ABSTRACT
Abstract: The adverse effects of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using tenofovir disoproxil fumarate are barriers to PrEP initiation and continuation. Although serious effects are rare and predictable, evidence for this assessment among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) is still limited. This study assesses the adverse effects of daily oral PrEP in MSM and TGW. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials and cohort studies on the use of daily oral PrEP selected from the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Data extraction included adverse effects and changes in renal and hepatic markers. Random effects models were used to summarize the risk of adverse effects throughout the study. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran's Q test and the inconsistency test (I2). The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. The search identified 653 references. Of these, 10 were selected. All studies assessed the eligibility of renal and hepatic markers. The use of daily oral PrEP was not associated with grade 3 or 4 adverse events (RR = 0.99; 95%CI: 0.83-1.18; I2 = 26.1%), any serious adverse event (RR = 1.04; 95%CI: 0.58-1.87; I2 = 88.4%), grade 3+4 creatinine level (RR = 0.66; 95%CI: 0.24-1.84; I2 = 79.9%), and grade 3 or 4 hypophosphatemia (RR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.15-2.10). The certainty of the evidence ranged from high to moderate for the outcomes analyzed. Daily oral PrEP is safe and well tolerated by MSM and TGW. Adverse effects were minimal and evenly distributed between intervention and control.
Resumo: Os efeitos adversos da profilaxia pré-exposição (PrEP) oral com fumarato de tenofovir desoproxila são barreiras para o início e a continuidade da PrEP. Embora os efeitos graves sejam raros e previsíveis, as evidências dessa avaliação entre homens que fazem sexo com homens (HSH) e mulheres transgênero (MTG) ainda são limitadas. Este estudo avalia os efeitos adversos da PrEP oral diária em HSH e MTG. Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de ensaios clínicos e coortes que demonstram o uso de PrEP oral diária selecionados nas bases de dados PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS e Cochrane CENTRAL. A extração de dados incluiu os efeitos adversos e alterações nos marcadores renais e hepáticos. Modelos de efeitos aleatórios foram usados para resumir o risco de efeitos adversos ao longo do estudo. A heterogeneidade foi avaliada pelo teste Q de Cochran e inconsistência (I2). O risco de viés e a certeza da evidência foram avaliados por meio das recomendações da Colaboração Cochrane. Foram identificadas 653 referências. Destes, dez foram selecionadas. Todos os estudos avaliaram marcadores renais de elegibilidade e marcadores hepáticos. O uso diário de PrEP oral não foi associado a eventos de grau 3 ou 4 (RR = 0,99; IC95%: 0,83-1,18; I2 = 26,1%), a qualquer evento adverso grave (RR = 1,04; IC95%: 0,58-1,87; I2 =88,4%), à creatinina grau 3 ou 4 (RR = 0,66; IC95%: 0,24-1,84; I2 = 79,9%) e à hipofosfatemia grau 3 ou 4 (RR = 0,56; IC95%: 0,15-2,10). A certeza das evidências variou de alta a moderada para os desfechos analisados. A PrEP oral diária é segura e bem tolerada por HSH e MTG. Os efeitos adversos foram mínimos e distribuídos uniformemente entre a intervenção e o controle.
Resumen: Los efectos adversos de la profilaxis preexposición (PrEP) oral con fumarato de disoproxilo de tenofovir son barreras para el inicio y la continuación de la PrEP. Aunque los efectos graves son raros y predecibles, la evidencia de esta evaluación entre hombres que tienen sexo con hombres (HSH) y mujeres transgénero (MTG) sigue siendo limitada. Este estudio evalúa los efectos adversos de la PrEP oral diaria en HSH y MTG. Se trata de una revisión sistemática y un metaanálisis de ensayos clínicos y cohortes que demuestran el uso de la PrEP oral diaria seleccionada de las bases de datos PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS y Cochrane CENTRAL. La recolección de datos incluyó efectos adversos y cambios en los marcadores renales y hepáticos. Se utilizaron modelos de efectos aleatorios para resumir el riesgo de efectos adversos a lo largo del estudio. La heterogeneidad se evaluó mediante la prueba Q de Cochran y la inconsistencia (I2). El riesgo de sesgo y la certeza de la evidencia se evaluaron utilizando las recomendaciones de la Colaboración Cochrane. Se identificaron 653 referencias. De estas, se seleccionaron diez. Todos los estudios evaluaron los marcadores renales de elegibilidad y los marcadores hepáticos. El uso diario de la PrEP oral no se asoció con eventos de grado 3 o 4 (RR = 0,99; IC95%: 0,83-1,18; I2 = 26,1%), con ningún evento adverso grave (RR = 1,04; IC95%: 0,58-1,87; I2 = 88,4%), con creatinina de grado 3 o 4 (RR = 0,66; IC95%: 0,24-1,84; I2 = 79,9%) y con hipofosfatemia de grado 3 o 4 (RR = 0,56, IC95%: 0,15-2,10). La certeza de la evidencia varió de alta a moderada para los resultados analizados. La PrEP oral diaria es segura y bien tolerada por HSH y MTG. Los efectos adversos fueron mínimos y se distribuyeron uniformemente entre la intervención y el control.
