Long-term Efficacy And Safety Of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate In Hiv-1-infected Adolescents Failing Antiretroviral Therapy: The Final Results Of Study Gs-us-104-0321.

Reports of long-term tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) treatment in HIV-infected adolescents are limited. We present final results from the open-label (OL) TDF extension following the randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled, double-blind phase of GS-US-104-0321 (Study 321). HIV-infected 12- to 17-year-olds treated with TDF 300 mg or PBO with an optimized background regimen (OBR) for 24-48 weeks subsequently received OL TDF plus OBR in a single arm study extension. HIV-1 RNA and safety, including bone mineral density (BMD), was assessed in all TDF recipients. Eighty-one subjects received TDF (median duration 96 weeks). No subject died or discontinued OL TDF for safety/tolerability. At week 144, proportions with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL were 30.4% (7 of 23 subjects with baseline HIV-1 RNA >1000 c/mL initially randomized to TDF), 41.7% (5 of 12 subjects with HIV-1 RNA <1000 c/mL who switched PBO to TDF) and 0% (0 of 2 subjects failed randomized PBO plus OBR with HIV-1 RNA >1000 c/mL and switched PBO to TDF). Viral resistance to TDF occurred in 1 subject. At week 144, median decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate was 38.1 mL/min/1.73 m (n = 25). Increases in median spine (+12.70%, n = 26) and total body less head BMD (+4.32%, n = 26) and height-age adjusted Z-scores (n = 21; +0.457 for spine, +0.152 for total body less head) were observed at week 144. Five of 81 subjects (6%) had persistent >4% BMD decreases from baseline. Some subjects had virologic responses to TDF plus OBR, and TDF resistance was rare. TDF was well tolerated and can be considered for treatment of HIV-infected adolescents.

HBV genotypes and response to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in HIV/HBV-coinfected persons.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotypes can influence treatment outcome in HBV-monoinfected and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/HBV-coinfected patients. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plays a pivotal role in antiretroviral therapy (ART) of HIV/HBV-coinfected patients. The influence of HBV genotypes on the response to antiviral drugs, particularly TDF, is poorly understood. METHODS: HIV/HBV-co-infected participants with detectable HBV DNA prior to TDF therapy were selected from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. HBV genotypes were identified and resistance testing was performed prior to antiviral therapy, and in patients with delayed treatment response (>6 months). The efficacy of TDF to suppress HBV (HBV DNA <20 IU/mL) and the influence of HBV genotypes were determined. RESULTS: 143 HIV/HBV-coinfected participants with detectable HBV DNA were identified. The predominant HBV genotypes were A (82 patients, 57 %); and D (35 patients, 24 %); 20 patients (14 %) were infected with multiple genotypes (3 % A + D and 11 % A + G); and genotypes B, C and E were each present in two patients (1 %). TDF completely suppressed HBV DNA in 131 patients (92 %) within 6 months; and in 12 patients (8 %), HBV DNA suppression was delayed. No HBV resistance mutations to TDF were found in patients with delayed response, but all were infected with HBV genotype A (among these, 5 patients with genotype A + G), and all had previously been exposed to lamivudine. CONCLUSION: In HIV/HBV-coinfected patients, infection with multiple HBV genotypes was more frequent than previously reported. The large majority of patients had an undetectable HBV viral load at six months of TDF-containing ART. In patients without viral suppression, no TDF-related resistance mutations were found. The role of specific genotypes and prior lamivudine treatment in the delayed response to TDF warrant further investigation.

Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in antiretroviral regimens for virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, active-controlled, multicentre, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral regimens containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have been associated with renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90%, thereby decreasing off-target side-effects. We aimed to assess whether efficacy, safety, and tolerability were non-inferior in patients switched to a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide versus in those remaining on one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: In this randomised, actively controlled, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited HIV-1-infected adults from Gilead clinical studies at 168 sites in 19 countries. Patients were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or greater, and were taking one of four tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens for at least 96 weeks before enrolment. With use of a third-party computer-generated sequence, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a once-a-day single-tablet containing elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 10 mg (tenofovir alafenamide group) or to carry on taking one of four previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group) for 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous treatment regimen in blocks of six. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received at least one dose of study drug who had undetectable viral load (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2013 and April 3, 2014, we enrolled 1443 patients. 959 patients were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 477 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Viral suppression at week 48 was noted in 932 (97%) patients assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and in 444 (93%) assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (adjusted difference 4·1%, 95% CI 1·6-6·7), with virological failure noted in ten and six patients, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between the two groups, but study drug-related adverse events were more common in the tenofovir alafenamide group (204 patients [21%] vs 76 [16%]). Hip and spine bone mineral density and glomerular filtration were each significantly improved in patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with those in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. INTERPRETATION: Switching to a tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimen from one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior for maintenance of viral suppression and led to improved bone mineral density and renal function. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Impact of Switching From Zidovudine to Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate on Bone Mineral Density and Markers of Bone Metabolism in Virologically Suppressed HIV-1 Infected Patients; A Substudy of the PREPARE Study

