| Pharmacotherapeutic group: Antiviral for systemic use; nucleoside and nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, ATC code: J05AF07Mechanism of action and pharmacodynamic effects: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is the fumarate salt of the prodrug tenofovir disoproxil. Tenofovir disoproxil is absorbed and converted to the active substance tenofovir, which is a nucleoside monophosphate (nucleotide) analogue. Tenofovir is then converted to the active metabolite, tenofovir diphosphate, an obligate chain terminator, by constitutively expressed cellular enzymes. Tenofovir diphosphate has an intracellular half-life of 10 hours in activated and 50 hours in resting peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Tenofovir diphosphate inhibits HIV-1 reverse transcriptase and the HBV polymerase by direct binding competition with the natural deoxyribonucleotide substrate and, after incorporation into DNA, by DNA chain termination. Tenofovir diphosphate is a weak inhibitor of cellular polymerases α, β, and γ. At concentrations of up to 300 µmol/l, tenofovir has also shown no effect on the synthesis of mitochondrial DNA or the production of lactic acid in in vitro assays. Data pertaining to HIV: HIV antiviral activity in vitro: The concentration of tenofovir required for 50% inhibition (EC50) of the wild-type laboratory strain HIV-1IIIB is 1-6 µmol/l in lymphoid cell lines and 1.1 µmol/l against primary HIV-1 subtype B isolates in PBMCs. Tenofovir is also active against HIV-1 subtypes A, C, D, E, F, G, and O and against HIVBaL in primary monocyte/macrophage cells. Tenofovir shows activity in vitro against HIV-2, with an EC50 of 4.9 µmol/l in MT-4 cells.Resistance: Strains of HIV-1 with reduced susceptibility to tenofovir and a K65R mutation in reverse transcriptase have been selected in vitro and in some patients (see Clinical results). Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate should be avoided in antiretroviral-experienced patients with strains harbouring the K65R mutation (see section 4.4).Clinical studies in treatment-experienced patients have assessed the anti-HIV activity of tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) against strains of HIV-1 with resistance to nucleoside inhibitors. The results indicate that patients whose HIV expressed 3 or more thymidine-analogue associated mutations (TAMs) that included either the M41L or L210W reverse transcriptase mutation showed reduced response to tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) therapy.Clinical efficacy and safety: The effects of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-experienced and treatment-naïve HIV-1 infected adults have been demonstrated in trials of 48 weeks and 144 weeks duration, respectively.In study GS-99-907, 550 treatment-experienced patients were treated with placebo or tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) for 24 weeks. The mean baseline CD4 cell count was 427 cells/mm3, the mean baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA was 3.4 log10 copies/ml (78% of patients had a viral load of < 5,000 copies/ml) and the mean duration of prior HIV treatment was 5.4 years. Baseline genotypic analysis of HIV isolates from 253 patients revealed that 94% of patients had HIV-1 resistance mutations associated with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, 58% had mutations associated with protease inhibitors and 48% had mutations associated with non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.At week 24 the time-weighted average change from baseline in log10 plasma HIV-1 RNA levels (DAVG24) was -0.03 log10 copies/ml and -0.61 log10 copies/ml for the placebo and tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) recipients (p < 0.0001). A statistically significant difference in favour of tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) was seen in the time-weighted average change from baseline at week 24 (DAVG24) for CD4 count (+13 cells/mm3 for tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) versus -11 cells/mm3 for placebo, p-value = 0.0008). The antiviral response to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was durable through 48 weeks (DAVG48 was -0.57 log10 copies/ml, proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA below 400 or 50 copies/ml was 41% and 18% respectively). Eight (2%) tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) treated patients developed the K65R mutation within the first 48 weeks.The 144-week, double-blind, active