How Safe is TDF/FTC As PrEP? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Risk of Adverse Events in 13 Randomised Trials of PrEP

Overview

Journal J Virus Erad

Date 2018 Dec 6

PMID 30515300

Citations 34

Authors

Victoria Pilkington

Andrew Hill

Sophie Hughes

Nneka Nwokolo

Anton Pozniak

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) used as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has proven benefits in preventing HIV infection. Widespread use of TDF/FTC can only be justified if the preventative benefits outweigh potential risks of adverse events. A previous meta-analysis of TDF/FTC compared to alternative tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC for treatment found no significant difference in safety endpoints when used without ritonavir or cobicistat, but more evidence around the safety of TDF/FTC is needed to address concerns and inform widespread use.

Methods: A systematic review identified 13 randomised trials of PrEP, using either TDF/FTC or TDF, versus placebo or no treatment: VOICE, PROUD, IPERGAY, FEM-PrEP, TDF-2, iPrEX, IAVI Kenya, IAVI Uganda, PrEPare, PARTNERS, US Safety study, Bangkok TDF study, W African TDF study. The number of participants with grade 3/4 adverse events or serious adverse events (SAEs) was compared between treatment and control in the meta-analysis. Further analyses of specific renal and bone markers were also undertaken, with fractures as a marker of bone effects and creatinine elevations as a surrogate marker for renal impairment. Analyses were stratified by study duration (</>1 year of follow up).

Results: The 13 randomised trials included 15,678 participants in relevant treatment and control arms. Three studies assessed TDF use only. The number of participants with grade 3/4 adverse events was 1306/7504 (17.4%) on treatment versus 1259/7502 (16.8%) on control (difference=0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1% to +2%). The number of participants with SAEs was 740/7843 (9.4%) on treatment versus 795/7835 (10.1%) on no treatment (difference=0%, 95% CI -1% to +1%). The number of participants with creatinine elevations was 8/7843 on treatment versus 4/7835 on control (difference=0%, 95% CI 0%-0%). The number of participants with bone fractures was 217/5789 on treatment versus 189/5795 on control (difference=0%, 95% CI 0% to 1%). There was no difference in outcome between studies with <1 versus >1 year of randomised treatment.

Conclusions: In this meta-analysis of 13 randomised clinical trials of PrEP in 15,678 participants, there was no significant difference in risk of grade 3/4 clinical adverse events or SAEs between TDF/FTC (or TDF) and control. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in risk of specific renal or bone adverse outcomes. The favourable safety profile of TDF/FTC would support more widespread use PrEP in populations with a lower risk of HIV infection.

Citing Articles

Elucidating the effect of drug-induced mitochondrial dysfunction on insulin signaling and glucose handling in skeletal muscle cell line (C2C12) in vitro.

Kuretu A, Mothibe M, Ngubane P, Sibiya N PLoS One. 2024; 19(9):e0310406.

PMID: 39288128 PMC: 11407670. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310406.

Challenges, risks, and opportunities of antiretroviral drugs in women of reproductive potential.

Henderson A, Cholli P, Lampe M, Kourtis A Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2024; 22(4):153-167.

PMID: 38517686 PMC: 11287786. DOI: 10.1080/14787210.2024.2334054.

Adverse effects of daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men and transgender women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pereira M, de Castro C, Magno L, de Almeida Oliveira T, Gomes F, Neves F Cad Saude Publica. 2023; 39Suppl 1(Suppl 1):e00089522.

PMID: 38088646 PMC: 10712916. DOI: 10.1590/0102-311XEN089522.

Use of Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate for HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and Incidence of Hypertension and Initiation of Statins.

Rivera A, Pak K, Mefford M, Hechter R JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(9):e2332968.

PMID: 37695583 PMC: 10495863. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.32968.

Prophylaxis by doravirine-lamivudine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or elvitegravir-cobicistat-emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide after sexual exposure to HIV.

Devred I, Kayembe K, Valin N, Rougier H, Shinga B, Lambert-Niclot S BMC Infect Dis. 2023; 23(1):578.

PMID: 37667182 PMC: 10478445. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08544-x.

