The impact of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between interferon-free direct acting antiviral (DAA) regimens and antiretrovirals (ART) among HIV/HCV co-infected individuals in clinical practice settings is unknown. A single-center, retrospective chart review of co-infected patients was conducted from June 2014 to February 2015. Significant interactions between simeprevir (SMV), ledipasvir (LDV), and paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir plus dasabuvir (3D regimen) with ART were identified based on available literature. SMV had the largest number of DDIs and was further investigated to determine the feasibility of ART switch to allow for DAA use. Of 127 subjects, 23% had advanced liver disease; 86% of those with known HCV genotype were HCV genotype 1. An ART switch allowing use of SMV, LDV, and 3D regimen was recommended in 97/127 (76%), 81/127 (64%), and 91/127 (72%) patients, respectively. Subjects on PI/r regimens had limited options for ART switch, with 40% of these patients unable to be switched to an ART regimen that avoided the use of a PI. In conclusion, the majority of HIV/HCV co-infected patients will be recommended to switch ART prior to use of interferon-free, DAA regimens, and an ART switch may not be feasible for more than a third of patients on a boosted PI. DDIs between ART and DAAs represent an additional barrier to treatment efficacy in clinical practice settings that are unaccounted for in clinical trials.

Now that highly efficacious, interferon-free (IFN-free), direct acting antivirals (DAA) for the treatment of hepatitis C (HCV) have closed the gap between treatment and cure, identifying barriers that prevent initiation of treatment is more crucial than ever. This is a retrospective study utilizing Electronic Medical Records and Prior Authorization Records to identify HCV treatment gaps, including predictors for intention-to-treat and treatment initiation in the first 15 months of a Ryan White funded human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/HCV co-infection clinic. This study included 128 adults ≥ 18 years old with HIV and chronic HCV infection who had visited the treatment center at least once since January 2013. Provider intent-to-treat was used to differentiate patients actively considered for treatment based on documentation kept by a multidisciplinary HCV team. Members of this group who had gone on to initiate treatment were identified. Baseline characteristics were compared. Rates of active treatment consideration and treatment initiation were 30% and 14%, respectively. HCV treatment-naïve individuals were less likely to be considered for treatment [risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-2.32] and initiate therapy (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.97-5.60). Advanced liver disease had no significant association. Black race (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.90-4.25) and Medicaid insurance holders (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.95-3.82) tended to be less likely to initiate therapy. The availability of IFN-free DAA regimens has yet to increase HCV treatment uptake in our HIV/HCV co-infected population. Barriers to HCV treatment initiation have shifted from medical contraindications to socioeconomic variables.

Treatment of HIV now occurs largely within the primary care setting, and the principal focus of most visits has become the management of chronic disease states. The clinical pharmacist's potential role in improving chronic disease outcomes for HIV patients is unknown. A retrospective cohort study was performed for HIV-positive patients also diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. Characteristics and outcomes in 96 patients treated by an interdisciplinary team which included a clinical pharmacist (i.e., the intervention group) were compared to those in 50 patients treated by an individual healthcare provider (i.e., the control group). Primary outcomes were changes from baseline over 18 month period of HbA1c, low density lipoprotein (LDL), and blood pressure, respectively. Secondary outcomes included number of drug-drug interactions, HIV viral load, CD4 count, percent change in smoking status, and percent of patients treated to cardiovascular guideline recommendations. The interdisciplinary team had a significant improvement in lipid management over the control group (LDL:-8.8 vs. +8.4 mg/dL; p=0.014), and the smoking cessation rate over the study period was doubled in the interdisciplinary group (20.4% vs. 11.8%). Among those with an indication for aspirin, a significantly higher percentage of patients were prescribed the medication in the interdisciplinary group compared to the control group (85.5% v. 64.9%; p=0.014). An informal cost analysis estimated savings of more than $3000 per patient treated by the interdisciplinary team. Based on these results, pharmacist involvement in an HIV primary care clinic appears to lead to more appropriate management of chronic comorbidities in a cost-effective manner.

As a result of infection control regulations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, anticoagulation clinics have been required to adjust their practices in order to continue providing safe and effective services for their patients. In accordance with a guidance document issued by the Anticoagulation Forum, The Brooklyn Hospital Center (TBHC) anticoagulation clinic in Brooklyn, New York implemented measures including telemedicine follow-ups instead of in-person clinic visits, extending the interval of INR testing, and reviewing eligible candidates for transition from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants. This study describes the outcomes of one hospital-based clinic location in the 3 months before and after COVID-19 became a significant concern in the New York City area. The primary outcome of time-in-therapeutic range (TTR) for patients receiving warfarin was 60.6 % and 65.8 % in the pre-COVID and post-COVID groups, respectively (p = 0.21). For secondary outcomes, there was no difference in percent of therapeutic INRs (51.5 % pre-COVID v. 44.8 % post-COVID, p = 0.75) or percent of INRs ≥ 4.5 (2.3 % pre-COVID v. 4 % post-COVID, p = 0.27). Based on the data reported in this study, the short-term changes implemented at TBHC’s anticoagulation clinic did not appear to cause reductions in safety and efficacy of chronic warfarin therapy management.

The scope of pharmacy practice in global health has expanded over the past decade creating additional education and training opportunities for students, residents and pharmacists. There has also been a shift from short‐term educational and clinical experiences to more sustainable bidirectional partnerships between high‐income countries (HICs) and low‐ to middle‐income countries (LMICs). As more institutional and individual partnerships between HICs and LMICs begin to form, it is clear that there is a lack of guidance for pharmacists on how to build meaningful, sustainable, and mutually beneficial programs. The aim of this paper is to provide guidance for pharmacists in HICs to make informed decisions on global health partnerships and identify opportunities for engagement in LMICs that yield mutually beneficial collaborations. This paper uses the foundations of global health principles to identify five pillars of global health engagement when developing partnerships: (a) sustainability, (b) shared leadership, (c) mutually beneficial partnerships, (d) local needs‐based care and (e) host‐driven experiential and didactic education. Finally, this paper highlights ways pharmacists can use the pillars as a framework to engage and support health care systems, collaborate with academic institutions, conduct research, and interface with governments to improve health policy.