Reasons, safety and efficacy analysis for conversion of HAART to TAF/FTC/BIC among HIV-infected patients

This study aimed to determine the reasons for conversion and elucidate the safety and efficacy of transition to tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine/bictegravir sodium (TAF/FTC/BIC) in highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)-experienced HIV-infected patients in real-world settings. We conducted...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Chinese medical journal 2023-12, Vol.136 (24), p.2931-2937
Hauptverfasser: Xiao, Jiang, Gao, Guiju, Ding, Yi, Li, Jialu, Gao, Chengyu, Xu, Qiuhua, Wu, Liang, Liang, Hongyuan, Ni, Liang, Wang, Fang, Duan, Yujiao, Yang, Di, Zhao, Hongxin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study aimed to determine the reasons for conversion and elucidate the safety and efficacy of transition to tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine/bictegravir sodium (TAF/FTC/BIC) in highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)-experienced HIV-infected patients in real-world settings. We conducted a retrospective cohort study. The treatment conversion rationales, safety, and effectiveness in 1684 HIV-infected patients with previous HAART experience who switched to TAF/FTC/BIC were evaluated at Beijing Ditan Hospital from September 2021 to Auguest 2022. Regimen simplification (990/1684, 58.79%) was the most common reason for switching, followed by osteoporosis or osteopenia (375/1684, 22.27%), liver dysfunction (231/1684, 13.72%), decline in tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine/elvitegravir/cobicistat (TAF/FTC/EVG/c) with food restriction (215/1684, 12.77%), virological failure (116/1684, 6.89%), and renal dysfunction (90/1684, 5.34%). In patients receiving non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI)-containing regimens, lipid panel changes 1 year after switching indicated a difference of 3.27 ± 1.10 mmol/L vs . 3.40 ± 1.59 mmol/L in triglyceride ( P  = 0.014), 4.82 ± 0.74 mmol/L vs . 4.88 ± 0.72 mmol/L in total cholesterol ( P  = 0.038), 3.09 ± 0.70 mmol/L vs . 3.18 ± 0.66 mmol/L in low-density lipoprotein ( P  
ISSN:0366-6999
2542-5641
DOI:10.1097/CM9.0000000000002939