ABSTRACT
Background: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (Truvada) is highly effective at preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission in high-risk populations, including in men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2019, the US Preventive Services Task Force released an A recommendation to offer PrEP to persons at high risk of HIV acquisition. Despite the demonstrated efficacy of PrEP, areas with high HIV incidence, such as Louisiana, have historically had low PrEP prescription rates. The objective of this study was to determine the factors associated with whether providers in the Ochsner Health System (OHS) discussed PrEP with HIV-negative MSM patients. Methods: Investigators extracted electronic medical record data on all HIV-negative MSM patients who had at least one outpatient visit at OHS between July 1, 2012 and July 1, 2016 and manually reviewed a random sample of 115 charts. Results: Subjects were predominantly Caucasian (75.7%) with a mean age of 37.6 years. A PrEP discussion was documented for 34 (29.6%) patients. Multivariate modeling showed that having a PrEP discussion was associated with 3 factors: being assigned to a primary care provider known to specialize in MSM care (odds ratio [OR] 5.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81-14.10; P=0.002), having a documented history (positive or negative) of sexually transmitted infection vs no documentation (OR 5.41, 95% CI 1.80-16.23; P=0.003), and having documentation of condom use (consistent or inconsistent) vs no documentation (OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.27-8.74; P=0.015). Conclusion: Despite evidence that PrEP significantly reduces sexual transmission of HIV in MSM, PrEP discussions with MSM across OHS were undesirably low. Additional resources need to be aimed at increasing PrEP uptake and should focus on providing skills-based training and education in PrEP and MSM care to healthcare providers. With increased knowledge of and familiarity with PrEP prescribing guidelines, more providers will be better equipped to identify at-risk patients and to discuss prevention options such as PrEP.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Initial treatment of the HIV is based on the use of three drugs, two of which are nucleoside analog reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. There are three combinations of these drugs which have been approved by different guidelines, each with divergent results in terms of efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of these three combinations. METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing fixed doses of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate / Emtricitabine (TDF/FTC), Abacavir / Lamivudine (ABC/3TC) and Zidovudine / Lamivudine (ZDV/3TC). RESULTS: Seven clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. The results suggested higher efficacy with TDF/FTC vs. ABC/3TC at 96 weeks and vs. ZDV/3TC at 48 weeks. However, there is clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis were performed by third drug and by level of viral load prior to treatment, and found no differences in virological control. Network meta-analysis could only be carried out with TDF/FTC vs. ZDV/3TC, and the proportion of patients with virological response, with no differences at 48 weeks nor at 96 weeks. Direct comparisons showed an increased risk of bone marrow suppression of ZDV/3TC vs. TDF/FTC and of ABC/3TC hypersensitivity reactions vs. ZDV/3TC. CONCLUSIONS: The results did not show differences in effectiveness among the interventions. However, due to the heterogeneity of the third drug and the follow-up time between the included studies, this result is not definitive. The results raise the need for further studies to help improve treatment recommendations in patients infected with HIV.
INTRODUCCIÓN: El tratamiento inicial de la infección por VIH se basa en el uso de tres medicamentos, dos de ellos inhibidores de transcriptasa reversa análogos de nucleósido. Existen tres combinaciones de estos medicamentos aprobadas por diferentes guías, con resultados divergentes en cuanto a eficacia y seguridad. OBJETIVO: Comparar la eficacia y seguridad de las 3 combinaciones. MÉTODOS: Revisión sistemática y metanálisis en red de ensayos clínicos con asignación aleatoria comparando dosis fijas de Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarato/Emtricitabina (TDF/FTC), Abacavir/Lamivudina (ABC/3TC) y Zidovudina/Lamivudina (ZDV/3TC). RESULTADOS: Siete ensayos clínicos cumplieron los criterios de elegibilidad. Los resultados sugirieron mayor eficacia con TDF/FTC vs ABC/3TC a 96 semanas y vs. ZDV/3TC a 48 semanas. Sin embargo, existe heterogeneidad clínica y estadística. Se realizó análisis de subgrupos por tercer medicamento y por nivel de carga viral previa al tratamiento, sin encontrar diferencias en control virológico. Se pudo realizar metanálisis en red con TDF/FTC vs ZDV/3TC y proporción de pacientes con respuesta virológica, sin diferencias a las 48 semanas ni 96 semanas. Las comparaciones directas evidenciaron mayor riesgo de supresión de médula ósea de ZDV/3TC vs TDF/FTC y de reacciones de hipersensibilidad de ABC/3TC vs ZDV/3TC. CONCLUSIÓN: Los resultados no demostraron diferencias en efectividad entre las intervenciones; sin embargo, debido a heterogeneidad en cuanto al tercer medicamento y el tiempo de seguimiento entre los estudios incluidos, dicho resultado no es definitivo. Los resultados plantean la necesidad de realizar nuevos estudios que ayuden a mejorar las recomendaciones de tratamiento en los pacientes infectados por el VIH.
