How does Descovy compare with Truvada (generic available)? Are there differences in the clinical application?

Comment by InpharmD Researcher

Numerous studies have compared Truvada (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine) and Descovy (tenofovir alafenamide fumarate plus emtricitabine). While both products are considered efficacious and safe, comparative outcomes diverge in some scenarios, most notably in regard to renal and bone mineral density (BMD) outcomes. Pooled data have indicated fewer renal events associated with the use of Descovy. Additionally, Descovy has been associated with a less significant decline in BMD compared to Truvada, particularly at the hip and spine. For patients with pertinent risk factors, Descovy may be preferred.

Background

A 2020 meta-analysis assessed the impact of oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine (TDF plus FTC; Truvada) on bone mineral density (BMD) and risk of osteoporosis, low bone mass, and fractures among people taking it as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment. Of the 25 included studies, ten investigated PrEP users, while 15 investigated HIV, with a minimum duration of 48 ± 4 weeks. Compared to non-TDF users, those taking TDF had a significantly greater BMD decline when taken for PrEP (lumbar spine: mean difference [MD] -0.82%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.28 to -0.37%, I^2= 38%; total hip: MD -0.81%, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.40%, I^2= 48%) and HIV treatment (lumbar spine: MD -1.62%, 95% CI -2.30 to -0.95%, I^2=93%; total hip: MD -1.75%, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.42%, I^2=83%; femoral neck: MD -1.26%, 95% CI -2.15 to -0.38%, I^2= 43%). Results on the incidence of osteoporosis or low bone mass varied among examined studies. Pooled data from 5 studies revealed no significantly increased risk of fractures associated with TDF compared with no PrEP (rate ratio 1.12, 95% CI 0.752 to 1.74, I^2= 26%). Though not directly compared to tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF; Descovy), study findings illustrate the clinically significant BMD decline caused by TDF, suggesting its use should be closely considered in those with existing risk factors of bone loss. [1]

A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of TDF and TAF, incorporating 14 clinical trials (N= 14,894 patients). The key efficacy outcome, a number of patients achieving viral suppression (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL), was evaluated based on 9 studies. In patients boosted with a third agent, either a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) or integrase or protease inhibitor, 94% of patients receiving TAF/emtricitabine became or remained virally suppressed at 48 weeks, compared to 92% of TDF/emtricitabine patients (difference 2%, 95% CI 1-4%, p= 0.0004). For unboosted patients, 89% vs. 90% were virally suppressed at 48 weeks, respectively, with no significant difference between groups. No significant difference was reported between TAF and TDF for bone parameters and also for the occurrence of adverse events of any grade or death from any cause. For renal parameters, a greater number of discontinuations due to renal adverse events occurred in the boosted regimen subgroup (p= 0.03). [2]

A 2020 meta-analysis provided another general comparison of the efficacy and safety of regimens containing TAF vs. TDF. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included (N= 6,269 participants). General results again concluded similar efficacy; adult patients who were antiretroviral-naive with HIV-1 on both the TAF-containing and the TDF-containing regimens were observed to express similar combined virologic suppression effects (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00–1.04; p> 0.05) at week 24 (93.99% vs. 94.20%), week 48 (90.71% vs. 89.54%), and week 96 (86.16% vs. 84.80%). Neither group demonstrated significant improvements in CD4 cell count for the naive patients during 48 weeks of therapy (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.16; p<0.05). While most adverse events were similar between groups, there was a divergence between TAF and TDF for bone-related outcomes. Based on data from 5 RCTs, median percentage change in BMD decreases of > 3% were 15.82% (TAF-containing regimens) vs. 47.42% (TDF-containing regimens) at the hip, and 26.93% (TAF-containing regimens) vs. 46.20% (TDF-containing regimens) at the spine, respectively. TDF-containing regimens were associated with more significant declines in BMD vs. TAF-containing regimens in both the hip (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.29–0.39; p<0.05) and spine (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51–0.65; p<0.05) over 48 weeks. BMD changes in the hip with TAF regimens were significantly smaller at both the hip (−0.51 vs. −2.95, p<0.05) and the spine (−1.17 vs. −3.01, p<0.05) compared to TDF-containing regimens from baseline to week 48. Additionally, over 48 weeks, a biomarker of bone turnover, procollagen Type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP), was significantly decreased in TAF-containing regimens (4.63 vs. 48.70, p<0.05). Additionally, data from 6 RCTs again demonstrated significantly lower renal events with TAF-containing regimens than with TDF-containing regimens after 48 weeks (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18–0.55; p<0.05). [3]