Context: In virologically suppressed, antiretroviral-treated patients, the effect of switching to tenofovir (TDF) on bone biomarkers compared to patients remaining on stable antiretroviral therapy is unknown. Methods: We examined bone biomarkers (osteocalcin [OC], procollagen type 1 amino-terminal propeptide, and C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type 1 collagen) and bone mineral density (BMD) over 48 weeks in virologically suppressed patients (HIV RNA < 50 copies/ml) randomized to switch to TDF/emtricitabine (FTC) or remain on first-line zidovudine (AZT)/lamivudine (3TC). PTH was also measured. Between-group differences in bone biomarkers and associations between change in bone biomarkers and BMD measures were assessed by Student's t tests, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression, respectively. All data are expressed as mean (SD), unless otherwise specified. Results: Of 53 subjects (aged 46.0 y; 84.9% male; 75.5% Caucasian), 29 switched to TDF/FTC. There were reductions in total hip and lumbar spine BMD in those switching to TDF/FTC (total hip, TDF/FTC, −1.73 (2.76)% vs AZT/3TC, −0.39 (2.41)%; between-group P = .07; lumbar spine, TDF/FTC, −1.50 (3.49)% vs AZT/3TC, +0.25 (2.82)%; between-group P = .06), but they did not reach statistical significance. Greater declines in lumbar spine BMD correlated with greater increases in OC (r = −0.28; P = .05). The effect of TDF/FTC on bone biomarkers remained significant when adjusted for baseline biomarker levels, gender, and ethnicity. There was no difference in change in PTH levels over 48 weeks between treatment groups (between-group P = .23). All biomarkers increased significantly from weeks 0 to 48 in the switch group, with no significant change in those remaining on AZT/3TC (between-group, all biomarkers, P < .0001). Conclusion: A switch to TDF/FTC compared to remaining on a stable regimen is associated with increases in bone turnover that correlate with reductions in BMD, suggesting that TDF exposure directly affects bone metabolism in vivo.

HBV genotypes and response to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in HIV/HBV-coinfected persons

BACKGROUND Hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotypes can influence treatment outcome in HBV-monoinfected and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/HBV-coinfected patients. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plays a pivotal role in antiretroviral therapy (ART) of HIV/HBV-coinfected patients. The influence of HBV genotypes on the response to antiviral drugs, particularly TDF, is poorly understood. METHODS HIV/HBV-co-infected participants with detectable HBV DNA prior to TDF therapy were selected from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. HBV genotypes were identified and resistance testing was performed prior to antiviral therapy, and in patients with delayed treatment response (>6 months). The efficacy of TDF to suppress HBV (HBV DNA <20 IU/mL) and the influence of HBV genotypes were determined. RESULTS 143 HIV/HBV-coinfected participants with detectable HBV DNA were identified. The predominant HBV genotypes were A (82 patients, 57 %); and D (35 patients, 24 %); 20 patients (14 %) were infected with multiple genotypes (3 % A + D and 11 % A + G); and genotypes B, C and E were each present in two patients (1 %). TDF completely suppressed HBV DNA in 131 patients (92 %) within 6 months; and in 12 patients (8 %), HBV DNA suppression was delayed. No HBV resistance mutations to TDF were found in patients with delayed response, but all were infected with HBV genotype A (among these, 5 patients with genotype A + G), and all had previously been exposed to lamivudine. CONCLUSION In HIV/HBV-coinfected patients, infection with multiple HBV genotypes was more frequent than previously reported. The large majority of patients had an undetectable HBV viral load at six months of TDF-containing ART. In patients without viral suppression, no TDF-related resistance mutations were found. The role of specific genotypes and prior lamivudine treatment in the delayed response to TDF warrant further investigation.