Subject(s)
Anti-HIV Agents/administration & dosage , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Anti-HIV Agents/adverse effects , Dideoxynucleosides/administration & dosage , Dideoxynucleosides/adverse effects , Drug Combinations , Emtricitabine, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Drug Combination/administration & dosage , Emtricitabine, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Drug Combination/adverse effects , Humans , Lamivudine/administration & dosage , Lamivudine/adverse effects , Network Meta-Analysis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome , Zidovudine/administration & dosage , Zidovudine/adverse effectsABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction: Initial treatment of the HIV is based on the use of three drugs, two of which are nucleoside analog reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. There are three combinations of these drugs which have been approved by different guidelines, each with divergent results in terms of efficacy and safety. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of these three combinations. Methods: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing fixed doses of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate / Emtricitabine (TDF/FTC), Abacavir / Lamivudine (ABC/3TC) and Zidovudine / Lamivudine (ZDV/3TC). Results: Seven clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. The results suggested higher efficacy with TDF/FTC vs. ABC/3TC at 96 weeks and vs. ZDV/3TC at 48 weeks. However, there is clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis were performed by third drug and by level of viral load prior to treatment, and found no differences in virological control. Network meta-analysis could only be carried out with TDF/FTC vs. ZDV/3TC, and the proportion of patients with virological response, with no differences at 48 weeks nor at 96 weeks. Direct comparisons showed an increased risk of bone marrow suppression of ZDV/3TC vs. TDF/FTC and of ABC/3TC hypersensitivity reactions vs. ZDV/3TC Conclusions: The results did not show differences in effectiveness among the interventions. However, due to the heterogeneity of the third drug and the follow-up time between the included studies, this result is not definitive. The results raise the need for further studies to help improve treatment recommendations in patients infected with HIV.
Resumen Introducción: El tratamiento inicial de la infección por VIH se basa en el uso de tres medicamentos, dos de ellos inhibidores de transcriptasa reversa análogos de nucleósido. Existen tres combinaciones de estos medicamentos aprobadas por diferentes guías, con resultados divergentes en cuanto a eficacia y seguridad. Objetivo: Comparar la eficacia y seguridad de las 3 combinaciones Métodos: Revisión sistemática y metanálisis en red de ensayos clínicos con asignación aleatoria comparando dosis fijas de Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarato/Emtricitabina (TDF/FTC), Abacavir/Lamivudina (ABC/3TC) y Zidovudina/Lamivudina (ZDV/3TC). Resultados: Siete ensayos clínicos cumplieron los criterios de elegibilidad. Los resultados sugirieron mayor eficacia con TDF/FTC vs ABC/3TC a 96 semanas y vs. ZDV/3TC a 48 semanas. Sin embargo, existe heterogeneidad clínica y estadística. Se realizó análisis de subgrupos por tercer medicamento y por nivel de carga viral previa al tratamiento, sin encontrar diferencias en control virológico. Se pudo realizar metanálisis en red con TDF/FTC vs ZDV/3TC y proporción de pacientes con respuesta virológica, sin diferencias a las 48 semanas ni 96 semanas. Las comparaciones directas evidenciaron mayor riesgo de supresión de médula ósea de ZDV/3TC vs TDF/FTC y de reacciones de hipersensibilidad de ABC/3TC vs ZDV/3TC. Conclusión: Los resultados no demostraron diferencias en efectividad entre las intervenciones; sin embargo, debido a heterogeneidad en cuanto al tercer medicamento y el tiempo de seguimiento entre los estudios incluidos, dicho resultado no es definitivo. Los resultados plantean la necesidad de realizar nuevos estudios que ayuden a mejorar las recomendaciones de tratamiento en los pacientes infectados por el VIH.