A 2019 study performed a pooled analysis of 26 clinical studies observing renal safety data between TAF and TDF (either as treatment-naive or antiretroviral switch studies). Data were collected based on A total of 9,322 adult and children patients which equated to 12,519 person-years exposure to TAF and 5,947 person-years exposure to TDF. Proximal renal tubulopathy events were the primary renal safety outcomes along with discontinuation due to renal events. Ten episodes of proximal renal tubulopathy occurred in the TDF group versus none in the TAF group (p<0.001), and there were 14 discontinuations due to renal events in the TDF group versus 3 in the TAF group (p<0.001). Two studies of treatment-naive patients observed fewer renal adverse events in the TAF group versus the TDF group (5.4% vs. 8.5%; p= 0.042). Five studies of virologically suppressed people with HIV saw no difference in renal adverse events when switching from TDF to TAF or continuing baseline TDF regimens (5% vs. 5%; p= 1.00). Concomitant medications that may have influenced the reported outcomes as boosting agents like ritonavir and cobicistat are also known to contain renal risk. [4]

A 2021 study explored the estimated effects of treatment-related (e.g., dolutegravir) maternal weight gain on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Using a meta-analysis, the relative risk (RR) of adverse pregnancy outcomes was established for women with pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 vs. normal BMIs of 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m^2. A hypothetical scenario was created, based on a sample of 3,000 nonpregnant women with normal baseline BMIs who were evenly divided to receive tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine/dolutegravir (TAF/FTC+DTG), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine/dolutegravir (TDF/FTC+DTG), or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine/efavirenz (TDF/FTC/EFV). The treatment-associated obesity rates from the ADVANCE trial were used to calculate the number of women with obese and normal BMIs expected at Week 96 in this hypothetical sample of 3,000 nonpregnant women. Based on the ADVANCE trial, the treatment-associated obesity rates at Week 96 in women with a normal baseline BMI were 14.1% for TAF/FTC+DTG, 7.9% for TDF/FTC+DTG, and 1.5% for TDF/FTC/EFV. Subsequently, incorporating established RR of adverse pregnancy outcomes based on previous meta-analysis, the percentage increase in the number of women predicted to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes at their Week 0 BMI versus Week 96 BMI was 10% with TAF/FTC+DTG and 5% with TDF/FTC+DTG compared to only 1% with TDF/FTC/EV, likely reflecting an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes with TAF in these hypothetical samples of patients with treatment-associated obesity. [5]

A 2020 cost-effective study was performed to assess the non-inferiority of Descovy versus generic TDF as PrEP among U.S. men who have sex with men (MSM) based on a potentially improved safety profile. Previous studies were collected for analysis. A five-year time horizon was established, and the highest predictive price of branded Descovy was compared to generic TDF. To reflect the extreme input values, the efficacy and safety of Descovy were intentionally favored over TDF while attempting to avoid overstating the consequences on bone and renal effects. Hip fracture rates have attributed a cost of $70,400, while costs from renal complications were estimated to be around $92,100 to $95,500 based on age-dependent hemodialysis costs. The estimated price of Descovy was $16,600/year, while the assumed generic price for TDF was $8,300/year (price reduction of 50%). Age was a significant factor in determining cost efficacy. [6]

Based on these parameters, all patients switching to Descovy would increase total expenditures over five years by $5.0 billion U.S. dollars. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $7,201,200/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was identified based on Descovy potentially averting 2,101 excess hip fractures and 25 excess end-stage renal disease cases. The additional cost per person was estimated to increase by $370 per person. While there may be a benefit to using the newer brand-name product, the authors do not presume an urgency to switch from generic TDF to Descovy which would increase the payer's cost. [6]

