Table 1.

Clinical features of seven patients with renal tubular dysfunction

Pt No.	Age	Sex	Results at the start of therapy					Therapy	Years on therapy	Results at diagnosis of RTD					New Medication	Last results recorded					Follow-up after switch (years)
			Phos	Uric acid	Cr	Urine protein	Urine glucose			Phos	Uric acid	Cr	Urine protein	Urine glucose		Phos	Uric acid	Cr	Urine protein	Urine glucose
1	56	M	3.1	6.5	1.3	None	None	Adv/Lam	2.1	2.1	2.9	2.0	1+	None	Entecavir	3.0	5.1	1.3	None	None	6.3
2	40	M	3.1	4.5	0.9	None	None	Adv/Lam	4.9	1.7	2.5	1.4	Trace	None	Entecavir	2.1	2.7	0.9	None	None	1.0
3	62	M	4.0	3.6	1.0	None	None	Ten	3.9	2.3	2.4	1.8	Trace	None	Entecavir	3.1	3.2	1.2	None	None	1.0
4	66	M	3.2	5.8	1.1	None	None	Adv → Ten*	7.7	2.1	3.6	1.7	1+	None	Entecavir	2.7	3.7	1.4	None	None	1.0
5	76	F	3.5	5.3	0.6	None	None	Adv/Lam	3.4	1.9	1.5	1.3	2+	None	Entecavir	3.1	3.9	0.7	None	None	2.0
6	33	M	3.5	5.7	1.1	None	None	Adv/Lam	6.5	2.0	2.3	1.4	Trace	None	Not switched	2.7†	2.7	1.4	1+	None
7	71	M	3.7	5.3	0.8	None	None	Adv/Lam	8.4	2.0	1.8	1.6	Trace	None	Entecavir	3.7	4.2	1.2	Trace	None	1.0

Adv, adefovir; Cr, creatinine; Phos, phosphate; RTD, renal tubular dysfunction; Ten, tenofovir.

^*This patient was on adefovir for 4 years before switching to tenofovir due to inadequate virological response. At the time of switching therapies, his phosphate, uric acid and creatinine were 2.9, 5.6 and 1.3, respectively, and had no proteinuria or glucosuria. RTD was diagnosed 3.7 years after switch to tenofovir.

^† On phosphate replacement.