Safety of oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: prospective studies in HIV-uninfected men and women

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Predictors of HBeAg status and hepatitis B viraemia in HIV-infected patients with chronic hepatitis B in the HAART era in Brazil

Background: HBV-HIV co-infection is associated with an increased liver-related morbidity and mortality. However, little is known about the natural history of chronic hepatitis B in HIV-infected individuals under highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) receiving at least one of the two drugs that also affect HBV (TDF and LAM). Information about HBeAg status and HBV viremia in HIV/HBV co-infected patients is scarce. The objective of this study was to search for clinical and virological variables associated with HBeAg status and HBV viremia in patients of an HIV/HBV co-infected cohort. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed, of HBsAg-positive HIV-infected patients in treatment between 1994 and 2007 in two AIDS outpatient clinics located in the Sao Paulo metropolitan area, Brazil. The baseline data were age, sex, CD4 T+ cell count, ALT level, HIV and HBV viral load, HBV genotype, and duration of antiretroviral use. The variables associated to HBeAg status and HBV viremia were assessed using logistic regression. Results: A total of 86 HBsAg patients were included in the study. Of these, 48 (56%) were using combination therapy that included lamivudine (LAM) and tenofovir (TDF), 31 (36%) were using LAM monotherapy, and 7 patients had no previous use of either one. Duration of use of TDF and LAM varied from 4 to 21 and 7 to 144 months, respectively. A total of 42 (48. 9%) patients were HBeAg positive and 44 (51. 1%) were HBeAg negative. The multivariate analysis revealed that the use of TDF for longer than 12 months was associated with undetectable HBV DNA viral load (serum HBV DNA level < 60 UI/ml) (p = 0. 047). HBeAg positivity was associated with HBV DNA > 60 UI/ml (p = 0. 001) and ALT levels above normality (p = 0. 038). Conclusion: Prolonged use of TDF containing HAART is associated with undetectable HBV DNA viral load. HBeAg positivity is associated with HBV viremia and increased ALT levels.

Entecavir Treatment for up to 5 Years in Patients with Hepatitis B e Antigen-Positive Chronic Hepatitis B

Sustained virologic suppression is a primary goal of therapy for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). In study entecavir (ETV)-022, 48 weeks of entecavir 0.5 mg was superior to lamivudine for virologic suppression for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive CHB. A total of 183 entecavir-treated patients from ETV-022 subsequently enrolled in study ETV-901. We present the results after up to 5 years (240 weeks) of continuous entecavir therapy. The entecavir long-term cohort consists of patients who received >= 1 year of entecavir 0.5 mg in ETV-022 and then entered ETV-901 with a treatment gap <= 35 days. In ETV-901 the entecavir dose was 1.0 mg daily. For patients with samples available at Year 5, proportions with hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA <300 copies/mL, normal alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, HBeAg loss, and HBeAg seroconversion were determined. In all, 146 patients met criteria for inclusion in the entecavir long-term cohort. At Year 5, 94% (88/94) had HBV DNA <300 copies/mL and 80% (78/98) had normal ALT levels. In addition to patients who achieved serologic responses during study ETV-022, 23% (33/141) achieved HBeAg seroconversion and 1.4% (2/145) lost hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) during study ETV-901. Through 5 years, entecavir resistance emerged in one patient. The safety profile of entecavir was consistent with previous reports. Conclusion: Extended therapy with entecavir through 5 years maintained or increased rates of HBV DNA suppression and ALT normalization. Additional patients also achieved HBeAg loss and seroconversion. Entecavir provides sustained viral suppression with minimal resistance during long-term treatment of HBeAg-positive CHB. (HEPATOLOGY 2010;51:422-430.)

Preexposure Chemoprophylaxis for HIV Prevention in Men Who Have Sex with Men.

Background: Antiretroviral chemoprophylaxis before exposure is a promising approach for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition. Methods: We randomly assigned 2499 HIV-seronegative men or transgender women who have sex with men to receive a combination of two oral antiretroviral drugs, emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC-TDF), or placebo once daily. All subjects received HIV testing, risk-reduction counseling, condoms, and management of sexually transmitted infections. Results: The study subjects were followed for 3324 person-years (median, 1.2 years; maximum, 2.8 years). Of these subjects, 10 were found to have been infected with HIV at enrollment, and 100 became infected during follow-up (36 in the FTC-TDF group and 64 in the placebo group), indicating a 44% reduction in the incidence of HIV (95% confidence interval, 15 to 63; P=0.005). In the FTC-TDF group, the study drug was detected in 22 of 43 of seronegative subjects (51%) and in 3 of 34 HIV-infected subjects (9%) (P<0.001). Nausea was reported more frequently during the first 4 weeks in the FTC-TDF group than in the placebo group (P<0.001). The two groups had similar rates of serious adverse events (P=0.57). Conclusions: Oral FTC-TDF provided protection against the acquisition of HIV infection among the subjects. Detectable blood levels strongly correlated with the prophylactic effect. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00458393.) N Engl J Med 2010;363:2587-99.