A 2021 pharmacokinetic study compared concentrations of tenofovir-diphosphate (TFV-DP), the active metabolite of tenofovir, in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from less than daily dosing between TAF and TDF. To evaluate TFV-DP concentrations in patients with low, medium, and high adherence, two separate, randomized, directly observed therapy (DOT) crossover studies (DOT-DBS and TAF-DBS) were conducted. HIV-negative adults were randomized to a 12-week regimen of either emtricitabine/TAF 200 mg/25 mg (TAF-DBS) or emtricitabine/ TDF 200 mg/300 mg (DOT-DBS), each with 33%, 67% or 100% of daily dosing compliance, separated by a 12-week washout period. Specific dosing regimens were defined as follows: 33% was dosing on day 1, followed by no dosing on days 2-3, repeated for a total of 12 weeks; 67% was dosing on days 1 and 2, followed by no dosing on day 3, repeated for 12 weeks; 100% was daily dosing for 12 weeks. Steady-state concentrations (Css) in PBMCs were quantified and compared periodically. At different daily dose adherence levels (100%, 67%, and 33%), PBMC TFV-DP Css for emtricitabine/TAF were 7.3- (95% CI 6.4 to 8.2), 7.1- (95% CI 5.9 to 8.2), and 6.7- (95% CI 4.4 to 8.9) fold higher (p<0.0001) vs. emtricitabine/TDF. Additionally, TFV-DP was 2.6-fold higher with 33% emtricitabine/TAF vs. 100% emtricitabine/TDF. Emtricitabine/TAF regimen also exhibited a longer estimated half-life of TFV-DP in PBMC compared to emtricitabine/TDF (2.9 vs. 2.1 days). Overall, results support increased potency and pharmacologic forgiveness with emtricitabine/TAF in the PBMC compartment; however, TFV-DP concentrations in the mucosa or lymph node tissue were not evaluated in this study. [7]

References: [1] Baranek B, Wang S, Cheung AM, Mishra S, Tan DH. The effect of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on bone mineral density: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antivir Ther. 2020;25(1):21-32. doi:10.3851/IMP3346
[2] Pilkington V, Hughes SL, Pepperrell T, et al. 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
[3] Tao X, Lu Y, Zhou Y, Zhang L, Chen Y. Efficacy and safety of the regimens containing tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in fixed-dose single-tablet regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;93:108-117. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.01.035
[4] Gupta SK, Post FA, Arribas JR, et al. Renal safety of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a pooled analysis of 26 clinical trials. AIDS. 2019;33(9):1455-1465. doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000002223
[5] Asif S, Baxevanidi E, Hill A, et al. The predicted risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes as a result of treatment-associated obesity in a hypothetical population receiving tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine/dolutegravir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine/dolutegravir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine/efavirenz. AIDS. 2021;35(Suppl 2):S117-S125. doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000003020
[6] Walensky RP, Horn T, McCann NC, Freedberg KA, Paltiel AD. Comparative Pricing of Branded Tenofovir Alafenamide-Emtricitabine Relative to Generic Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate-Emtricitabine for HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(9):583-590. doi:10.7326/M19-3478
[7] Yager JL, Brooks KM, Castillo-Mancilla JR, et al. Tenofovir-diphosphate in peripheral blood mononuclear cells during low, medium and high adherence to emtricitabine/ tenofovir alafenamide vs. emtricitabine/ tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. AIDS. 2021;35(15):2481-2487. doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000003062
Literature Review

A search of the published medical literature revealed 3 studies investigating the researchable question:

How does Descovy compare with Truvada (generic available)? Are there differences in the clinical application?

Please see Tables 1-3 for your response.


 

Brand Generic

Components

Contraindications

US Boxed Warning 

Renal Dosing QTc Prolongation Pharmacokinetics Warnings/Precautions

Adverse Reactions

Pregnancy Clinical Pearls
Descovy [1]

Emtricitabine, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)

*Descovy is commercially available as a brand only.

Nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)

NRTI

Descovy for HIV-1 PrEP is contraindicated in individuals with unknown or positive HIV-1 status.
  • Posttreatment acute exacerbation of hepatitis B
  • Risk of drug resistance with use for preexposure prophylaxis
 

Descovy is not recommended in individuals with estimated creatinine clearance of 15 to below 30 mL per minute, or below 15 mL per minute who are not receiving chronic hemodialysis.

 

TAF at the recommended dose or at a dose approximately 5 times the recommended dose, did not affect the QT/QTc interval and did not prolong the PR interval.

