↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Tenofovir alafenamide in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: design, development, and place in therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Tenofovir alafenamide in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: design, development, and place in therapy
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s126742
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eiichi Ogawa, Norihiro Furusyo, Mindie H Nguyen

Abstract

Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), a novel prodrug of tenofovir (TFV), has been approved for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. TAF has been shown to be a potent inhibitor of HBV replication at a low dose, with high intracellular concentration and more than 90% lower systemic TFV concentration than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). In two randomized, double-blind, multinational, Phase 3, non-inferiority trials for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and -negative patients (primary analysis: 48 weeks), TAF 25 mg orally once-daily was not inferior to TDF 300 mg in achieving an HBV DNA level <29 IU/mL at week 48. No amino-acid substitutions associated with viral breakthrough were detected by deep sequencing, and no resistance to TAF was found through week 96. In addition, no difference in the frequency of HBeAg or hepatitis B surface antigen loss was observed. However, TAF was associated with a significantly higher ALT normalization rate than was TDF, based on the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases criteria (male: ALT ≤30 U/L and female: ALT ≤19 U/L). An analysis of renal safety showed that patients treated with TAF had a significantly lower decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate level than did patients treated with TDF. Similarly, the declines of hip and spine bone mineral density were significantly less in the TAF group. These trends of efficacy and renal/bone safety continued through week 96. Longer term follow-up and real-world data will be required to determine if the differences in viral/biochemical response and renal/bone safety seen with TAF in comparison with TDF are clinically relevant.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Other 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 17 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 13%
Chemistry 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 18 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,753
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,290
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#32
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.