Advertisement
Advertisement

Spotlight Center on HIV Prevention Today

Weighing Risks of TDF/FTC PrEP Side Effects in People Without HIV

Winter 2012

 < Prev  |  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5 

References

  1. Brooks RA, Landovitz RJ, Kaplan RL, Lieber E, Lee SJ, Barkley TW. Sexual risk behaviors and acceptability of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in serodiscordant relationships: a mixed methods study. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2012;26:87-94.
  2. Heffron R, Donnell D, Rees H, et al. Use of hormonal contraceptives and risk of HIV-1 transmission: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:19-26.
  3. World Health Organization. Hormonal contraception and HIV: technical statement. February 16, 2012.
  4. Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2587-2599.
  5. Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:399-410.
  6. Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, et al. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:423-434.
  7. US Food and Drug Administration. Truvada prescribing information. 2012.
  8. Cohen MS, Baden LR. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV -- where do we go from here? N Engl J Med. 2012;367:459-461.
  9. Van Damme L, Corneli A, Ahmed K, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:411-422.
  10. Prejean J, Song R, Hernandez A, et al. Estimated HIV incidence in the United States, 2006-2009. PLoS One. 2011;6:e17502.
  11. Peterson L, Taylor D, Roddy R, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for prevention of HIV infection in women: a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. PLoS Clin Trials. 2007;2:e27.
  12. Estrella MM, Parekh RS, Astor BC, et al. Chronic kidney disease and estimates of kidney function in HIV infection: a cross-sectional study in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;57:380-386.
  13. National Kidney Foundation. Three simple tests to check for kidney disease.
  14. labtestsonline.org. eGFR.
  15. Gardner LI, Klein RS, Szczech LA, et al. Rates and risk factors for condition-specific hospitalizations in HIV-infected and uninfected women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;34:320-330.
  16. CDC. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2009 table, Number and rate of hospital discharges.
  17. Scherzer R, Estrella M, Li Y, et al. Association of tenofovir exposure with kidney disease risk in HIV infection. AIDS. 2012;26:867-875.

