1288. Bone Safety Outcomes with F/TAF vs. F/TDF for PrEP in the DISCOVER Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In the DISCOVER PrEP trial, emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) was noninferior to emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF) for HIV prevention. Here we report the bone safety outcomes of F/TAF and F/TDF. Methods Men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) at risk of HIV were randomized 1:1 to receive blinded F/TDF or F/TAF, taken once daily. Those on PrEP with F/TDF were eligible to enroll. Bone densitometry (DXA) of the hip and spine were performed in a subset of participants (BMD subset). Fracture events were compared in all study participants. Week 48 data are presented. Results 5387 participants were enrolled in the main study, with 383 included in the BMD subset. In the BMD subset, the median age was 37 (IQR 29, 46); 0.8% were TGW, 9.4% were black, and 20.6% were Hispanic or Latinx. Fifty-three BMD subset participants were on baseline F/TDF PrEP at enrollment, 26 of whom were randomized to F/TAF. F/TAF was associated with more favorable changes in hip and spine BMD compared with F/TDF (Table 1); these differences were similar when participants on baseline PrEP were excluded. Participants age <35 on F/TAF gained BMD, whereas those on F/TDF lost BMD (Table 1). BMD decreases of ≥3% were less frequent in the F/TAF group than the F/TDF group at the hip (3.8% vs. 18.4%, P < 0.001) and spine (10.1% vs. 26.9%, P < 0.001). Osteopenia was more frequently diagnosed in the spine in participants on F/TDF compared with F/TAF (Figure 1, P = 0.007); but not in the hip. Fracture event frequency was the same (53 [2.0%] per group, P = 1.00). One pathological fracture was reported in the F/TAF group compared with two in the F/TDF group (P = 0.57). In participants on baseline F/TDF PrEP, those randomized to F/TAF had significantly improved hip BMD compared with baseline (median percent change 1.13 [IQR −0.86, 3.47], P = 0.027), while spine BMD was unchanged. Conclusion Through 48 weeks, DXA subset participants taking F/TAF for PrEP had significantly less change in BMD than those taking F/TDF, and were less likely to develop spine osteopenia. The incidence of fracture was similar, and pathological fractures were rare. F/TAF for PrEP is effective and has a superior bone safety profile compared with F/TDF. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".