Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Yap PK, Loo Xin GL, Tan YY, Chellian J, Gupta G, Liew YK, et al.
    J Pharm Pharmacol, 2019 Sep;71(9):1339-1352.
    PMID: 31144296 DOI: 10.1111/jphp.13107
    OBJECTIVES: Antiretroviral agents (ARVs) have been the most promising line of therapy in the management of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections. Some of these ARVs are used in the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to suppress the transmission of HIV. Prophylaxis is primarily used in uninfected people, before exposure, to effectively prevent HIV infection. Several studies have shown that ART PrEP prevents HIV acquisition from sexual, blood and mother-to-child transmissions. However, there are also several challenges and limitations to PrEP. This review focuses on the current antiretroviral therapies used in PrEP.

    KEY FINDINGS: Among ARVs, the most common drugs employed from the class of entry inhibitors are maraviroc (MVC), which is a CCR5 receptor antagonist. Other entry inhibitors like emtricitabine (FTC) and tenofovir (TFV) are also used. Rilpivirine (RPV) and dapivirine (DPV) are the most common drugs employed from the Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTIs) class, whereas, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is primarily used in the Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NRTIs) class. Cabotegravir (CAB) is an analog of dolutegravir, and it is an integrase inhibitor. Some of these drugs are also used in combination with other drugs from the same class.

    SUMMARY: Some of the most common pre-exposure prophylactic strategies employed currently are the use of inhibitors, namely entry inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, integrase and protease inhibitors. In addition, we have also discussed on the adverse effects caused by ART in PrEP, pharmacoeconomics factors and the use of antiretroviral prophylaxis in serodiscordant couples.

    Matched MeSH terms: Tenofovir/therapeutic use
  2. Tanuma J, Jiamsakul A, Makane A, Avihingsanon A, Ng OT, Kiertiburanakul S, et al.
    PLoS One, 2016;11(8):e0161562.
    PMID: 27560968 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161562
    BACKGROUND: In resource-limited settings, routine monitoring of renal function during antiretroviral therapy (ART) has not been recommended. However, concerns for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-related nephrotoxicity persist with increased use.

    METHODS: We investigated serum creatinine (S-Cr) monitoring rates before and during ART and the incidence and prevalence of renal dysfunction after starting TDF by using data from a regional cohort of HIV-infected individuals in the Asia-Pacific. Time to renal dysfunction was defined as time from TDF initiation to the decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to <60 ml/min/1.73m2 with >30% reduction from baseline using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation or the decision to stop TDF for reported TDF-nephrotoxicity. Predictors of S-Cr monitoring rates were assessed by Poisson regression and risk factors for developing renal dysfunction were assessed by Cox regression.

    RESULTS: Among 2,425 patients who received TDF, S-Cr monitoring rates increased from 1.01 to 1.84 per person per year after starting TDF (incidence rate ratio 1.68, 95%CI 1.62-1.74, p <0.001). Renal dysfunction on TDF occurred in 103 patients over 5,368 person-years of TDF use (4.2%; incidence 1.75 per 100 person-years). Risk factors for developing renal dysfunction included older age (>50 vs. ≤30, hazard ratio [HR] 5.39, 95%CI 2.52-11.50, p <0.001; and using PI-based regimen (HR 1.93, 95%CI 1.22-3.07, p = 0.005). Having an eGFR prior to TDF (pre-TDF eGFR) of ≥60 ml/min/1.73m2 showed a protective effect (HR 0.38, 95%CI, 0.17-0.85, p = 0.018).

    CONCLUSIONS: Renal dysfunction on commencing TDF use was not common, however, older age, lower baseline eGFR and PI-based ART were associated with higher risk of renal dysfunction during TDF use in adult HIV-infected individuals in the Asia-Pacific region.

    Matched MeSH terms: Tenofovir/therapeutic use
  3. Naing C, Poovorawan Y, Tong KS
    BMC Infect Dis, 2018 Nov 14;18(1):564.
    PMID: 30428847 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-018-3506-x
    BACKGROUND: There are randomized trials assessing a variety of antiviral drugs for hepatitis B virus (HBV), but the relative effectiveness of these drugs in the treatment of patients co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) remains unclear. The objectives of the current study were to estimate and rank the relative effectiveness of antiviral drugs for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients.

    METHODS: Randomized trials, assessing the efficacy of antiviral drugs for HBV and HIV co-infected patients were searched in health-related databases. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Main outcome in this meta-analysis study was the success of treatment by antivirals as determined by virologic response. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis of these trials and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

    RESULTS: Seven randomized trials (329 participants) were included in this network meta-analysis study. A network geometry was formed with six treatment options including four antiviral drugs, adefovir (ADV), emtricitabine (FTC), lamivudine (LMV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), combination treatment of TDF plus LMV, and placebo. The weighted percentage contributions of each comparison distributed fairly equally in the entire network of evidence. An assumption of consistency required for network meta-analysis was not violated (the global Wald test for inconsistency: Chi2(4) = 3.63, p = 0.46). The results of estimates showed no differences between the treatment regimens in terms of viral response for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients, which spanned both benefit and harm (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.06-2.41). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low in all comparisons (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: 218 fewer per 1000,121 more to 602 fewer, very low certainty). Therefore, we remained uncertain to the true ranking of the antiviral treatments in HBV/ HIV co-infected patients.

    CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the evidence is insufficient to provide guidance to the relative effectiveness of currently available antiviral drugs with dual activity in treating co-infection of HBV/HIV. Well-designed, large clinical trials in this field to address other important outcomes from different epidemiological settings are recommended.

    Matched MeSH terms: Tenofovir/therapeutic use
  4. Nabih MF, Puteh SEW, Nur AM
    Sci Rep, 2019 12 27;9(1):19923.
    PMID: 31882645 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-56314-0
    In 2007, HIV treatment services were established in five main governorates out of twenty-two which resulted in low access to services and poor treatment outcomes. The main goal of this study was to evaluate and analyse the selected treatment outcomes of eight cohorts of PLHIV who were treated with cART during 2007-2014. The method used was a retrospective descriptive study of 1,703 PLHIV who initiated cART at five public health facilities. The results: Retention rate was less than 80%, male: female ratio 1.661, with a mean age of 35 years (±9.2 SD), 85% had been infected with HIV via heterosexual contact. 65% of patients presented with clinical stages 3 and 4, and 52% of them were initiated cART at a CD4 T-cell count ≤200 cells/mm. 61% of cART included Tenofovir and Efavirenz. TB treatment started for 5% of PLHIV, and 22% developed HIV-related clinical manifestations after cART initiation. 67% of PLHIV had experienced cART substitution. The mean AIDS-mortality rate was 15% and the mean LTFU rate was 16%. Conclusion: Although cART showed effectiveness in public health, mobilization of resources and formulation of better health policies are important steps toward improving access to cART and achieving the desired treatment outcomes.
    Matched MeSH terms: Tenofovir/therapeutic use
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links