    17A. "Among those who discontinued tenofovir use, the time period following cessation was not significantly associated with either higher or lower risks of proteinuria (HR=1.05 per year, 95% CI: 0.93-1.18, p = 0.41) or rapid decline (HR=1.05 per year, 95% CI: 0.94-1.16, p=0.42), although there was a marginal association of time off tenofovir with [chronic kidney disease] (HR=1.22 per year, 95% CI: 0.99-1.50, p=0.055). All hazard ratios remained greater than unity, which suggests that the effects of tenofovir on kidney disease risk were not reversible following discontinuation."
  18. Bonjoch A, Echeverría P, Perez-Alvarez N, et al. High rate of reversibility of renal damage in a cohort of HIV-infected patients receiving tenofovir-containing antiretroviral therapy. Antiviral Res. 2012;96:65-69.
  19. Touzard Romo F, Livak B, Aziz M, et al. Recovery of renal function and virologic suppression following tenofovir discontinuation. Infectious Disease Society Association. San Diego. October 17-21, 2012.
  20. Kalayjian RC, Lau B, Mechekano RN, et al. Risk factors for chronic kidney disease in a large cohort of HIV-1 infected individuals initiating antiretroviral therapy in routine care. AIDS. 2012;26:1907-1915.
  21. Rockstroh JK, Lennox JL, DeJesus E, et al. Long-term treatment with raltegravir or efavirenz combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine for treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected patients: 156-week results from STARTMRK. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:807-816.
  22. Cooper RD, Wiebe N, Smith N, Keiser P, Naicker S, Tonelli M. Systematic review and meta-analysis: renal safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in HIV-infected patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:496-505.
  23. Arribas JR, Pozniak AL, Gallant JE, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz compared with zidovudine/lamivudine and efavirenz in treatment-naive patients: 144-week analysis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008;47:74-78.
  24. Gallant JE, Staszewski S, Pozniak AL, et al. Efficacy and safety of tenofovir DF vs stavudine in combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive patients: a 3-year randomized trial. JAMA. 2004;292:191-201.
  25. Mocroft A, Kirk O, Reiss P, et al. Estimated glomerular filtration rate, chronic kidney disease and antiretroviral drug use in HIV-positive patients. AIDS. 2010;24:1667-1678.
  26. Campbell LJ, Ibrahim F, Fisher M, Holt SG, Hendry BM, Post FA. Spectrum of chronic kidney disease in HIV-infected patients. HIV Med. 2009;10:329-336.
  27. Gallant JE, Winston JA, DeJesus E, et al. The 3-year renal safety of a tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs. a thymidine analogue-containing regimen in antiretroviral-naive patients. AIDS. 2008;22:2155-2163.
  28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim guidance: preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in men who have sex with men. MMWR. 2011;60:65-68.
  29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim guidance for clinicians considering the use of preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in heterosexually active adults. MMWR. 2012;61:586-589.
  30. Wever K, van Agtmael MA, Carr A. Incomplete reversibility of tenofovir-related renal toxicity in HIV-infected men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55:78-81.
  31. Dauchy FA, Lawson-Ayayi S, de La Faille R, et al. Increased risk of abnormal proximal renal tubular function with HIV infection and antiretroviral therapy. Kidney Int. 2011;80:302-309.
  32. Liu AY, Vittinghoff E, Sellmeyer DE, et al. Bone mineral density in HIV-negative men participating in a tenofovir pre-exposure prophylaxis randomized clinical trial in San Francisco. PLoS One. 2011;6:e23688.
  33. Walker Harris V, Althoff K, Reynolds S, et al. Incident bone fracture in men with, or at risk for, HIV-infection in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS), 1996-2011. XIX International AIDS Conference. July 22-27, 2012. Washington, DC. Abstract MOPE086.
  34. Arnsten JH, Freeman R, Howard AA, Floris-Moore M, Lo Y, Klein RS. Decreased bone mineral density and increased fracture risk in aging men with or at risk for HIV infection. AIDS. 2007;21:617-623.
  35. Grijsen ML, Vrouenraets SM, Steingrover R, et al. High prevalence of reduced bone mineral density in primary HIV-1-infected men. AIDS. 2010;24:2233-2238.
  36. Arnsten JH, Freeman R, Howard AA, Floris-Moore M, Santoro N, Schoenbaum EE. HIV infection and bone mineral density in middle-aged women. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:1014-1020.
  37. Looker AC, Johnston CC Jr, Wahner HW, et al. Prevalence of low femoral bone density in older US women from NHANES III. J Bone Miner Res. 1995;10:796-802.
  38. Milos G, Gallo LM, Sosic B, et al. Bone mineral density in young women on methadone substitution. Calcif Tissue Int. 2011;89:228-233.
  39. Yin MT, Lu D, Cremers S, et al. Short-term bone loss in HIV-infected premenopausal women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;53:202-208.
  40. Yin MT, Shi Q, Hoover DR, et al. Fracture incidence in HIV-infected women: results from the Women's Interagency HIV Study. AIDS. 2010;24:2679-2686.
  41. Banks E, Reeves GK, Beral V, Balkwill A, Liu B, Roddam A. Hip fracture incidence in relation to age, menopausal status, and age at menopause: prospective analysis. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000181.
  42. Thompson PW, Taylor J, Dawson A. The annual incidence and seasonal variation of fractures of the distal radius in men and women over 25 years in Dorset, UK. Injury. 2004;35:462-466.
  43. Bedimo R, Maalouf NM, Zhang S, Drechsler H, Tebas P. Osteoporotic fracture risk associated with cumulative exposure to tenofovir and other antiretroviral agents. AIDS. 2012;26:825-831.
  44. Jacobson DL, Spiegelman D, Knox TK, Wilson IB. Evolution and predictors of change in total bone mineral density over time in HIV-infected men and women in the Nutrition for Healthy Living Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008; 49:298-308.
  45. Bonjoch A, Figueras M, Estany C, et al. High prevalence of and progression to low bone mineral density in HIV-infected patients: a longitudinal cohort study. AIDS. 2010;24:2827-2833.
  46. McComsey GA, Kitch D, Daar ES, et al. Bone mineral density and fractures in antiretroviral-naive persons randomized to receive abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine along with efavirenz or atazanavir-ritonavir: AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5224s, a substudy of ACTG A5202. J Infect Dis. 2011;203:1791-1801.
  47. Callebaut C, Margot N, Stepan G, Tian T, Miller M. Virological profiling of GS-7340, a next-generation tenofovir prodrug with superior potency over TDF. 52nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobials and Chemotherapy. September 9-12, 2012. San Francisco. Abstract H-552.
  48. Ruane P, DeJesus E, D Berger D, et al. GS-7340 25 mg and 40 mg demonstrate superior efficacy to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg in a 10-day monotherapy study of HIV-1+ patients. 19th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. March 5-8, 2012. Seattle. Abstract 103.
  49. Markowitz M, Zolopa A, Ruane P, et al. GS-7340 demonstrates greater declines in HIV-1 RNA than TDF during 14 days of monotherapy in HIV-1-infected subjects. 18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. February 27-March 2, 2011. Boston. Abstract 152LB.
  50. Babusis D, Phan TK, Lee WA, Watkins WJ, Ray AS. Mechanism for effective lymphoid cell and tissue loading following oral administration of nucleotide prodrug GS-7340. Mol Pharm. 2012 Jul 12. Epub ahead of print.
 < Prev  |  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5 


