Comparison of Changes in Bone Density and Turnover with Abacavir-Lamivudine versus Tenofovir-Emtricitabine in HIV-Infected Adults: 48-Week Results from the ASSERT Study

Background. Abacavir-lamivudine and tenofovir DF-emtricitabine fixed-dose combinations are commonly used as first-line antiretroviral therapies. However, few studies have comprehensively compared their relative safety profiles. Methods. In this European, multicenter, open-label, 96-week study, antir...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inClinical infectious diseases Vol. 51; no. 8; pp. 963 - 972
Main Authors Stellbrink, Hans-Jürgen, Orkin, Chloe, Arribas, Jose Ramon, Compston, Juliet, Gerstoft, Jan, Van Wijngaerden, Eric, Lazzarin, Adriano, Rizzardini, Giuliano, Sprenger, Herman G., Lambert, John, Sture, Gunta, Leather, David, Hughes, Sara, Zucchi, Patrizia, Pearce, Helen
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford The University of Chicago Press 15.10.2010
University of Chicago Press
Oxford University Press
Subjects
Hip
HIV
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Background. Abacavir-lamivudine and tenofovir DF-emtricitabine fixed-dose combinations are commonly used as first-line antiretroviral therapies. However, few studies have comprehensively compared their relative safety profiles. Methods. In this European, multicenter, open-label, 96-week study, antiretroviral-naive adult subjects with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were randomized to receive either abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir-emtricitabine with efavirenz. Primary analyses were conducted after 48 weeks of treatment. Bone mineral density (BMD), a powered secondary end point, was assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Bone turnover markers (osteocalcin, procollagen 1 N-terminal propeptide, bone specific alkaline phosphatase, and type 1 collagen cross-linked C telopeptide [CTx]) were assessed in an exploratory analysis. Results. A total of 385 subjects were enrolled in the study. BMD loss was observed in both treatment groups, with a significant difference in the change from baseline in both total hip (abacavir-lamivudine group, −1.9%; tenofovir-emtricitabine group, −3.6%; P <; .001) and lumbar spine (abacavir-lamivudine group, −1.6%; tenofoviremtricitabine group, −2.4%; P = .036). BMD loss of ⩾6% was more common in the tenofovir-emtricitabine group (13% of the tenofovir-emtricitabine group vs 3% of the abacavir-lamivudine group had a loss of ⩾6% in the hip; 15% vs 5% had a loss of ⩾6% in the spine). Bone turnover markers increased in both treatment groups over the first 24 weeks, stabilizing or decreasing thereafter. Increases in all markers were significantly greater in the tenofovir-emtricitabine treatment group than in the abacavir-lamivudine group at week 24. All but CTx remained significantly different at week 48 (eg, osteocalcin: abacavir-lamivudine group, +8.07 mg/L; tenofoviremtricitabine group, +11.92 mg/L; P < .001). Conclusions. This study demonstrated the impact of first-line treatment regimens on bone. Greater increases in bone turnover and decreases in BMD were observed in subjects treated with tenofovir-emtricitabine than were observed in subjects treated with abacavir-lamivudine.
Bibliography:ark:/67375/HXZ-PJ93L813-R
istex:347EB15D9E99F71D11640A4E1A7D4889859FB252
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:1058-4838
1537-6591
1537-6591
DOI:10.1086/656417