Tmax, h: 1

Terminal t1/2, h: 0.51

  • Comprehensive management to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) when used for HIV-1 PrEP
  • Management to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV-1 drug resistance when used for HIV-1 PrEP
  • Immune reconstitution syndrome during treatment of HIV-1 infection
  • New onset or worsening renal impairment 
  • Lactic acidosis/severe hepatomegaly with steatosis

HIV-1 infected patients (incidence ≥ 10%, all grades): nausea

HIV-1 uninfected adults (incidence ≥ 5%, all grades): diarrhea

Prevalence of birth defects in live births: 4.2% (95% CI 2.6% to 6.3%) and 3.0% (95% CI 0.8% to 7.5 %) following first and second/third trimester exposure, respectively, to TAF-containing regimens

TAF is rapidly converted to tenofovir, and lower tenofovir exposure in rats and mice was observed after TAF administration compared to TDF (another prodrug for tenofovir) administration; thus, a pre/postnatal development study in rats was conducted only with TDF.

Truvada [2]

Emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)

NRTI

NRTI

Individuals with unknown or positive HIV-1 status

Treatment of HIV infection in adults: 

  • Creatinine clearance (CrCl) 30 to 49 mL/min: 1 tablet every 48 hours
  • CrCl < 30 mL/min or hemodialysis: Emtricitabine and TDF tablets are not recommended

HIV-1 Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP):

  • Emtricitabine and TDF are not recommended in HIV-uninfected individuals if CrCl is below 60 mL/min.
Not discussed within the PI

Tmax, h: 1.0 ± 0.4 

Terminal t1/2, h: ~17 

HIV-1 infected patients (incidence ≥ 10%, all grades): diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, headache, dizziness, depression, insomnia, abnormal dreams, and rash

HIV-1 uninfected adults (incidence ≥ 2%, all grades): headache, abdominal pain, and weight decreased

Prevalence of major birth defects in live births: 2.4% (95% CI 2.0% to 2.9%) and 2.4% (95% CI 1.7% to 3.2%) following first and second/third trimester exposure, respectively, to TDF-containing regimens Consult the full prescribing information prior to and during use for potential drug interactions.

 

 

References:
[1] [1] DESCOVY (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide tablet). Package insert. Gilead Sciences, Inc.; 2022
[2] [2] Emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate tablet, film coated. Package insert. Camber Pharmaceuticsa, Inc.; 2022.

 

Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide vs emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (DISCOVER): primary results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Design

Randomized, double-blind, multicenter (Europe and North America), active-controlled, phase 3, noninferiority trial

N= 5,387

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the prevention of HIV among cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women who have sex with men

Study Groups

Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n= 2,694)

Emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n= 2,693)

Inclusion Criteria

Adult cisgender MSM and transgender women who have sex with men with a high risk of acquiring HIV on the basis of self-reported sexual behavior within the past 12 weeks or within 24 weeks of enrollment, tested negative for HIV at screening and baseline (by use of third-generation HIV antibody tests or fourth generation HIV-1 antigen-antibody tests), and reported either condomless anal sex with at least two partners in the previous 12 weeks or having syphilis, rectal gonorrhea, or rectal chlamydia in the previous 24 weeks

Exclusion Criteria

Suspected or known active serious infection, acute hepatitis A, B, or C infection, or chronic hepatitis B infection, history of osteoporosis or fragility fractures, or impaired renal function, as defined by an estimated glomerular filtration rate by the Cockcroft-Gault formula (eGFR) of less than 60 mL/min

Methods

Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either emtricitabine (200 mg) with tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) tablets daily, plus matched placebo tablets, or emtricitabine (200 mg) with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) tablets daily, plus matched placebo tablets. 

The primary efficacy analysis was done when participants had completed a minimum follow-up of 48 weeks, and at least 50% of participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) prespecified non-inferiority margin was set at 1.62. 