controlled phase of study GS-99-903 evaluated the efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) versus stavudine when used in combination with lamivudine and efavirenz in HIV-1 infected patients naïve to antiretroviral therapy. The mean baseline CD4 cell count was 279 cells/mm3, the mean baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA was 4.91 log10 copies/ml, 19% of patients had symptomatic HIV-1 infection and 18% had AIDS. Patients were stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and CD4 count. Forty-three percent of patients had baseline viral loads> 100,000 copies/ml and 39% had CD4 cell counts < 200 cells/ml.By intent to treat analysis (Missing data and switch in antiretroviral therapy (ART) considered as failure), the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA below 400 copies/ml and 50 copies/ml at 48 weeks of treatment was 80% and 76% respectively in the tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) arm, compared to 84% and 80% in the stavudine arm. At 144 weeks, the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA below 400 copies/ml and 50 copies/ml was 71% and 68% respectively in the tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) arm, compared to 64% and 63% in the stavudine arm.The average change from baseline for HIV-1 RNA and CD4 count at 48 weeks of treatment was similar in both treatment groups (-3.09 and -3.09 log10 copies/ml; +169 and 167 cells/mm3 in the tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) and stavudine groups, respectively). At 144 weeks of treatment, the average change from baseline remained similar in both treatment groups (-3.07 and -3.03 log10 copies/ml; +263 and +283 cells/mm3 in the tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) and stavudine groups, respectively). A consistent response to treatment with tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) was seen regardless of baseline HIV-1 RNA and CD4 count.The K65R mutation occurred in a slightly higher percentage of patients in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group than the active control group (2.7% versus 0.7%). Efavirenz or lamivudine resistance either preceded or was coincident with the development of K65R in all cases. Eight patients had HIV that expressed K65R in the tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) arm, 7 of these occurred during the first 48 weeks of treatment and the last one at week 96. No further K65R development was observed up to week 144. From both the genotypic and phenotypic analyses there was no evidence for other pathways of resistance to tenofovir.Data pertaining to HBV: HBV antiviral activity in vitro: The in vitro antiviral activity of tenofovir against HBV was assessed in the HepG2 2.2.15 cell line. The EC50 values for tenofovir were in the range of 0.14 to 1.5 µmol/l, with CC50 (50% cytotoxicity concentration) values> 100 µmol/l.Resistance: No HBV mutations associated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate resistance have been identified (see Clinical results). In cell based assays, HBV strains expressing the rtV173L, rtL180M, and rtM204I/V mutations associated with resistance to lamivudine and telbivudine showed a susceptibility to tenofovir ranging from 0.7- to 3.4-fold that of wild-type virus. HBV strains expressing the rtL180M, rtT184G, rtS202G/I, rtM204V and rtM250V mutations associated with resistance to entecavir showed a susceptibility to tenofovir ranging from 0.6- to 6.9-fold that of wild-type virus. HBV strains expressing the adefovir-associated resistance mutations rtA181V and rtN236T showed a susceptibility to tenofovir ranging from 2.9- to 10-fold that of wild-type virus. Viruses containing the rtA181T mutation remained susceptible to tenofovir with EC50 values 1.5-fold that of wild-type virus.Clinical efficacy and safety: The demonstration of benefit of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in compensated and decompensated disease is based on virological, biochemical and serological responses in adults with HBeAg positive and HBeAg negative chronic hepatitis B. Treated patients included those who were treatment-naïve, lamivudine-experienced, adefovir dipivoxil-experienced and patients with lamivudine and/or adefovir dipivoxil resistance mutations at baseline. Benefit has also been demonstrated based on histological responses in compensated patients.Experience in patients with compensated liver disease at 48 weeks (studies GS-US-174-0102 and GS-US-174-0103): Results through 