Supporting Figure Legends

Supporting figure legends

Supporting Figure 1 Flow diagram. Flow diagram of the studies identified.

Supporting Figure 2 Assessment of risk of bias. (A) Summary of risk of bias for each trail assessed, plus sign was for a judgment of Yes or low risk of bias, minus sign was for a judgment of No or high risk of bias, and question mark was for a judgment of Unclear, or uncertain risk of bias; (B) risk of bias graph about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Supporting Figure 3 Comparison main adverse events between TAF group and TDF group over week 48. (A) the rate of Diarrhoea. (B) the rate of upper respiratory tract infection. (C) the rate of nausea. (D) the rate of nasopharyngitis. (E) the rate of headache. (F) the rate of started lipid-lowering drugs during the study.

Supporting Table 1. Characteristics of the Included Studies

authors (y) / Group
(n) / Age (y) / Median HIV-1 RNA (log10 c/mL) / Median CD4 count (cells per μL) / Median BMI (kg/m²) / Estimated GFR (mL/min)
Cockcroft–Gault / Treatment regimens
(TAF group)
(TDF group)
Sax et al[14]
(2015) / TAF
(866)
TDF
(867) / 33
(26–42)
35
(28–44) / 4.6
( 4.04–4.95)
4.6
( 4.15–4.96) / 404
(283–550)
406
(291–542) / 24·4
(22·0–28·0)
24·5
(21·7–28·0) / 117
(100–136)
114
(99–134) / (TAF 10 mg, E 150 mg, C 150 mg and F 200 mg)
(TDF 300 mg, E 150 mg, C 150 mg and F 200 mg)
Mills et al [15]
(2015) / TAF
(103)
TDF
(50) / 31
(25–42)
36
(28–44) / 4.7
(4.4–4.9)
4.6
(4.3–4.9) / 368
(270–515)
433
(320–606) / NA / 116.0
(97.0–137.6)
109.6
(92.5–131.4) / (TAF 10 mg, D 400 mg, C 150 mg and F 200 mg)
(TDF 300 mg, D 400 mg, C 150 mg and F 200 mg)
Sax et al[16]
(2014) / TAF
(112)
TDF
(58) / 34
38 / 4.55
4.58 / 385
397 / NA / 115
113 / (TAF 10 mg, E 150 mg, C 150 mg and F 200 mg)
(TDF 300 mg, E 150 mg, C 150 mg and F 200 mg)
Gallant et al[17]
(2016) / TAF
(333)
TDF
(330) / 48
(42–54)
49
(42–54) / NA / 663
(505–853)
624
(477–819) / 26.1 (23.6–29.3) 26.4 (23.8–30.1) / 99.4
(83.8–120.3)
100.2
(83.8–121.2) / (TAF 10 or 25 mg, F 200 mg)
(TDF 200 or 300 mg, F 200 mg)
Mills et al[18]
(2016) / TAF
(959)
TDF
(477) / 41
(33–48)
40
(33–48) / NA / 675
(520–833)
662
(525–831) / NA / 111.9
(33.38)
112·1
(32.69) / (TAF 10 mg, E 150 mg, C 150 mg and F 200 mg)
(TDF 300 mg, E 150 mg, C 150 mg and F 200 mg)
Wohl et al[19] / TAF
(866)
TDF
(867) / 33
(18-74)
35
(18-76) / NA
NA / 404
406 / 24
25 / 117
114 / (TAF 10 mg, E 150 mg, C 150 mg and F 200 mg)
(TDF 300 mg, E 150 mg, C 150 mg and F 200 mg)

E: elvitegravir ; C: cobicistat; F: emtricitabine; D: darunavir

Supporting Table 2. Median plasma lipid values from baseline to week 48

median values (mg/dL) / treatment-naïve patients
(n=2056)
TAF vs. TDF / treatment-experienced patients
（n=2099）
TAF vs. TDF
Sax et al[14] / Mills et al[15] / Sax et al[16] / Mean values
Pa / Gallant et al[17] / Mills et al[18] / Mean values
Pa
Total CE / 29 vs. 14 / 40 vs. 5 / 30 vs. 17 / 33.00 vs. 12.00
P=0.014b / 14 vs.1 / 20 vs.2 / 17.00 vs. 1.50
P=0.036b
LDL CE / 14 vs. 5 / 26 vs. 4 / NA / 20.00 vs. 4.50
P=0.124 / 13 vs. 4 / 9 vs. -2 / 11.00 vs. 1.00
P=0.109
HDL DE / 7 vs. 4 / 7 vs. 3 / 7 vs. 3 / 7.00 vs. 3.33
P=0.008b / 2 vs. -1 / 2 vs. 1 / 2.00 vs. 0.00
P=0.184
TGC / 19 vs. 8 / 29 vs. -5 / NA / 24.00 vs. 1.50
P=0.111 / 10 vs. -2 / 11 vs. -2 / 10.50 vs. -2.00
P=0.002b
Total CE/ HDL / 0.1vs.0.1 / 0.0 vs. -0.2 / 0.2 vs. 0.1 / 0.10 vs. 0.00
P=0.435 / 0.1 vs. 0.0 / 0.2 vs. 0 / 0.15 vs. 0.00
P=0.095

CE: cholesterol; TGC:Triglycerides;

a P-values were calculated using the t-test.

b p＜0.05

Supporting Table 3. bone parameters change from baseline to week 48

Mean % Changes in Parameters / treatment-naïve patients
（n=2056）
TAF vs.TDF / treatment-experienced patients
(n=2099)
TAF vs.TDF
Sax et al[14] / Mills et al[15] / Sax et al[16] / Mean values
Pa / Gallant et al[17] / Mills et al [18] / Mean values
Pa
BMD
in spine / –1.30
Vs. –2.86 / -1.57
vs. -3.62 / -1.00
vs. -3.37 / -1.29
Vs. -3.28
P=0.002b / 1.53 vs. -0.21 / 1.56
vs.–0.44 / 1.54 vs. -0.32
P=0.036b
BMD
in hip / –0·66
vs.–2.95 / -0.84
vs. -3.82, / -0.62
vs. -2.39 / -0.71
Vs.-3.05 P=0.005b / 1.14 vs. -0.15 / 1.47 vs.–0.34 / 1.30 vs. -0.25
P=0.029b
P1NP / NA / 4.7
vs.52.5 / 9 vs.69 / 6.85
vs. 60.75
P=0.024b / NA / NA / NA
CTx / NA / 23.2
vs.74.4 / 19 vs.78 / 21.10
vs.76.20
P=0.003b / NA / NA / NA

P1NP: procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide; CTx: C-terminal telopeptide

a P-values were calculated using the t-test.

b p＜0.05