Renal impairment: an unnecessary barrier to HIV prevention.

The use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in combination with emtricitabine, prescribed for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), is highly effective at reducing incident sexually transmissible HIV infection among those at risk. TDF is associated with proteinuria, Fanconi syndrome and chronic kidney disease, and is not recommended for use in patients with an estimated creatinine clearance <60 mL min-1. There are currently no Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)-funded PrEP options for patients at risk of HIV infection with moderate renal impairment in Australia. This report describes the case of a patient who acquired HIV soon after PrEP was suspended due to moderate renal impairment. The various clinical and regulatory issues this case raises are discussed.

Review of Real-World Implementation Data on Emtricitabine-Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate as HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis in the United States.

The antiretroviral combination of emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in individuals at high risk for acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in July 2012. Since then, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for the use of PrEP have been published and implemented into clinical practice throughout the United States. A number of published open-label and PrEP demonstration projects have evaluated the real-world use of PrEP including analysis of the barriers to its use and addressing major concerns. Despite the approval of FTC/TDF for PrEP, its use for this indication relies on patient and provider acceptance, and its effectiveness requires patient adherence and retention in care during periods of high-risk behaviors. Concerns regarding the use of PrEP in healthy individuals persist and include medication adverse effects including renal dysfunction and bone mineral density loss; risk compensation leading to HIV infections, sexually transmitted infections, and unintended pregnancies; and the development of drug resistance in the event of seroconversion. The cost-effectiveness of PrEP continues to be assessed with the greatest cost-effectiveness remaining in those at highest risk of acquiring HIV. Additionally, cases of HIV acquisition in individuals who are adherent to PrEP highlight scenarios in which PrEP is not 100% effective including against the transmission of drug-resistant HIV strains. This review examines data on the implementation of PrEP outside the setting of clinical trials with the aim of providing clinicians with a summary of the current barriers and opportunities for PrEP use with a specific focus on the role of pharmacists in the optimization of PrEP implementation.

Health Care Costs in a Cohort of HIV-Infected U.S. Veterans Receiving Regimens Containing Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a key component in many human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment regimens, is associated with increased renal and bone toxicities. The contributions of such toxicities to treatment costs, as well as the relative differences in treatment costs for various TDF/emtricitabine (FTC) regimens, remains unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare mean overall and renal- and bone-specific costs, including total, inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs in patients treated with TDF/FTC+efavirenz (EFV) compared with several non-EFV-containing TDF/FTC regimens. METHODS: We conducted a national cohort study of treatment-naive HIV-infected U.S. veterans who initiated treatment from 2003 to 2015 with TDF/FTC in combination with EFV, elvitegravir/cobicistat, rilpivirine, or ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (atazanavir, darunavir, or lopinavir). Outcomes of interest were quarterly total, inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs using data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical record and Managerial Cost Accounting System (an activity-based accounting system that allocates VHA expenditures to patient encounters). We controlled for measured confounders using inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weights and assessed differences using standardized mean differences (SMDs). For comparisons where SMDs exceeded 0.1 after IPT weighting, we used the more conservative matching weights in sensitivity analyses. For hypothesis testing, we compared IPT-adjusted differences in quarterly costs between treatment groups using Mann-Whitney U-tests and generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression models. RESULTS: Of 33,048 HIV-positive veterans, 7,222 met eligibility criteria, including 4,172 TDF/FTC + EFV recipients; mean (SD) age of the cohort was 50.0 (10.0) years; 96.7% were male; 60.1% were black; and 30.1% were white. Quarterly periods of exposure to EFV-containing regimens were 22,499 and of exposure to non-EFV-containing regimens were 11,633. After IPT weighting, absolute SMDs were < 0.1 except for a few covariates in the rilpivirine comparison. The per-patient adjusted mean total quarterly costs were $7,145 for EFV versus $8,726 for non-EFV (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney U-test) and the per-patient adjusted mean difference in total quarterly costs was $1,419 lower for EFV versus all non-EFV combined (P < 0.001; GEE model). Corresponding values for outpatient costs ($2,656 vs. $2,942; P < 0.001; difference, -$254; P = 0.001), inpatient costs ($2,009 vs. $2,614; P < 0.001), radiology costs ($213 vs. $276; P < 0.001), and pharmacy costs ($2,480 vs. $3,170; P < 0.001; difference, -$600; P < 0.001) were all lower for EFV versus all non-EFV combined. Findings based on matching weights were qualitatively similar. Contributions of renal and bone costs to the total costs of treatment were very small, ranging between $52 and $94 per patient per quarter for renal outcomes and between $6 and $114 for bone outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among 7,222 HIV-treated veterans over an average follow-up of 1.2 years per patient, those patients receiving TDF/FTC + EFV had lower overall health care costs compared with those receiving non-EFV regimens. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Nelson, Ma, Crook, Knippenberg, Nyman, and LaFleur are employees of the University of Utah, which received a grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb to conduct this study. Nyman also discloses honoraria for consulting from Otsuka and for writing a book chapter from Fresenius. La Fleur reports advisory board and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb outside of this study. Paul and Esker are employees of, and own stock in, Bristol-Myers Squibb.