Renal Safety of Tenofovir Alafenamide versus Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: An Evidence-based Case Report

Authors

  • Putu Itta Sandi Lesmana Dewi Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University/Prof. IGNG Ngoerah Central General Hospital, Denpasar, Bali https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5426-9513
  • Kadek Mercu Narapati Pamungkas Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University/Prof. IGNG Ngoerah Central General Hospital, Denpasar, Bali
  • I Ketut Mariadi Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University/Prof. Dr. IGNG Ngoerah Central General Hospital, Denpasar, Bali

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24871/2522024368

Keywords:

Chronic hepatitis B, tenofovir alafenamide, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, renal function

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Background: Treatment modalities for chronic hepatitis B infection (CHB) are interferon and antiviral. The most commonly used antiviral is tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), however it is known to have nephrotoxicity. Recently, a new antiviral tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) has been developed, which also inhibits hepatitis B virus (HBV). This study aimed to compare the renal safety of TAF and TDF.

Method: Literature searching was conducted in PubMed/Medline and Cochrane databases, with modified keywords as “chronic hepatitis B”, “tenofovir alafenamide”, “tenofovir disoproxil fumarate”, “renal” with BOOLEAN logic. The articles obtained will be selected and will be carried out for critical appraisal about validity, importance, and applicability.

Results: Four studies of double-blind randomized-clinical trials (RCT) were obtained for analysis. The antiviral effects of TAF and TDF groups were not significantly different. The increase in serum creatinine of TAF group was significantly smaller than TDF group in three studies (p < 0.05). While one study showed no significant difference (p = 0.32). The decrease in eGFR (estimated-Glomerular Filtration Rate) in the TAF group was smaller than TDF in three studies (p <0.001), whereas one study found an increase in eGFR in the TAF group (p = 0.00034). There were no severe side effects found in both study groups.

Conclusion: Based on the scientific evidence obtained, TAF has more renal safety than TDF. Although the antiviral effect is not significantly different.

 

 

Keywords: chronic hepatitis B, tenofovir alafenamide, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, renal function

References

Lim JK, Nguyen MH, Kim WR, Gish R, Perumalswami P, Jacobson IM. Prevalence of Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 ;115(9):1429-1438.

World Health Organization. Guidelines for the prevention, care and treatment of persons with chronic hepatitis B infection. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2015.

Buti M, Riveiro-Barciela M, Esteban R. Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate: A New Tenofovir Prodrug for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B Infection, The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2017;216(8):S792–S796.

Marcellin P, Gane E, Buti M, Afdhal N, Sievert W, Jacobson IM, et al. Regression of cirrhosis during treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for chronic hepatitis B: a 5-year open-label follow-up study. Lancet 2013; 381: 468–75.

Tamuzi JL, Tshimwanga JL, Bulabula ANH, Muyaya LM. Tenofovir Alafenamide versus Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Pul & Res Sci 2018; 2(5): 001-0016.

Lok AS, McMahon BJ, Brown RS, Wong JB, Ahmed AT, Farah W, et al. Antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis B viral infection in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology 2016; 63: 284–306.

Liu Y, Mitchell B, Dinh P, Miller MD, Kitrinos KM. Antiviral activity of tenofovir alafenamide against drug-resistant HBV isolates in vitro. Hepatology (Baltimore) 2016; 64:1194A

Lok ASF, McMahon BJ. Chronic hepatitis B. Vol. 45, Hepatology. 2007. 507–539 p.

Buti M, Gane E, Seto WK, Chan HLY, Chuang WL, Stepanova T, et al. Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol 2016; 1:196–206.

Chan HLY, Fung S, Seto WK, Chuang WL, Chen CY, Kim H, et al. Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol 2016; 1:185–95.

Agarwal K, Brunetto M, Seto WK, Lim YS, Fung S, Marcellin P, et al. 96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection. Journal of Hepatology. 2018;1-10.

Lampertico P, Buti M, Fung S, Ahn SH, Chuang WL, Tak WY, et al. Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in virologically suppressed patients with chronic hepatitis B: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, multicentre non-inferiority study. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2020;1-13.

Markowitz M, Zolopa A, Squires K, Ruane P, Coakley D, Kearney B, et al. Phase I/II study of the pharmacokinetics, safety and antiretroviral activity of tenofovir alafenamide, a new prodrug of the HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitor tenofovir, in HIV-infected adults. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69(5): 1362-1369.

Brouwer WP. Tenofovir alafenamide for hepatitis B: evolution or revolution. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2016; 1: 185-196.

Babusis D, Phan TK, Lee WA, Watkins WJ, Ray AS. Mechanism for effective lymphoid cell and tissue loading following oral administration of nucleotide prodrug GS-7340. Mol Pharm 2013; 10:459–66.

Downloads

Published

2024-08-17

How to Cite

Dewi, P. I. S. L., Pamungkas, K. M. N., & Mariadi, I. K. (2024). Renal Safety of Tenofovir Alafenamide versus Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: An Evidence-based Case Report. The Indonesian Journal of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Digestive Endoscopy, 25(2), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.24871/2522024368

Issue

Vol. 25 No. 2 (2024): VOLUME 25, NUMBER 2, August, 2024

Section

Case Reports

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).