@article {Rotea-Salvoejhpharm-2021-002896, author = {Sandra Rotea-Salvo and Alejandro Mart{\'\i}nez-Pradeda and Carla Fern{\'a}ndez-Oliveira and Victor Gim{\'e}nez-Arufe and Vanesa Balboa-Barreiro and Luis Margusino-Frami{\~n}{\'a}n and {\'A}lvaro Mena-De-Cea and Pilar V{\'a}zquez-Rodr{\'\i}guez and {\'A}ngeles Castro-Iglesias and Soledad L{\'o}pez-Calvo and Isabel Mart{\'\i}n-Herranz and Enrique M{\'\i}guez-Rey and Purificaci{\'o}n Cid-Silva}, title = {Renal profile of patients treated with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide fumarate and dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine: 120-week results from a real-world cohort}, elocation-id = {ejhpharm-2021-002896}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1136/ejhpharm-2021-002896}, publisher = {BMJ Specialist Journals}, abstract = {Elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (EVG/c/FTC/TAF) and dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC) are currently available for HIV patients.Objectives This study evaluated modifications in the renal safety profile in a large real-world cohort of patients who had received EVG/c/FTC/TAF or DTG/ABC/3TC.Methods A retrospective observational study of HIV-infected patients who received EVG/c/FTC/TAF or DTG/ABC/3TC between March 2015 and June 2019 at a reference hospital in north-western Spain was conducted. Epidemiological, clinical, immunovirological data and information regarding antiretroviral therapy were recorded. The statistical differences between treatments were calculated.Results A total of 457 patients were evaluated, 266 using EVG/c/FTC/TAF and 191 using DTG/ABC/3TC. Up to week 120, serum creatinine improved in both study groups among experienced patients (EVG/c/FTC/TAF 1.01{\textpm}0.24 vs 0.91{\textpm}0.19, p\<0.001; DTG/ABC/3TC 1.08{\textpm}0.24 vs 1.02{\textpm}0.31, p\<0.001), while in na{\"\i}ve patients serum creatinine remained stable compared with baseline. Statistically significant differences were found in serum creatinine when comparing both treatments at week 48 in experienced (0.94{\textpm}0.21 vs 1.09{\textpm}0.28, p\<0.001) and na{\"\i}ve patients (0.89{\textpm}0.16 vs 1.06{\textpm}0.20, p=0.001), and among experienced patients at week 120 (0.91{\textpm}0.19 vs 1.02{\textpm}0.31, p=0.015) for the EVG/c/FTC/TAF and DTG/ABC/3TC groups, respectively. During the follow-up, 39 patients in EVG/c/FTC/TAF and 33 in DTG/ABC/3TC (p=0.449) discontinued treatment. The main reason for stopping treatment was adverse events, which were similar in both groups.Conclusions During the follow-up, patients experienced changes that were not clinically relevant in both treatment groups. Differences in renal events were not found.Data are available upon reasonable request.}, issn = {2047-9956}, URL = {https://ejhp.bmj.com/content/early/2021/10/14/ejhpharm-2021-002896}, eprint = {https://ejhp.bmj.com/content/early/2021/10/14/ejhpharm-2021-002896.full.pdf}, journal = {European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy} }