» Articles » PMID: 33850298

ABCC4 Single-nucleotide Polymorphisms As Markers of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate-induced Kidney Impairment

Overview
Date 2021 Apr 14
PMID 33850298
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Recently, the use of antiretroviral drug tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is increased, thanks to the new co-formulation with doravirine, the availability of booster-free regimens, and its advantageous lipid-lowering effect. The aim of our study was to identify genetic markers that contribute to assess the risk of TDF-related renal toxicity. We have retrospectively investigated, in 179 HIV positive patients treated with TDF, the association between the main variants in ABCC2, ABCC4, and ABCC10 genes and four safety endpoints, three clinically relevant as renal outcomes and a higher tenofovir plasma concentration. In patients with an annual eGFR decline >5 mL/min/1.73 m a difference in genotype frequencies was observed for ABCC10 c.1875 + 526 G>A (3 subjects AA vs. 44 GG + GA, p = 0.045). In patients with an eGFR decrement >25%, plus a decline in GFR category and TDF discontinuation, a difference was observed for ABCC4 c.*38T>G (35 subjects TG + GG vs. 18 TT, p = 0.052). At univariate analysis OR was 1.39 [(95% CI 1.00-1.96) p = 0.054] and at multivariate analysis OR was 1.49 [(95% CI 1.00-2.22) p = 0.049]. The stronger associations were found between the tenofovir accumulation and ABCC4 c.*38T>G and c.3348G>A: the percentage of these patients was higher in the TG + GG (p = 0.011) and in the AA (p = 0.004) genotype, respectively. The logistic regression analysis confirmed these significant relationships. No significant association was observed in patients with eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m and with the studied ABCC2 polymorphisms. Our results show a major role for a combined determination of ABCC4/ABCC10 variants as an indicator of tenofovir toxicity in the clinical practice.

Citing Articles

Pharmacogenetics of tenofovir renal toxicity in HIV-positive Southern Africans.

Mateza S, Bradford Y, Maartens G, Sokhela S, Chandiwana N, Venter W Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2023; 33(5):91-100.

PMID: 37099271 PMC: 10234323. DOI: 10.1097/FPC.0000000000000491.


Pharmacokinetic Model of Tenofovir and Emtricitabine and Their Intracellular Metabolites in Patients in the ANRS 134-COPHAR 3 Trial Using Dose Records.

Bertrand J, Barrail-Tran A, Fayette L, Savic R, Goujard C, Teicher E Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2023; 67(5):e0233918.

PMID: 37098914 PMC: 10190280. DOI: 10.1128/aac.02339-18.

References
1.
Wassner C, Bradley N, Lee Y . A Review and Clinical Understanding of Tenofovir: Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate versus Tenofovir Alafenamide. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2020; 19:2325958220919231. PMC: 7163232. DOI: 10.1177/2325958220919231. View

2.
Kauppinen K, Kivela P, Sutinen J . Switching from Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate to Tenofovir Alafenamide Significantly Worsens the Lipid Profile in a Real-World Setting. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2019; 33(12):500-506. DOI: 10.1089/apc.2019.0236. View

3.
Pilkington V, Hughes S, Pepperrell T, Mccann K, Gotham D, Pozniak A . Tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: an updated meta-analysis of 14 894 patients across 14 trials. AIDS. 2020; 34(15):2259-2268. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002699. View

4.
Boyle A, Moss C, Marzolini C, Khoo S . Clinical Pharmacodynamics, Pharmacokinetics, and Drug Interaction Profile of Doravirine. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2019; 58(12):1553-1565. DOI: 10.1007/s40262-019-00806-9. View

5.
Moss D, Neary M, Owen A . The role of drug transporters in the kidney: lessons from tenofovir. Front Pharmacol. 2014; 5:248. PMC: 4227492. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2014.00248. View