48 weeks from two randomised, phase 3 double-blind studies comparing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to adefovir dipivoxil in patients with compensated liver disease are presented in Table 3 below. Study GS-US-174-0103 was conducted in 266 (randomised and treated) HBeAg positive patients while study GS-US-174-0102 was conducted in 375 (randomised and treated) patients negative for HBeAg and positive for HBeAb.In both of these studies tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was significantly superior to adefovir dipivoxil for the primary efficacy endpoint of complete response (defined as HBV DNA levels < 400 copies/ml and Knodell necroinflammatory score improvement of at least 2 points without worsening in Knodell fibrosis). Treatment with tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) was also associated with significantly greater proportions of patients with HBV DNA < 400 copies/ml, when compared to adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg treatment. Both treatments produced similar results with regard to histological response (defined as Knodell necroinflammatory score improvement of at least 2 points without worsening in Knodell fibrosis) at week 48 (see Table 3 below).In study GS-US-174-0103 a significantly greater proportion of patients in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group than in the adefovir dipivoxil group had normalised ALT and achieved HBsAg loss at week 48 (see Table 3 below).Table 3: Efficacy parameters in compensated HBeAg negative and HBeAg positive patients at week 48| | Study 174-0102 (HBeAg negative) | Study 174-0103 (HBeAg positive) | | Parameter
| Tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
n = 250
| Adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg
n = 125
| Tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
n = 176
| Adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg
n = 90
| | Complete response (%)a | 71*
| 49
| 67*
| 12
| | Histology | | | | | | Histological response (%)b | 72
| 69
| 74
| 68
| | Median HBV DNA reduction from baselinec(log10 copies/ml)
| -4.7*
| -4.0
| -6.4*
| -3.7
| | HBV DNA (%)
< 400 copies/ml (< 69 IU/ml)
| 93*
| 63
| 76*
| 13
| | ALT (%)
Normalised ALTd | 76
| 77
| 68*
| 54
| | Serology (%)
HBeAg loss/seroconversion
| n/a
| n/a
| 22/21
| 18/18
| | HBsAg loss/seroconversion
| 0/0
| 0/0
| 3*/1
| 0/0
| * p-value versus adefovir dipivoxil < 0.05.a Complete response defined as HBV DNA levels < 400 copies/ml and Knodell necroinflammatory score improvement of at least 2 points without worsening in Knodell fibrosis.b Knodell necroinflammatory score improvement of at least 2 points without worsening in Knodell fibrosis.c Median change from baseline HBV DNA merely reflects the difference between baseline HBV DNA and the limit of detection (LOD) of the assay.d The population used for analysis of ALT normalisation included only patients with ALT above ULN at baseline.n/a = not applicable.Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was associated with significantly greater proportions of patients with undetectable HBV DNA (< 169 copies/ml [< 29 IU/ml]; the limit of quantification of the Roche Cobas Taqman HBV assay), when compared to adefovir dipivoxil (study GS-US-174-0102; 91%, 56% and study GS-US-174-0103; 69%, 9%), respectively.Response to treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was comparable in nucleoside-experienced (n = 51) and nucleoside-naïve (n = 375) patients and in patients with normal ALT (n = 21) and abnormal ALT (n = 405) at baseline when studies GS-US-174-0102 and GS-US-174-0103 were combined. Forty-nine of the 51 nucleoside-experienced patients were previously treated with lamivudine. Seventy-three percent of nucleoside-experienced and 69% of nucleoside-naïve patients achieved complete response to treatment; 90% of nucleoside-experienced and 88% of nucleoside-naïve patients achieved HBV DNA suppression < 400 copies/ml. All patients with normal ALT at baseline and 88% of patients with abnormal ALT at baseline achieved HBV DNA suppression < 400 copies/ml.Experience beyond 48 weeks in studies GS-US-174-0102 and GS-US-174-0103: In studies GS-US-174-0102 and GS-US-174-0103, after receiving double-blind treatment for 48 weeks (either tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) or adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg), patients rolled over with no interruption in treatment to open-label tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. In studies GS-US-174-0102 and GS-US-174-0103, 81% and 70% of patients continued in the study through to 240 weeks, respectively. At weeks 96, 144, 192 and 240, viral suppression, biochemical and serological responses were maintained with continued tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment (see Table 4 below).Table 4: Efficacy parameters in compensated HBeAg negative and HBeAg positive patients at week 96, 144, 192 and 240 open-label treatment | | Study 174-0102 (HBeAg negative) | Study 174-0103 (HBeAg positive) | | Parametera | Tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