Visit CFA's website to find out more about their activities and publications.


Reader Comments:

Comment by: Cee (newport news,va) Thu., Sep. 29, 2016 at 4:23 pm UTC
your assuming simply because they chose to take prep they are on a collision course with hiv, I myself am on it simply as another safety measure because as we all know condoms are not 100% affective I don't want to be that 1 that gets caught in the minority...most of the people that i've talked to that have contracted hiv did so in a relationship they thought was monogomous
Reply to this comment


Comment by: elton (uganda) Thu., Nov. 26, 2015 at 4:31 am UTC
How kidney diseases be controlled when taking prEP
Reply to this comment


Comment by: Wendell (San Francisco, CA) Sat., Jul. 5, 2014 at 9:13 pm UTC
"By and large, people who put themselves on a collision course with HIV are not paragons of good health. Because people with the highest risk of picking up HIV during sex are those who have lots of sex -- often without condoms -- this group shoulders a high burden of other sexually transmitted infections, including hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, an oftnoted risk factor for deliquescing bone density and chronic kidney disease. In the United States, young black men who have sex with men (MSM) account for a burgeoning proportion of new HIV infections,10 and blacks run a higher risk of kidney disease than whites. Young white and black MSM with lots of sex partners often have other habits that threaten their health -- smoking, drinking, and downing recreational drugs that range from the innocuous to the caustic. In the United States, WIHS findings and other data indicate, women with a high HIV risk are often poor, overweight, and members of minorities with off-andon access to health care."

The rest of this article is fairly free from editorializing and bias. This paragraph seems to brim with judgment. While it is not likely the author's conscious intent, this paragraph can readily be seen as suggesting that the proverbial bar is already set so low on the intended recipients of this therapy that they are not worthy of the same level of care. This can be very hurtful to groups who have traditionally been extremely marginalized by society. Since the next paragraph gives most of the same data in a much more clear and bias-free way, is this paragraph necessary at all? Is it worth the virtual paper it is figuratively printed on to take the extra time to say that PrEP is only for throw-away dregs of society?
Reply to this comment
Replies to this comment:
Comment by: Steve (seattle) Sun., Oct. 5, 2014 at 10:06 am UTC
was going to say exactly the same thing. What a horrific editorial bias to slip into a medical paper.


Comment by: hananji (kenya) Thu., Dec. 19, 2013 at 3:35 am UTC
I think tdf cause poor distribution of fats in people living with hiv
Reply to this comment


Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)

Your Name:


Your Location:

(ex: San Francisco, CA)

Your Comment:

Characters remaining:

Advertisement

The content on this page is free of advertiser influence and was produced by our editorial team. See our content and advertising policies.