Brain neurotransmitter transporter/receptor genomics and efavirenz central nervous system adverse events

Objective We characterized associations between central nervous system (CNS) adverse events and brain neurotransmitter transporter/receptor genomics among participants randomized to efavirenz-containing regimens in AIDS Clinical Trials Group studies in the USA. Participants and methods Four clinical trials randomly assigned treatment-naive participants to efavirenzcontaining regimens. Genome-wide genotype and PrediXcan were used to infer gene expression levels in tissues including 10 brain regions. Multivariable regression models stratified by race/ethnicity were adjusted for CYP2B6/CYP2A6 genotypes that predict plasma efavirenz exposure, age, and sex. Combined analyses also adjusted for genetic ancestry. Results Analyses included 167 cases with grade 2 or greater efavirenz-consistent CNS adverse events within 48 weeks of study entry, and 653 efavirenz-tolerant controls. CYP2B6/CYP2A6 genotype level was independently associated with CNS adverse events (odds ratio: 1.07; P=0.044). Predicted expression of six genes postulated to mediate efavirenz CNS side effects (SLC6A2, SLC6A3, PGR, HTR2A, HTR2B, HTR6) were not associated with CNS adverse events after correcting for multiple testing, the lowest P value being for PGR in hippocampus (P=0.012), nor were polymorphisms in these genes or AR and HTR2C, the lowest P value being for rs12393326 in HTR2C (P=6.7 × 10-4). As a positive control, baseline plasma bilirubin concentration was associated with predicted liver UGT1A1 expression level (P=1.9 × 10-27). Conclusion Efavirenz-related CNS adverse events were not associated with predicted neurotransmitter transporter/receptor gene expression levels in brain or with polymorphisms in these genes. Variable susceptibility to efavirenz-related CNS adverse events may not be explained by brain neurotransmitter transporter/receptor genomics

Real-world efficacy of direct acting antiviral therapies in patients with HIV/HCV

The advent of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies has dramatically transformed HCV treatment, with most recent trials demonstrating high efficacy rates (>90%) across all genotypes and special populations, including patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. The efficacy rates of HCV treatment are nearly identical between patients with HCV monofection and patients with HIV/HCV coinfection; however, there are limited studies to compare real-world efficacy with efficacy observed in clinical trials. Using a database from HIV clinics across the United States (US), we identified 432 patients with HIV/HCV coinfection who completed DAA therapy from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2017 and were assessed for efficacy. Efficacy was evaluated as sustained virologic response (SVR) 12 weeks after DAA completion; furthermore, factors associated with achieving SVR12 were identified. In this analysis, we found DAA therapies to be effective, with 94% of the patients achieving SVR12 and 6% experiencing virologic failure. Baseline variables, including older age, HCV viral load <800K IU/ML, FIB-4 score <1.45, absence of depression, diabetes, substance abuse, and use of DAA regimens without ribavirin were significant predictors of achieving SVR12. Patients with fewer comorbidities, better liver health, and lower HCV viral loads at baseline were more likely to achieve treatment success. Our results were consistent with other real-world studies, supporting the use of HCV therapy in HIV/HCV coinfected patients

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

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

Renal safety of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: A pooled analysis of 26 clinical trials

Objective:Compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) has been associated with improvement in markers of renal dysfunction in individual randomized trials; however, the comparative incidence of clinically significant renal events remains unclear.Design:We used a pooled data approach to increase the person-years of drug exposure analysed, maximizing our ability to detect differences in clinically significant outcomes.Methods:We pooled clinical renal safety data across 26 treatment-naive and antiretroviral switch studies to compare the incidence of proximal renal tubulopathy and discontinuation due to renal adverse events between participants taking TAF-containing regimens vs. those taking TDF-containing regimens. We performed secondary analyses from seven large randomized studies (two treatment-naive and five switch studies) to compare incidence of renal adverse events, treatment-emergent proteinuria, changes in serum creatinine, creatinine clearance, and urinary biomarkers (albumin, beta-2-microglobulin, and retinol binding protein-to-creatinine ratios).Results:Our integrated analysis included 9322 adults and children with HIV (n = 6360 TAF, n = 2962 TDF) with exposure of 12 519 person-years to TAF and 5947 to TDF. There were no cases of proximal renal tubulopathy in participants receiving TAF vs. 10 cases in those receiving TDF (P < 0.001), and fewer individuals on TAF (3/6360) vs. TDF (14/2962) (P < 0.001) discontinued due to a renal adverse event. Participants initiating TAF-based vs. TDF-based regimens had more favourable changes in renal biomarkers through 96 weeks of therapy.Conclusion:These pooled data from 26 studies, with over 12 500 person-years of follow-up in children and adults, support the comparative renal safety of TAF over TDF

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

In 2 double-blinded Phase 3 trials, 1733 antiretroviralnaive 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: 21.8% 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