n = 250
| Adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg roll over to tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
n = 125
| Tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
n = 176
| Adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg roll over to tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
n = 90
| | Week | 96b | 144e | 192h | 240j | 96c | 144f | 192i | 240k | 96b | 144e | 192h | 240 j | 96c | 144f | 192i | 240k | | HBV DNA (%)
<400copies/ml (<69IU/ml)
| 90
| 87
| 84
| 83
| 89
| 88
| 87
| 84
| 76
| 72
| 68
| 64
| 74
| 71
| 72
| 66
| | ALT (%)
Normalised ALTd | 72
| 73
| 67
| 70
| 68
| 70
| 77
| 76
| 60
| 55
| 56
| 46
| 65
| 61
| 59
| 56
| | Serology (%)
HBeAg loss/ seroconversion
| n/a
| n/a
| n/a
| n/a
| n/a
| n/a
| n/a
| n/a
| 26/23
| 29/23
| 34/25
| 38/30
| 24/20
| 33/26
| 36/30
| 38/31
| | HBsAg loss/ seroconversion
| 0/0
| 0/0
| 0/0
| 0/0
| 0/0
| 0/0
| 0/0
| 0/0l | 5/4
| 8/6g | 11/8g | 11/8m | 6/5
| 8/7g | 8/7g | 10/10m | a Based upon Long Term Evaluation algorithm (LTE Analysis) - Patients who discontinued the study at any time prior to week 240 due to a protocol defined endpoint, as well as those completing week 240, are included in the denominator.b 48 weeks double-blind tenofovir disoproxil fumarate followed by 48 weeks open-label.c 48 weeks double-blind adefovir dipivoxil followed by 48 weeks open-label tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.d The population used for analysis of ALT normalisation included only patients with ALT above ULN at baseline.e 48 weeks double-blind tenofovir disoproxil fumarate followed by 96 weeks open-label.f 48 weeks double-blind adefovir dipivoxil followed by 96 weeks open-label tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.g Figures presented are cumulative percentages based upon a Kaplan Meier analysis including data collected after the addition of emtricitabine to open-label tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (KM-ITT).h 48 weeks double-blind tenofovir disoproxil fumarate followed by 144 weeks open-label.i 48 weeks double-blind adefovir dipivoxil followed by 144 weeks open-label tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.j 48 weeks double-blind tenofovir disoproxil fumarate followed by 192 weeks open-label.k 48 weeks double-blind adefovir dipivoxil followed by 192 weeks open-label tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.l One patient in this group became HBsAg negative for the first time at the 240 week visit and was ongoing in the study at the time of the data cut-off. However, the subject's HBsAg loss was ultimately confirmed at the subsequent visit.m Figures presented are cumulative percentages based upon a Kaplan Meier analysis excluding data collected after the addition of emtricitabine to open-label tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (KM-TDF).n/a = not applicable.Paired baseline and week 240 liver biopsy data were available for 331/489 patients who remained in studies GS-US-174-0102 and GS-US-174-0103 (see Table 5 below). Ninety-five percent (225/237) of patients without cirrhosis at baseline and 99% (93/94) of patients with cirrhosis at baseline had either no change or an improvement in fibrosis (Ishak fibrosis score). Of the 94 patients with cirrhosis at baseline (Ishak fibrosis score 5-6), 26% (24) experienced no change in Ishak fibrosis score and 72% (68) experienced regression of cirrhosis by week 240 with a reduction in Ishak fibrosis score of at least 2 points.Table 5: Histological response (%) in compensated HBeAg negative and HBeAg positive subjects at week 240 compared to baseline| | Study 174-0102 (HBeAg negative) | Study 174-0103 (HBeAg positive) | Tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
n = 250c | Adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg roll over to tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
n = 125d | Tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
