tenofovir nephrotoxicity

A study just published looked at tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) renal toxicity, finding that urine dipstick evaluation is inadequate (see hiv tenofovir nephrotoxicity AIDS2015 in dropbox, or AIDS 2015, 29:941–946). details:

--43 patients with TDF nephrotoxicity (mean age 54.7, 53% men, 37% white/32% african-american/19% latino), and having biopsies showing proximal tubular injury and typical mitochondrial abnormalities for TDF nephropathy. Median duration of TDF therapy was 9.5 months, with the earliest case after 2 weeks. Baseline serum creatinine 1.2 mg/dl, increasing to 4.9 after the TDF.
--results:
        --37 cases reported proteinuria by dipstick, 60% of these cases had at least 2+ proteinuria ​(8% 0-trace, 32% 1+) -- note: the dipstick proteinuria primarily measures albuminuria.
        --27 patients had urine protein quantified (either 24-hour collection or spot urine protein-to-creatinine ratio), median proteinuria was 1742 mg/day -- note: this is total protein measured
        --10 of these 27 patients had concomitant urinary albumin measured, with median 236 mg/g creatinine
        --so, the mean urine albumin-to-protein ratio (uAPR) was 0.17
--therefore, TDF nephrotoxicity is predominantly associated with very high urinary protein excretion but not much albuminuria
--there was also a comparison arm of HIV patients undergoing kidney biopsy for other reasons (dx of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, diabetes, hepatitis C proliferative glomerulonephritis, lupus) and never exposed to TDF had elevations of both proteinuria (2570 mg/gCr) and albuminuria (2029 mg/gCr)

I raise this issue because I think many of us use dipsticks or urinary albumin excretion to assess nephropathy (and appropriately with diabetes, or HIV-associated nephropathy). This study strongly suggests that urinary protein excretion may be a much better marker of nephrotoxicity in those on TDF. So, even though this study looked at patients with pretty advanced nephropathy (median creatinine of 4.9 mg/dl), it does suggest that using a urinary dipstick to detect early TDF nephropathy is probably the wrong thing to do: the uAPR is likely more sensitive (ie, this would support the algorithm: check urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio, and if elevated, then do a uAPR). I would assume that the issues would be the same for other TDF users, such as those on treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection. One hopefully positive change is the likely approval of tenofovir alafenamide, which seems to be as effective clinically as TDF for HIV infection, but has much less nephrotoxicity (eg, see recent findings brought out in the CROI/HIV meeting --  http://betablog.org/croi-2015-tenofovir-alafenamide-new-maturation-inhibitor/ )

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more