in routine clinical practice in Germany. Patients: Observational study in CLL and FL patients treated with idelalisib between September 2015 and December 2020. Results: A total of 147 patients with CLL and FL were included with a median age of 75 and 71 years, respectively. More than 80% of patients presented with comorbidity and many CLL patients with documented high-risk genetic features, including del(17p)/TP53 mutation or unmutated IGHV. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached in the CLL cohort irrespective of del(17p)/TP53 or unmutated IGHV. The estimated 6-month PFS and OS rates in CLL were 82% and 92%. The estimated 6-month PFS and OS rates for FL were 32.2% and 77.2%. Overall response rates in the CLL and FL cohorts were 70.4% and 36.4%, with the presence of high-risk genetics having no negative impact. No unexpected adverse events were observed. Most frequently reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were diarrhea, nausea, pneumonia, rash, and fatigue. Conclusion: This real-world study shows that idelalisib is an effective therapy for CLL and FL, regardless of age and high-risk genetic features, consistent with results from previous clinical trials. Collected safety data and the pattern of ADRs reflect those from previous studies