Duration

Enrollment: September 2016 to June 2017

Follow-up: 96 weeks (completed on February 2019)

Outcome Measures

Primary: incidence of HIV infection

Secondary: hip bone mineral density (BMD), spine BMD, urine β2-microglobulin to creatinine ratio, retinol-binding protein to creatinine ratio, changes in the distribution of urine protein to creatine ratio (UPCR) above the clinically significant threshold of 22.6 mg/mmol at 48 weeks, and change in serum creatinine from baseline

Baseline Characteristics

 

Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide

(n= 2,694)

Emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate

(n= 2,693)

 

Age, years

34 34  

White

84% 84%  

Gender or sexual orientation

Transgender women who have sex with men

Cisgender men who have sex with men

 

2%

98%

 

1% 

99%

 

Sexually transmitted infections by laboratory test at baseline visit

Rectal gonorrhea

Rectal chlamydia

Syphilis

 

5% 

7%

<1%

 

4%

7%

<1%

 

Self-reported HIV risk factors

Two or more of receptive condomless anal sex partners in the past 12 weeks

History of rectal gonorrhea in the past 24 weeks

History of rectal chlamydia in the past 24 weeks

History of syphilis in the past 24 weeks

Recreational drug use in the past 12 weeks

Binge drinking

Taking emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for pre-exposure prophylaxis at baseline

 

62%

10%

13%

9%

67%

23%

17%

 

60%

10%

12%

10%

67%

22%

16%

 

Baseline creatinine clearance (mL/min)

123 (105 to 143)

121 (104 to 142)

 

Body-mass index, kg/m²

25 (23 to 29)

25 (23 to 28)

 

Results

Endpoint

Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide

(n= 2,694)

Emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate

(n= 2,693)

p-value

Primary outcomes:

HIV incidence

  • When 100% of participants completed 48 weeks and 50% completed 96 weeks (8,756 person-years):
  • At week 96 only:

 

  • IRR 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19 to 1.15)
  • IRR 0.54 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.26)
-- --

HIV incidence at 8,756 person-years

  • Number of patients
  • Number of infections per 100 person-years

 

  • 7
  • 0.16 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.33)

 

  • 15
  • 0.34 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.56)
--

HIV incidence at 10,081 person-years

  • Number of patients
  • Number of infections per 100 person-years

 

  • 8
  • 0.16 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.31)

 

  • 15
  • 0.30 [95% CI 0.17 to 0.49]
--

Secondary outcomes:

Mean percentage change of hip BMD

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • +0.18%
  • +0.6

 

  • -0.99%
  • -1.0

 

  • <0.0001
  • <0.0001

Mean percentage change of spine BMD

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • +0.50%
  • +1.0%

 

  • -1.12%
  • -1.4%

 

  • <0.0001
  • <0.0001

Mean percentage change in β2 microglobulin to creatinine ratio

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • -10.7%
  • -14.6%

 

  • +15.2%
  • +14.2%

 

  • <0.0001
  • <0.0001

Mean percentage change in retinol-binding protein to creatinine ratio

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • +0.2%
  • +0.2%

 

  • +19.9%
  • +21.4%

 

  • <0.0001
  • <0.0001

Percentage of patients with UPCR elevation >22.6 mg/mmol

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • 0.7%
  • 1%

 

  • 1.5%
  • 1.3%

 

  • =0.005
  • =0.22

Median change in serum creatinine, micromol/L

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • -0.88
  • -1.77

 

  • +0.88
  • -0.88

 

  • <0.0001
  • <0.0001

Median change in eGFR, mL/min

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • +1.8
  • +3.7

 

  • -2.3
  • -0.4

 

  • <0.0001
  • <0.0001

Median change in body weight, kg

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • +1.1
  • +1.7

 

  • -0.1
  • +0.5

 

  • <0.0001
  • <0.0001

Median change in total cholesterol, mmol/L

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • -0.03
  • -0.08

 

  • -0.28
  • -0.36

 

  • <0.0001
  • <0.0001

Median change in LDL cholesterol, mmol/L

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • +0.03
  • -0.05

 

  • -0.18
  • -0.18

 

  • <0.0001
  • <0.0001

Median change in HDL cholesterol, mmol/L

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • -0.05
  • -0.03

 

  • -0.13
  • -0.10

 

  • <0.0001
  • <0.0001

Median change in total cholesterol to HDL ratio

  • At 48 weeks
  • At 96 weeks

 

  • +0.1
  • +0.1

 

  • +0.1
  • 0

 

  • =0.73
  • =0.18

Adverse events and laboratory abnormalities in the safety analysis population over a median of 86 weeks of follow-up

  Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group (n=2,694) Emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (n=2,693)  
Participants with any adverse event

2,498 (93%)

2,494 (93%)  
Discontinuation of study drug because of adverse event

36 (1%)

49 (2%)  
Serious adverse event

169 (6%)

138 (5%)  
Treatment-related serious adverse event

545 (20%)