n = 176c | Adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg roll over to tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
n = 90d | | Histological responsea,b (%)
| 88
[130/148]
| 85
[63/74]
| 90
[63/70]
| 92
[36/39]
| a The population used for analysis of histology included only patients with available liver biopsy data (Missing = Excluded) by week 240. Response after addition of emtricitabine is excluded (total of 17 subjects across both studies). b Knodell necroinflammatory score improvement of at least 2 points without worsening in Knodell fibrosis score.c 48 weeks double-blind tenofovir disoproxil fumarate followed by up to 192 weeks open-label.d 48 weeks double-blind adefovir dipivoxil followed by up to 192 weeks open-label tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.Experience in patients with HIV co-infection and prior lamivudine experience: In a randomised, 48-week double-blind, controlled study of tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) in patients co-infected with HIV-1 and chronic hepatitis B with prior lamivudine experience (study ACTG 5127), the mean serum HBV DNA levels at baseline in patients randomised to the tenofovir arm were 9.45 log10 copies/ml (n = 27). Treatment with tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) was associated with a mean change in serum HBV DNA from baseline, in the patients for whom there was 48-week data, of -5.74 log10 copies/ml (n = 18). In addition, 61% of patients had normal ALT at week 48.Experience in patients with persistent viral replication: The efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) or tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate) plus 200 mg emtricitabine has been evaluated in a randomised, double-blind study (study GS-US-174-0106), in HBeAg positive and HBeAg negative patients who had persistent viraemia (HBV DNA 1,000 copies/ml) while receiving adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg for more than 24 weeks. At baseline, 57% of patients randomised to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus 60% of patients randomised to emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment group had previously been treated with lamivudine. Overall at week 24, treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate resulted in 66% (35/53) of patients with HBV DNA < 400 copies/ml (< 69 IU/ml) versus 69% (36/52) of patients treated with emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (p = 0.672). In addition 55% (29/53) of patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had undetectable HBV DNA (< 169 copies/ml [< 29 IU/ml]; the limit of quantification of the Roche Cobas TaqMan HBV assay) versus 60% (31/52) of patients treated with emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (p = 0.504). Comparisons between treatment groups beyond week 24 are difficult to interpret since investigators had the option to intensify treatment to open-label emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil. Long-term studies to evaluate the benefit/risk of bitherapy with emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in HBV monoinfected patients are ongoing.Experience in patients with decompensated liver disease at 48 weeks: Study GS-US-174-0108 is a randomised, double-blind, active controlled study evaluating the safety and efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n = 45), emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n = 45), and entecavir (n = 22), in patients with decompensated liver disease. In the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment arm, patients had a mean CPT score of 7.2, mean HBV DNA of 5.8 log10 copies/ml and mean serum ALT of 61 U/l at baseline. Forty-two percent (19/45) of patients had at least 6 months of prior lamivudine experience, 20% (9/45) of patients had prior adefovir dipivoxil experience and 9 of 45 patients (20%) had lamivudine and/or adefovir dipivoxil resistance mutations at baseline. The co-primary safety endpoints were discontinuation due to an adverse event and confirmed increase in serum creatinine 0.5 mg/dl or confirmed serum phosphate of < 2 mg/dl.In patients with CPT scores 9, 74% (29/39) of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and 94% (33/35) of emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment groups achieved HBV DNA < 400 copies/ml after 48 weeks of treatment.Overall, the data derived from this study are too limited to draw any definitive conclusions on the comparison of emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, (see Table 6 below).Table 6: Safety and efficacy parameters in decompensated patients at week 48| | Study 174-0108 | | Parameter
| Tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
(n = 45)
| Emtricitabine 200 mg/ tenofovir disoproxil 245 mg (as fumarate)
(n = 45)
| Entecavir
(0.5 mg or 1 mg)
n = 22
| | Tolerability failuren (%)a | 3 (7%)
| 2 (4%)
| 2 (9%)
| Confirmed increase in serum creatinine 0.5 mg/dl from baseline or confirmed serum phosphate of < 2 mg/dln (%)b | 4 (9%)
| 3 (7%)
| 1 (5%)
| | HBV DNA n (%)
< 400 copies/ml
n (%)
| 31/44 (70%)
| 36/41 (88%)
| 16/22 (73%)
| | ALT n (%)Normal ALT
| 25/44 (57%)
| 31/41 (76%)
| 12/22 (55%)
| 2 point decrease in CPT from baselinen (%)
| 7/27 (26%)
| 12/25 (48%)
| 5/12 (42%)
| | Mean change from baseline in CPT score | -0.8
| -0.9
| -1.3
| | Mean change from baseline in MELD score | -1.8
| -2.3
| -2.6
| a p-value comparing the combined tenofovir-containing arms versus the entecavir arm = 0.622,b p-value comparing the combined tenofovir-containing arms versus the entecavir arm = 1.000.Clinical resistance: Four hundred and twenty-six HBeAg negative (GS-US-174-0102, n = 250) and HBeAg positive (GS-US-174-0103, n = 176) patients were evaluated for genotypic changes in HBV polymerase from baseline. Genotypic evaluations performed on all patients initially randomised to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate arm (i.e. excluding patients who received double-blind adefovir dipivoxil and then switched to open-label tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) with HBV DNA > 400 copies/ml at week 48 (n = 39), week 96 (n = 24), week 144 (n = 6), week 192 (n = 5) and week 240 (n = 4) on tenofovir disoproxil fumarate monotherapy, showed that no mutations associated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate resistance have developed.In study GS-US-174-0108, 45 patients (including 9 patients with lamivudine and/or adefovir dipivoxil resistance mutations at baseline) received tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for up to 48 weeks. Genotypic data from paired baseline and on treatment HBV isolates were available for 6/8 patients with HBV DNA > 400 copies/ml. No amino acid substitutions associated with resistance to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were identified in these isolates.Paediatric population: In study GS-US-104-0321, 87 HIV-1 infected treatment-experienced patients 12 to < 18 years of age were treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n = 45) or placebo (n = 42) in combination with an optimised background regimen (OBR) for 48 weeks. The mean baseline CD4 cell count was 374 cells/mm3 and the mean baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA was 4.6 log10 copies/ml. The primary efficacy endpoint was time-weighted average change from baseline through week 24 (DAVG24) in plasma HIV-1 RNA. No additional benefit over OBR was observed with the addition of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate compared to placebo (DAVG24 -1.58 log10 copies/ml versus -1.55 log10 copies/ml respectively, p = 0.55). K65R developed in 1 subject in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group.In patients who received treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or placebo, mean lumbar spine BMD Z-score was -1.004 and -0.809, and mean total body BMD Z-score was -0.866 and -0.584, respectively, at baseline. Mean changes at week 48 (end of double-blind phase) were -0.215 and -0.165 in lumbar spine BMD Z-score, and -0.254 and -0.179 in total body BMD Z-score for the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and placebo groups, respectively. The mean rate of BMD gain was less in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group compared to the placebo group. At week 48, six adolescents in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group and one adolescent in the placebo group had significant lumbar spine BMD loss (defined as > 4% loss). Among 28 patients receiving 96 weeks of treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, BMD Z-scores declined by -0.341 for lumbar spine and -0.458 for total body.The efficacy and safety data derived from this study do not support the use of Viread in adolescents.The European Medicines Agency has deferred the obligation to submit the results of studies with Viread in one or more subsets of the paediatric population in HIV and chronic hepatitis B (see section 4.2 for information on paediatric use). | |