References

Alistar S, Owens D, Brandeau M . Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in a portfolio of prevention programs for injection drug users in mixed HIV epidemics. PLoS One. 2014; 9(1):e86584. PMC: 3904940. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086584. View

Dimitrov D, Boily M, Hallett T, Albert J, Boucher C, Mellors J . How Much Do We Know about Drug Resistance Due to PrEP Use? Analysis of Experts' Opinion and Its Influence on the Projected Public Health Impact. PLoS One. 2016; 11(7):e0158620. PMC: 4938235. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158620. View

Caceres C, OReilly K, Mayer K, Baggaley R . PrEP implementation: moving from trials to policy and practice. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015; 18(4 Suppl 3):20222. PMC: 4509896. DOI: 10.7448/IAS.18.4.20222. View

Grant R, Anderson P, McMahan V, Liu A, Amico K, Mehrotra M . Uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis, sexual practices, and HIV incidence in men and transgender women who have sex with men: a cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014; 14(9):820-9. PMC: 6107918. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70847-3. View

Hill A, Hughes S, Gotham D, Pozniak A . Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: is there a true difference in efficacy and safety?. J Virus Erad. 2018; 4(2):72-79. PMC: 5892670. View

Martin M, Vanichseni S, Suntharasamai P, Sangkum U, Mock P, Gvetadze R . Renal function of participants in the Bangkok tenofovir study--Thailand, 2005-2012. Clin Infect Dis. 2014; 59(5):716-24. PMC: 11310895. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciu355. View

McCormack S, Dunn D, Desai M, Dolling D, Gafos M, Gilson R . Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2015; 387(10013):53-60. PMC: 4700047. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00056-2. View

Hosek S, Siberry G, Bell M, Lally M, Kapogiannis B, Green K . The acceptability and feasibility of an HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) trial with young men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013; 62(4):447-56. PMC: 3656981. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182801081. View

Thigpen M, Kebaabetswe P, Paxton L, Smith D, Rose C, Segolodi T . Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(5):423-34. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110711. View

10.

Andrews C, St Bernard L, Poon A, Mohri H, Gettie N, Spreen W . Cabotegravir long acting injection protects macaques against intravenous challenge with SIVmac251. AIDS. 2016; 31(4):461-467. PMC: 5263045. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001343. View

11.

Baeten J, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo N, Campbell J, Wangisi J . Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(5):399-410. PMC: 3770474. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1108524. View

12.

Glidden D, Mulligan K, McMahan V, Anderson P, Guanira J, Chariyalertsak S . Metabolic Effects of Preexposure Prophylaxis With Coformulated Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Emtricitabine. Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 67(3):411-419. PMC: 6051460. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy083. View

13.

Van Damme L, Corneli A, Ahmed K, Agot K, Lombaard J, Kapiga S . Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(5):411-22. PMC: 3687217. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1202614. View

14.

Fonner V, Dalglish S, Kennedy C, Baggaley R, OReilly K, Koechlin F . Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis for all populations. AIDS. 2016; 30(12):1973-83. PMC: 4949005. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001145. View

15.

Gust D, Soud F, Hardnett F, Malotte C, Rose C, Kebaabetswe P . Evaluation of Sexual Risk Behavior Among Study Participants in the TDF2 PrEP Study Among Heterosexual Adults in Botswana. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016; 73(5):556-563. PMC: 6066668. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001143. View

16.

Kaspar M, Sterling R . Mechanisms of liver disease in patients infected with HIV. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2017; 4(1):e000166. PMC: 5663263. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2017-000166. View

17.

Arnold T, Brinkley-Rubinstein L, Chan P, Perez-Brumer A, Bologna E, Beauchamps L . Social, structural, behavioral and clinical factors influencing retention in Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) care in Mississippi. PLoS One. 2017; 12(2):e0172354. PMC: 5319650. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172354. View

18.

Marcus J, Hurley L, Hare C, Nguyen D, Phengrasamy T, Silverberg M . Preexposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention in a Large Integrated Health Care System: Adherence, Renal Safety, and Discontinuation. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016; 73(5):540-546. PMC: 5424697. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001129. View

19.

Underhill K . Study designs for identifying risk compensation behavior among users of biomedical HIV prevention technologies: balancing methodological rigor and research ethics. Soc Sci Med. 2013; 94:115-23. PMC: 4047426. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.020. View

20.

Marcus J, Glidden D, Mayer K, Liu A, Buchbinder S, Amico K . No evidence of sexual risk compensation in the iPrEx trial of daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis. PLoS One. 2013; 8(12):e81997. PMC: 3867330. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081997. View