Boston, Massachusetts
March 8–11, 2020


Conference Dates and Location: 
February 22–25, 2016 | Boston, Massachusetts
Abstract Number: 

Switching Tenofovir DF to Tenofovir Alafenamide in Virologically Suppressed Adults


Joel Gallant1; Eric Daar2; Francois Raffi3; Cynthia Brinson4; Peter Ruane5; Edwin DeJesus6; Mingjin Yan7; Andrew Plummer8; Andrew Cheng8; Martin S. Rhee7
1Southwest Care Cntr, Santa Fe, NM, USA;2Harbor-Univ of California Los Angeles Med Cntr, Torrance, CA, USA;3Chu Hotel Dieu-Chu De Nantes, Nantes, France;4Central Texas Clinical Rsr, Austin, TX, USA;5Peter J Ruane MD, Inc, Los Angeles, CA, USA;6Orlando Immunology Cntr, Orlando, FL, USA;7Gilead Scis, Inc, Foster City, CA, USA;8Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA

Abstract Body: 

Emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (F/TDF) is a standard-of-care nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone due to its favorable efficacy and safety profile. However, TDF can be associated with renal and bone toxicities. Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a novel tenofovir prodrug that achieves 91% lower plasma tenofovir levels than TDF. In elvitegravir/cobicistat/F/TAF phase 3 studies, TAF had less adverse effect on kidneys and bone than TDF.  

We conducted a 96-week (wk) randomized, double blind, active controlled study in virologically suppressed HIV-1 infected patients receiving F/TDF-containing regimens to evaluate the efficacy and safety of switching from F/TDF to F/TAF vs continuing F/TDF while remaining on the same third agent. Primary endpoint was virologic success at Wk 48 by ITT FDA snapshot algorithm with a pre-specified noninferiority margin of 10%. We describe the Wk 48 data. 

663 patients were randomized and treated (F/TAF 333 vs F/TDF 330); median age 49 years, 15% women, median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 100 mL/min. 46% were on a boosted protease inhibitor, 28% on an integrase inhibitor, 25% on a non-NRTI. Through Wk 48, virologic success (HIV-1 RNA <50 c/mL) was maintained in most patients in both treatment groups: F/TAF 94.3% vs F/TDF 93.0% (difference +1.3%, 95% CI: -2.5% to +5.1%), demonstrating noninferiority of F/TAF to F/TDF (Table). Emergent resistance was rare (0.3% vs 0). Drug related serious adverse events were rare (0 vs 0.3%). Drug discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was low (2.1% vs 0.9%). There were no cases of proximal renal tubulopathy in either group. Median eGFR improved by +8.4 mL/min in the F/TAF group vs by +2.8 mL/ min in the F/TDF group (P <0.001). Quantitative measures of proteinuria improved in the F/TAF group but not in the F/TDF group (Table). Bone mineral density (BMD) increased in the F/TAF group but declined in the F/TDF group: hip (mean) +1.14% vs -0.15% (P <0.001) and spine +1.53% vs -0.21% (P <0.001), respectively. More patients in the F/TAF group had ≥ 3% improvement in BMD at Wk 48: hip 17% vs 9% and spine 30% vs 14%.

In virologically suppressed patients switching from F/TDF to F/TAF, high rates of virologic suppression were maintained, while renal and bone safety parameters improved. With its safety benefits relative to F/TDF, F/TAF has the potential to become an important NRTI backbone for antiretroviral treatment.

Session Number: 
Session Title: 
Viral Reservoirs/Antiretroviral Therapy Randomized Clinical Trials
Presenting Author: 
Joel Gallant
Presenter Institution: 
Southwest Care Center