Usefulness of zebrafish model to assess glomerular and tubular alterations induced by tenofovir

Tenofovir (TFV) is one of the most used antiretroviral drugs. However, it is associated with tubular damage with mitochondria as a possible target. Tubulopathy precedes glomerular dysfunction, thus classic markers of renal function like the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) do not detect early TFV damage. Prediction and management of drug induced renal injury (DIRI) rely on the mechanisms of the drug insult and in optimal animal models to explore it. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) offers unique advantages for assessing DIRI, since the pronephros is structurally very similar to its human counterpart and is fully developed at 3.5 days postfertilization. The main aim of the present work was to evaluate the effects of TFV, as well as its pro-drug, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), on the GFR and in mitochondria morphology in tubular cells of zebrafish larvae. Lethality curves were performed to understand the relationship between drug concentration and lethality. LC10 was selected to explore the renal function using the FITC-inulin assay and to analyze the mitochondrial toxicity by electron microscopy on larvae exposed to TDF, TFV, paracetamol and gentamicin (positive controls) or water (negative control). Lethality curves showed that gentamicin was the most lethal drug, followed by TDF, TFV and paracetamol. Gentamicin and paracetamol decreased the GFR, but no differences were found for either TDF or TFV, when compared to controls (%FITC Control = 33±8; %FITC TDF = 35±10; %FITC TFV = 30±10; %FITC Gentamicin = 46±17; %FITC Paracetamol = 83±14). Tubular mitochondria from treated larvae were notably different from non-treated larvae, showing swelling, irregular shapes, decreased mitochondria network, cristae disruption and loss of matrix granules. These results are in agreement with the effects of these drugs in humans and thus, demonstrate that zebrafish larvae can be a good model to assess the functional and structural damage associated with DIRI.

Effect on renal function of tenofovir co-administered with either efavirenz or boosted lopinavir or boosted atazanavir: the Swiss HIV Cohort Study

Reduced re'nal function has been reported with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). It is not clear whether TDF co-administered with a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) leads to a greater decline in renal function than TDF co-administered with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI).Methods: We selected ail antiretroviral therapy-naive patients in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) with calibrated or corrected serum creatinine measurements starting antiretroviral therapy with TDF and either efavirenz (EFV) or the ritonavir-boosted PIs, lopinavir (LPV/r) or atazanavir (ATV/r). As a measure of renal function, we used the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation to estimate the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). We calculated the difference in eGFR over time between two therapies using a marginal model for repeated measures. In weighted analyses, observations were weighted by the product of their point of treatment and censoring weights to adjust for differences both in the sort of patients starting each therapy and in the sort of patients remaining on each therapy over time.Results: By March 2011, 940 patients with at least one creatinine measurement on a first therapy with either TDF and EFV (n=484), TDF and LPVlr (n=269) or TDF and ATV/r (n=187) had been followed for a median of 1. 7, 1.2 and 1.3 years, respectively. Table 1 shows the difference in average estimated GFR (eGFR) over time since starting cART for two marginal models. The first model was not adjusted for potential confounders; the second mode! used weights to adjust for confounders. The results suggest a greater decline in renal function during the first 6 months if TDF is used with a PI rather than with an NNRTI, but no further difference between these therapies after the first 6 months. TDF and ATV/r may lead to a greater decline in the first 6 months than TDF and LPVlr.Conclusions: TDF co-administered with a boosted PI leads to a greater de cline in renal function over the first 6 months of therapy than TDF co-administered with an NNRTI; this decline may be worse with ATV/r than with LPV/r.

Antiretroviral treatment of adult HIV infection: 2014 recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel.

