Limited data exist regarding the use of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) in patients who are unable to swallow tablets. This case series describes HCV treatment in patients requiring tablet manipulation, providing evidence for safety and effectiveness of HCV DAA tablet manipulation.

IntroductionSustained virologic response (SVR) rates in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) monoinfection and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/HCV coinfection treated with direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy are similar in clinical trials. The objective of this study was to examine differences in patient characteristics, drug-drug interactions, and treatment pathways between these groups in a real-world clinical setting.MethodsWe performed an ambispective review of patients prescribed DAA therapy between September 2015 and April 2018 at a tertiary academic center. The primary endpoint was time from a decision to treat to treatment initiation. Secondary endpoints included patient characteristics; frequency and type of DAA medication interactions; frequency, type, and timing of antiretroviral therapy (ART) changes; and treatment outcomes.ResultsThree hundred and twelve patients were included. Almost half (43%) were HIV/HCV coinfected. Patients with HIV/HCV coinfection were more likely to be African American (p<0.001), have a diagnosed psychiatric disorder (p<0.001) and have a higher pill burden (p = 0.014). Patients with HIV/HCV coinfection were more likely to report an alcohol abuse history (p<0.001), injection drug use history (p<0.024), or active use of illicit substances (p = 0.019). In a multivariable regression model assessing the primary endpoint, time to treatment initiation was increased in patients requiring a change in ART therapy (OR = 9.2, p < 0.001) or a non-ART medication adjustment (OR = 2.4, p = 0.003), and in patients with Medicaid (OR = 6.7, p < 0.001). After controlling for all these factors, HIV/HCV coinfection still significantly impacted time to treatment initiation (OR = 1.7, p = 0.020). The groups had similar rates of drug interaction frequency, treatment completion, observed SVR, and side effects.ConclusionsPatients with HIV/HCV coinfection are more likely to have a variety of factors that add complexities to HCV treatment. In addition to these challenges, patients with HIV/HCV coinfection experience a longer time to treatment initiation while patients with HCV monoinfection were more frequently lost to care. Care delivery models may incorporate this data to improve patient engagement, access, and outcomes.

No abstract

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose Specialty medications can have life-altering outcomes for patients with complex diseases. However, their benefit relies on appropriate treatment selection, patients’ ability to afford and initiate treatment, and ongoing treatment optimization based on patient response to therapy. Mounting research demonstrates the benefits of the health-system specialty pharmacy (HSSP) in improving specialty medication access, affordability, and outcomes. The purpose of this rapid review is to describe the currently reported role and function of HSSP pharmacists and outcomes reported with use of the HSSP model, and to identify gaps in the literature where more information is needed to better understand the HSSP model and outcomes. Summary Current literature describes the role of HSSP pharmacists in facilitating patient access, affordability, and initiation and maintenance of specialty medications. Though it is clear HSSP pharmacists are involved in treatment monitoring, often through utilizing the electronic health record, more information is needed to elucidate the frequency, method, and extent of monitoring. Despite several valuable continuity of care services reported to be provided by HSSPs, the breadth and degree of standardization of these services remains unclear. There is minimal literature describing HSSP education and research involvement. HSSPs have reported significant benefits of this patient care model, as demonstrated by higher adherence and persistence; better clinical outcomes; financial benefits to patients, payers and the health system; better quality of care; higher patient and provider satisfaction with services, and highly efficient specialty pharmacy services. More literature comparing clinical and diagnosis-related outcomes in HSSP versus non-HSSP patients is needed. Conclusion HSSPs provide comprehensive, patient-centered specialty medication management that result in improved care across the continuum of the specialty patient journey and act as a valuable resource for specialty clinics and patients beyond medication management. Future research should build on the current description of HSSP services, how services affect patient outcomes, and the impact HSSP network restrictions.