630 (23%)  
Death

1 (0.04%)

1 (0.04%)  

Common adverse events (≥10%)

Rectal chlamydia

Oropharyngeal gonorrhea

Rectal gonorrhea

Exposure to a communicable disease

Diarrhea

Nasopharyngitis

Upper respiratory tract infection

Syphilis

Urethral chlamydia

 

770 (29%)

740 (27%)

693 (26%)

465 (17%)

430 (16%)

350 (13%)

356 (13%)

342 (13%)

280 (10%)

 

792 (29%)

722 (27%)

671 (25%)

441 (16%)

422 (16%)

355 (13%)

310 (12%)

321 (12%)

259 (10%)

 

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormality (≥1%)

      Any

Increased alanine aminotransferase

Increased amylase

Increased aspartate aminotransferase

Hyperglycaemia, fasting

Increased LDL, fasting

Glycosuria

 

196 (7%)

39 (1%)

34 (1%)

63 (2%)

12 (<1%)

51 (2%)

19 (1%)

 

206 (8%)

40 (2%)

46 (2%)

51 (2%)

17 (1%)

18 (1%)

32 (1%)

 

Results are presented in intention-to-treat format.

Adverse Event

Serious Adverse Events: The most common serious adverse events in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group
were appendicitis (n=8, 0∙3%), suicidal ideation (n= 7), acute kidney injury (n= 5), hepatitis A (n= 5), cellulitis (n=4), pneumonia (n= 4), depression (n= 4), suicide attempt (n= 4), and road traffic accident (n= 4); the most common serious adverse events in the emtricitabine tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group were appendicitis (n= 9), suicidal ideation (n= 5), cellulitis (n=4), pneumonia (n= 4), atrial fibrillation (n= 4), chest pain (n= 4), anal abscess (n= 3), and diverticulitis (n= 3). Serious adverse events considered to be associated with emtricitabine tenofovir alafenamide included nephrotic syndrome (n=1), chest pain and loss of consciousness (n=1), and agranulocytosis and pyrexia in the same participant (n=1). Serious adverse events considered to be associated with emtricitabine tenofovir disoproxil fumarate included acute kidney injury (n=2), migraine (n=1), pneumonia (n=1), urinary calculus (n=1), and renal tubular necrosis (n=1).

Reasons for death included one traffic accident in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group and one unknown cause in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group.

Study Author Conclusions

This study showed that daily emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide has non-inferior efficacy to daily emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention in cisgender MSM and transgender women who have sex with men, and has more favorable effects on bone mineral density and biomarkers of renal safety. Both emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide and emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were safe and well tolerated. Daily emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, therefore, offers a new option for HIV prevention in these populations.

InpharmD Researcher Critique

Because the investigators did not draw blood at the baseline visit, distinguishing those testing positive for HIV at week 4 as already having been infected with HIV at baseline vs. new infections during the study treatment was impossible. Additionally, the study results may not generalize to cisgender women or transgender men. 



References:
[1] [1] Mayer KH, Molina JM, Thompson MA, et al. Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide vs emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (DISCOVER): primary results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10246):239-254. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31065-5
[2] [2] Ogbuagu O, Ruane PJ, Podzamczer D, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide vs emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV-1 pre-exposure prophylaxis: week 96 results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial [published correction appears in Lancet HIV. 2021 Dec;8(12):e734]. Lancet HIV. 2021;8(7):e397-e407. doi:10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00071-0
[3]

 

Switching From Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate to Tenofovir Alafenamide for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Preexposure Prophylaxis at a Boston Community Health Center

Design

Retrospective cohort study

N= 2,892

Objective

To evaluate the frequency and predictors of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) to tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) in the first 12 months of TAF/FTC availability at the largest preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) provider in New England

Study Groups

Did not switch to TAF/FTC (n= 2,549)

Switched to TAF/FTC (n= 343)

Inclusion Criteria

Assigned male sex at birth, aged ≥ 18 years, prescribed TDF/FTC for PrEP in the 12 months before U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of TAF/FTC for PrEP, had at least 1 PrEP prescription in the 12 months after FDA approval

Exclusion Criteria

Not specified 

Methods

Electronic health record data were retrospectively reviewed to identify eligible patients and potential factors associated with switching. Switching to TAF/FTC was defined as follows: clinically indicated for those with documented creatinine clearance (CrCl) <60 mL/minute or reduced bone density; potentially unnecessary for those without documented CrCl <60 mL/minute or reduced bone density and without documented cardiovascular risk factors; or potentially harmful for those without documented CrCl <60 mL/minute or reduced bone density and with at least 1 documented cardiovascular risk factor (ie, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, total cholesterol ≥200 mg/dL, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-c] >160 mg/dL, or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-c] <40 mg/dL).