IMPORTANCE: New data and antiretroviral regimens expand treatment choices in resource-rich settings and warrant an update of recommendations to treat adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). OBJECTIVE: To provide updated treatment recommendations for adults with HIV, emphasizing when to start treatment; what treatment to start; the use of laboratory monitoring tools; and managing treatment failure, switches, and simplification. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA SYNTHESIS: An International Antiviral Society-USA panel of experts in HIV research and patient care considered previous data and reviewed new data since the 2012 update with literature searches in PubMed and EMBASE through June 2014. Recommendations and ratings were based on the quality of evidence and consensus. RESULTS: Antiretroviral therapy is recommended for all adults with HIV infection. Evidence for benefits of treatment and quality of available data increase at lower CD4 cell counts. Recommended initial regimens include 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs; abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine) and a third single or boosted drug, which should be an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (dolutegravir, elvitegravir, or raltegravir), a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz or rilpivirine) or a boosted protease inhibitor (darunavir or atazanavir). Alternative regimens are available. Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy is generally not recommended, but NRTI-sparing approaches may be considered. New guidance for optimal timing of monitoring of laboratory parameters is provided. Suspected treatment failure warrants rapid confirmation, performance of resistance testing while the patient is receiving the failing regimen, and evaluation of reasons for failure before consideration of switching therapy. Regimen switches for adverse effects, convenience, or to reduce costs should not jeopardize antiretroviral potency. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After confirmed diagnosis of HIV infection, antiretroviral therapy should be initiated in all individuals who are willing and ready to start treatment. Regimens should be selected or changed based on resistance test results with consideration of dosing frequency, pill burden, adverse toxic effect profiles, comorbidities, and drug interactions.

The significance of pre-existing minority Y181C mutations on virological failure of NNRTI-based, first-line antiretroviral therapy

Background: Reduced re'nal function has been reported with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). It is not clear whether TDF co-administered with a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) leads to a greater decline in renal function than TDF co-administered with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI).Methods: We selected ail antiretroviral therapy-naive patients in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) with calibrated or corrected serum creatinine measurements starting antiretroviral therapy with TDF and either efavirenz (EFV) or the ritonavir-boosted PIs, lopinavir (LPV/r) or atazanavir (ATV/r). As a measure of renal function, we used the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation to estimate the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). We calculated the difference in eGFR over time between two therapies using a marginal model for repeated measures. In weighted analyses, observations were weighted by the product of their point of treatment and censoring weights to adjust for differences both in the sort of patients starting each therapy and in the sort of patients remaining on each therapy over time.Results: By March 2011, 940 patients with at least one creatinine measurement on a first therapy with either TDF and EFV (n=484), TDF and LPVlr (n=269) or TDF and ATV/r (n=187) had been followed for a median of 1. 7, 1.2 and 1.3 years, respectively. Table 1 shows the difference in average estimated GFR (eGFR) over time since starting cART for two marginal models. The first model was not adjusted for potential confounders; the second mode! used weights to adjust for confounders. The results suggest a greater decline in renal function during the first 6 months if TDF is used with a PI rather than with an NNRTI, but no further difference between these therapies after the first 6 months. TDF and ATV/r may lead to a greater decline in the first 6 months than TDF and LPVlr.Conclusions: TDF co-administered with a boosted PI leads to a greater de cline in renal function over the first 6 months of therapy than TDF co-administered with an NNRTI; this decline may be worse with ATV/r than with LPV/r.

Factors associated with the emergence of K65R in patients with HIV-1 infection treated with combination antiretroviral therapy containing tenofovir.

BACKGROUND: The human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse-transcriptase mutation K65R is a single-point mutation that has become more frequent after increased use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). We aimed to identify predictors for the emergence of K65R, using clinical data and genotypic resistance tests from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. METHODS: A total of 222 patients with genotypic resistance tests performed while receiving treatment with TDF-containing regimens were stratified by detectability of K65R (K65R group, 42 patients; undetected K65R group, 180 patients). Patient characteristics at start of that treatment were analyzed. RESULTS: In an adjusted logistic regression, TDF treatment with nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors and/or didanosine was associated with the emergence of K65R, whereas the presence of any of the thymidine analogue mutations D67N, K70R, T215F, or K219E/Q was protective. The previously undescribed mutational pattern K65R/G190S/Y181C was observed in 6 of 21 patients treated with efavirenz and TDF. Salvage therapy after TDF treatment was started for 36 patients with K65R and for 118 patients from the wild-type group. Proportions of patients attaining human immunodeficiency virus type 1 loads <50 copies/mL after 24 weeks of continuous treatment were similar for the K65R group (44.1%; 95% confidence interval, 27.2%-62.1%) and the wild-type group (51.9%; 95% confidence interval, 42.0%-61.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In settings where thymidine analogue mutations are less likely to be present, such as at start of first-line therapy or after extended treatment interruptions, combinations of TDF with other K65R-inducing components or with efavirenz or nevirapine may carry an enhanced risk of the emergence of K65R. The finding of a distinct mutational pattern selected by treatment with TDF and efavirenz suggests a potential fitness interaction between K65R and nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-induced mutations.