Track E Implementation Science, Health Systems and Economics

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138412/1/jia218443.pd

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

Background: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate can cause renal and bone toxic effects related to high plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug with a 90% reduction in plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimens can have improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens. Methods: In these two controlled, double-blind phase 3 studies, we recruited treatment-naive HIV-infected patients with an estimated creatinine clearance of 50 mL per min or higher from 178 outpatient centres in 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily oral tablets containing 150 mg elvitegravir, 150 mg cobicistat, 200 mg emtricitabine, and 10 mg tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide) or 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) with matching placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size 4) and was stratified by HIV-1 RNA, CD4 count, and region (USA or ex-USA). Investigators, patients, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in the primary intention-to-treat efficacy and safety analyses. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 as defined by the the US Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) snapshot algorithm (pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 12%) and pre-specified renal and bone endpoints at 48 weeks. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01780506 and NCT01797445. Findings: We recruited patients from Jan 22, 2013, to Nov 4, 2013 (2175 screened and 1744 randomly assigned), and gave treatment to 1733 patients (866 given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide and 867 given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with 800 (92%) of 866 patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group and 784 (90%) of 867 patients in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group having plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 2·0%, 95% CI -0·7 to 4·7). Patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide had significantly smaller mean serum creatinine increases than those given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (0·08 vs 0·12 mg/dL; p<0·0001), significantly less proteinuria (median % change -3 vs 20; p<0·0001), and a significantly smaller decrease in bone mineral density at spine (mean % change -1·30 vs -2·86; p<0·0001) and hip (-0·66 vs -2·95; p<0·0001) at 48 weeks. Interpretation: Through 48 weeks, more than 90% of patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide or E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had virological success. Renal and bone effects were significantly reduced in patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide. Although these studies do not have the power to assess clinical safety events such as renal failure and fractures, our data suggest that E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide will have a favourable long-term renal and bone safety profile. Funding: Gilead Sciences. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd

Tamoxifen favoured the rat sensorial cortex regeneration after a penetrating brain injury

Background: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate can cause renal and bone toxic effects related to high plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug with a 90% reduction in plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimens can have improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens. Methods: In these two controlled, double-blind phase 3 studies, we recruited treatment-naive HIV-infected patients with an estimated creatinine clearance of 50 mL per min or higher from 178 outpatient centres in 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily oral tablets containing 150 mg elvitegravir, 150 mg cobicistat, 200 mg emtricitabine, and 10 mg tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide) or 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) with matching placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size 4) and was stratified by HIV-1 RNA, CD4 count, and region (USA or ex-USA). Investigators, patients, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in the primary intention-to-treat efficacy and safety analyses. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 as defined by the the US Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) snapshot algorithm (pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 12%) and pre-specified renal and bone endpoints at 48 weeks. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01780506 and NCT01797445. Findings: We recruited patients from Jan 22, 2013, to Nov 4, 2013 (2175 screened and 1744 randomly assigned), and gave treatment to 1733 patients (866 given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide and 867 given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with 800 (92%) of 866 patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group and 784 (90%) of 867 patients in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group having plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 2 0%, 95% CI -0 7 to 4 7). Patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide had significantly smaller mean serum creatinine increases than those given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (0 08 vs 0 12 mg/dL; p<0 0001), significantly less proteinuria (median % change -3 vs 20; p<0 0001), and a significantly smaller decrease in bone mineral density at spine (mean % change -1 30 vs -2 86; p<0 0001) and hip (-0 66 vs -2 95; p<0 0001) at 48 weeks. Interpretation: Through 48 weeks, more than 90% of patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide or E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had virological success. Renal and bone effects were significantly reduced in patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide. Although these studies do not have the power to assess clinical safety events such as renal failure and fractures, our data suggest that E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide will have a favourable long-term renal and bone safety profile. Funding: Gilead Sciences. " 2015 Elsevier Ltd.",,,,,,"10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60616-X",,,"http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12104/44992","http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84927586093&partnerID=40&md5=fdc5f0e69f8f03ab50642a6a5d057fab",,,,,,,,"The Lancet",,,,,,"Scopus",,,,,,,,,,,,"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",,"Article in Press" "46737","123456789/35008",,"Franco Rodríguez, N.E., Laboratorio de Neurofisiología, Edificio P, Tercer piso, Departamento de Fisiología, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco CP 44340, Mexico; Dueñas Jiménez, J.M., Laboratorio de Neurofisiología, Edificio P, Tercer piso, Departamento de Fisiología, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco CP 44340, Mexico; De la Torre Valdovinos, B., Laboratorio de Neurofisiología, Edificio P, Tercer piso, Departamento de Fisiología, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco CP 44340, Mexico; López Ruiz, J.R., Laboratorio de Neurofisiología, Edificio P, Tercer piso, Departamento de Fisiología, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco CP 44340, Mexico; Hernández Hernández, L., Laboratorio de Neurofisiología, Edificio P, Tercer piso, Departamento de Fisiología, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco CP 44340, Mexico; Dueñas Jiménez, S.H., Departamento de Neurociencias, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara, Sierra Mojada 950, Colonia Independencia, Guadalajara, Jalisco CP 44340, Mexico",,"Franco Rodriguez, N.E