Advertisement

 

 

Improved kidney function in patients who switch their protease inhibitor from atazanavir or lopinavir to darunavir.

Improved kidney function in patients who switch their protease inhibitor from atazanavir or lopinavir to darunavir.
Author Information (click to view)

Jose S, Nelson M, Phillips A, Chadwick D, Trevelion R, Jones R, Williams DI, Hamzah L, Sabin CA, Post FA, ,


Jose S, Nelson M, Phillips A, Chadwick D, Trevelion R, Jones R, Williams DI, Hamzah L, Sabin CA, Post FA, , (click to view)

Jose S, Nelson M, Phillips A, Chadwick D, Trevelion R, Jones R, Williams DI, Hamzah L, Sabin CA, Post FA, ,

Advertisement
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

AIDS (London, England) 31(4) 485-492 doi 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001353
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
Atazanavir (ATV) and lopinavir (LPV) have been associated with kidney disease progression in HIV positive patients, with no data reported for darunavir (DRV). We examined kidney function in patients who switched their protease inhibitor from ATV or LPV to DRV.

DESIGN
Cohort study.

METHODS
Data were from the UK CHIC study. We compared pre and post switch estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slopes (expressed in ml/min per 1.73 m per year) in all switchers and those with rapid eGFR decline (>5 ml/min per 1.73 m per year) on ATV or LPV. Mixed-effects models were adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, eGFR at switch and time updated CD4 cell count, HIV RNA and cumulative tenofovir (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) exposure.

RESULTS
Data from 1430 patients were included. At the time of switching to DRV, median age was 45 years, 79% were men, 76% had an undetectable viral load, and median eGFR was 93 ml/min per 1.73 m. Adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) pre and post switch eGFR slopes were -0.84 (-1.31, -0.36) and 1.23 (0.80, 1.66) for ATV (P < 0.001), and -0.57 (-1.09, -0.05) and 0.62 (0.28, 0.96) for LPV (P < 0.001). Stable or improved renal function was observed in patients with rapid eGFR decline on ATV or LPV who switched to DRV [-15.27 (-19.35, -11.19) and 3.72 (1.78, 5.66), P < 0.001 for ATV, -11.93 (-14.60, -9.26) and 0.87 (-0.54, 2.27), P < 0.001 for LPV]. Similar results were obtained if participants who discontinued tenofovir disoproxil fumarate at the time of switch were excluded. CONCLUSIONS
We report improved kidney function in patients who switched from ATV or LPV to DRV, suggesting that DRV may have a more favourable renal safety profile.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

five × three =

[ HIDE/SHOW ]