Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis: Renal Safety of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate in HIV‐Infected Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) as part of combination antiretroviral treatment (ART) has been demonstrated in several randomized, controlled trials. However, an increasing number of case reports suggest that TDF use may be associated with significant nephrotoxicity. Our objective was to determine the renal safety of TDF-containing ART regimens for HIV-infected individuals. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Scopus, Biosis Previews, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and existing systematic reviews were searched. Prospective studies comparing TDF-containing with non-TDF containing ART regimens were selected for inclusion. We extracted data on study characteristics, participant characteristics, therapeutic interventions, renal function, bone density, and fracture rates. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies (including 9 randomized, controlled trials) met the selection criteria. Median sample size was 517 participants. Constituent ART regimens were diverse. There was a significantly greater loss of kidney function among the TDF recipients, compared with control subjects (mean difference in calculated creatinine clearance, 3.92 mL/min; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13-5.70 mL/min), as well as a greater risk of acute renal failure (risk difference, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.2-1.2). There was no evidence that TDF use led to increased risk of severe proteinuria, hypophosphatemia, or fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Although TDF use was associated with a statistically significant loss of renal function, the clinical magnitude of this effect was modest. Our findings do not support the need to restrict TDF use in jurisdictions where regular monitoring of renal function and serum phosphate levels is impractical.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".