A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify factors associated with the time to switch to TAF/FTC, estimating unadjusted and age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each covariate of interest. 

Duration

Follow-up: from October 2019 until TAF/FTC prescription, HIV diagnosis, or 30 September 2020, whichever occurred first

Outcome Measures

Primary: switching to TAF/FTC in the first 12 months of availability

Baseline Characteristics

 

All participants (N= 2,892)

 

   

Age, years

38       

Gender

Cisgender man

Transgender woman

 

96.0%

1.5%

     

Race/Ethnicity

White

Black or African American 

Multiracial 

Asian

Hispanic

 

78.9%

6.3%

6.1%

5.7%

14.8%

     

Disease states 

Sexually transmitted infection

Reduced bone density

Hypertension

Diabetes mellitus

 

14.5%

0.6%

11.3%

3.0%

     

Laboratory values

BMI, kg/m2

CrCl, mL/min

Total cholesterol, mg/dL

LDL-c, mg/dL

HDL-c, mg/dL

 

27

101

174

104

47

     

Results

Factors* 

Did not switch to TAF/FTC
(n= 2,549)

Switched to TAF/FTC
(n= 343)

Unadjusted HR (95% confidence interval [CI])

Age-Adjusted HR (95% CI)

Age, years 

50–59

≥ 60

 

354 (85.9%)

106 (76.3%)

 

58 (14.1%)

33 (23.7%)

 

1.5 (1.0 to 2.1)

2.6 (1.7 to 3.8)

 

-

-

Hispanic

332 (85.6%) 56 (14.4%) 1.4 (1.0 to 1.8) 1.4 (1.1 to 1.9)

Diabetes mellitus

67 (76.1%) 21 (23.9%) 2.2 (1.4 to 3.3) 1.8 (1.1 to 2.8)

CrCl< 60 mL/min

22 (50.0%) 22 (50.0%) 5.2 (3.5 to 7.9) 4.3 (2.7 to 6.8)

Total cholesterol ≥200 mg/dL

199 (93.0%) 15 (7.0%) 0.4 (0.2 to 0.7) 0.4 (0.2 to 0.7)

LDL-c 101 to 160 mg/dL

426 (88.6%) 55 (11.4%) 0.6 (0.4 to 0.9) 0.6 (0.4 to 0.9)

*Only factors associated with both significant unadjusted and age-adjusted HRs were reported. 

Based on documented renal, bone, and cardiovascular risk factors, the study identified 24 (7.0%) with clinically indicated switching to TAF/FTC, 271 (79.0%) with potentially unnecessary switching, and 48 (14.0%) with potentially harmful switching. Among those who did not switch to TAF/FTC, 2,514 (98.6%) remained on TDF/FTC as clinically indicated, and 35 (1.4%) remained on TDF/FTC, which was deemed potentially harmful. If hypertension, diabetes, and CrCl 60–70 mL/minute were additionally considered clinical indications for switching to TAF/FTC, the proportion with clinical indications increased from 7.0% to 27.1% of those who switched.

Study Author Conclusions

Few who switched to TAF/FTC had documented indications for switching, although some appear to have been switched in anticipation of indications developing. As generic TDF/FTC is further discounted, provider education and patient decision aids are needed to facilitate the selection of PrEP medications that are both clinically sound and cost-effective.

InpharmD Researcher Critique

Results on appropriate or inappropriate switching may be subject to change if different criteria are utilized to categorize switching. Additionally, clinical outcomes associated with harmful switching were not further assessed. Still, the study provides insights into patient populations better suited for one product versus another. 



References:
[1] Marcus JL, Levine K, Sewell WC, Solleveld P, Mayer KH, Krakower DS. Switching From Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate to Tenofovir Alafenamide for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Preexposure Prophylaxis at a Boston Community Health Center. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8(8):ofab372. Published 2021 Aug 5. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofab372