Safety of tenofovir alafenamide in people with HIV who experienced proximal renal tubulopathy on tenofovir disoproxil.

Twenty-eight individuals who experienced proximal renal tubulopathy (PRT, Fanconi syndrome) while receiving tenofovir disoproxil initiated tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and were followed for 5 years. None developed recurrent PRT or experienced significant changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (by creatinine or cystatin-C), albuminuria, proteinuria, retinol-binding proteinuria, fractional excretion of phosphate, alkaline phosphatase, or bone mineral density at the lumbar spine. These data suggest that TAF is a well tolerated treatment option for individuals vulnerable to developing PRT.

Safety of Tenofovir Alafenamide in People With HIV Who Experienced Proximal Renal Tubulopathy on Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate.

BACKGROUND: Proximal renal tubulopathy (PRT) is an infrequent complication of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). It remains to be established whether tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) can be safely administered to individuals who experienced PRT on TDF. METHODS: Individuals with a history of TDF-associated PRT and current estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 initiated TAF and were followed for 96 weeks. The primary outcome of interest was recurrent PRT. Secondary outcomes were changes in kidney biomarkers, bone biomarkers, and bone mineral density (BMD). Data were analyzed using multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models. The trial was registered under EudraCT 2016-003345-29. RESULTS: All 31 participants [median age 55 (inter-quartile range 51, 60) years, 97% men, 87% White ethnicity] remained on TAF at week 96, and none developed glycosuria or recurrent PRT. Participants experienced small declines in eGFR-creatinine [-1.9 (95% confidence interval: -3.5 to -0.3) mL/min/1.73 m2/yr; P = 0.024], but not in eGFR-cystatin C [-0.9 (-2.1 to 0.4) mL/min/1.73 m2/yr; P = 0.16]. Ten (32%) and 5 (16%) participants experienced rapid (>5 mL/min/1.73 m2/yr) decline in eGFR-creatinine and eGFR-cystatin C. No significant change in other kidney biomarkers, bone turnover, or BMD was observed (P > 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with a history of PRT on TDF, 96 weeks of TAF was not associated with recurrent PRT or adverse effects on renal tubular function, bone turnover, or BMD. These data suggest that TAF is a treatment option for this vulnerable population.

When participants get involved: reconsidering patient and public involvement in clinical trials at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials aims to ensure that research is carried out collaboratively with patients and/or members of the public. However, current guidance on involving clinical trial participants in PPI activities is not consistent. METHODS: We reviewed the concept of participant involvement, based on our experience. Two workshops were held at the MRCCTU at UCL with the aim of defining participant involvement, considering its rationale; benefits and challenges; and identifying appropriate models for participant involvement in clinical trials. We considered how participant involvement might complement the involvement of other public contributors. Both workshops were attended by two patient representatives and seven staff members with experience of PPI in trials. Two of the staff members had also been involved in studies that had actively involved participants. They shared details of that work to inform discussions. RESULTS: We defined trial participants as individuals taking part in the study in question, including those who had already completed their trial treatment and/or follow-up. Because of their direct experience, involving participants may offer advantages over other public contributors; for example, in studies of new interventions or procedures, and where it is hard to identify or reach patient or community groups that include or speak for the study population. Participant involvement is possible at all stages of a trial; however, because there are no participants to involve during the design stage of a trial, prior to enrolment, participant involvement should complement and not replace involvement of PPI stakeholders. A range of models, including those with managerial, oversight or responsive roles are appropriate for involving participants; however, involvement in data safety and monitoring committees may not be appropriate where there is a potential risk of unblinding. Involvement of participants can improve the trial experience for other participants; optimising study procedures, improving communications; however, there are some specific, notably, managing participant confidentiality and practicalities relating to payments. CONCLUSIONS: Participant involvement in clinical trials is feasible and complements other forms of PPI in clinical trials. Involving active participants offers significant advantages, particularly in circumstances where trials are assessing new, or otherwise unavailable, therapies or processes. We recommend that current guidance on PPI should be updated to routinely consider including participants as valid stakeholders in PPI and potentially useful approach to PPI.

Models and impact of patient and public involvement in studies carried out by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London: findings from ten case studies.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in studies carried out by the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at University College London varies by research type and setting. We developed a series of case studies of PPI to document and share good practice. METHODS: We used purposive sampling to identify studies representing the scope of research at the MRC CTU and different approaches to PPI. We carried out semi-structured interviews with staff and patient representatives. Interview notes were analysed descriptively to categorise the main aims and motivations for involvement; activities undertaken; their impact on the studies and lessons learned. RESULTS: We conducted 19 interviews about ten case studies, comprising one systematic review, one observational study and 8 randomised controlled trials in HIV and cancer. Studies were either open or completed, with start dates between 2003 and 2011. Interviews took place between March and November 2014 and were updated in summer 2015 where there had been significant developments in the study (i.e. if the study had presented results subsequent to the interview taking place). A wide range of PPI models, including representation on trial committees or management groups, community engagement, one-off task-focused activities, patient research partners and participant involvement had been used. Overall, interviewees felt that PPI had a positive impact, leading to improvements, for example in the research question; study design; communication with potential participants; study recruitment; confidence to carry out or complete a study; interpretation and communication of results; and influence on future research. CONCLUSIONS: A range of models of PPI can benefit clinical studies. Researchers should consider different approaches to PPI, based on the desired impact and the people they want to involve. Use of multiple models may increase the potential impacts of PPI in clinical research.