Search

Objective: The objective of this review is to compare ibalizumab, fostemsavir, and lenacapavir, present the clinical trials evaluating each agent, and provide guidance on their use in highly-treatment experienced (HTE) population living with HIV (PWH). Data sources: A search of PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted using the search terms: ibalizumab, fostemsavir, and lenacapavir. Study selection and data extraction: English-language, clinical publications were included. Data synthesis: Ibalizumab, fostemsavir, and lenacapavir, are each first-in-class agents, that have major differences in mechanism of action, route and frequency of administration, pharmacokinetic parameters, including elimination half-life, potential for drug-drug interactions, safety profiles, and cost. Each has been shown, when combined with an optimized background regimen (OBR) with at least one other active agent, to achieve virologic suppression in HTE-PWH. Conclusion: In HTE-patients, adding ibalizumab, fostemsavir, and/or lenacapavir to at least one other active agent can lead to virologic suppression in this difficult to treat population. Monotherapy with any of these agents is not recommended and will lead to a high likelihood of drug resistance. Selection of which agent(s) to include with an OBR will depend on other patient factors including concomitant medications, acceptance of formulations (oral vs. subcutaneous vs. intravenous infusion), and potential access (both insurance-based and transportation). Adherence to all agents in the regimen is paramount to successful outcomes., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

HIV affects an estimated 1.2 million individuals in the United States and is disproportionately concentrated among African Americans, Latinos, and people of multiple races. Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) substantially decreases HIV transmission when started within 72 h after exposure, but problems of accessibility have hindered its widespread usage in communities at risk for HIV infection. Pharmacy-initiated PEP access was first permitted in New York City in 2017, allowing pharmacists to provide a 7-day supply of PEP without a prescription for consumers at high risk for HIV infection. It was expected that the broad reach and accessibility of community pharmacies would increase timely access to PEP for all individuals, especially those who already face significant barriers to accessing the healthcare system. Since then, eleven other states have followed suit and expanded the scope of outpatient pharmacy practice in order to increase the availability of HIV PEP but prescribing laws in over 75% of the US have not been changed. Much of the existing literature on HIV prevention focuses on PrEP access barriers with limited information on PEP access in the US. In this paper, we review the current status of pharmacist-initiated PEP in the US as part of the End the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

The HIV epidemic continues to pose a significant burden on the healthcare system. Although the incidence of annual new infections is decreasing, health disparities persist and most new infections remain concentrated into different racial, ethnic, and minority groups. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which involves those at high risk of acquiring HIV to take chronic medications to prevent acquisition of the virus, is key to preventing new HIV infections. The purpose of this article is to review medication therapies for PrEP and examine their role in personalizing PrEP in different patient populations. Additionally, new medications currently under development for PrEP are reviewed, as well as treatment as prevention (TasP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). There are currently four medications available for PrEP: the oral options of co-formulated emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) or emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (FTC/TAF); injectable long-acting cabotegravir (CAB-LA); and the vaginal ring dapivirine (DPV-VR). FTC/TAF is not currently indicated for persons at risk for HIV through vaginal sex due to lack of studies, but trials are currently ongoing. DPV-VR is available in Zimbabwe and South Africa and has been endorsed by the World Health Organization but is not currently available in the United States. Several agents are also in development for use in PrEP: the novel long-acting injectable lenacapavir, a first-in-class capsid inhibitor, which has no cross-resistance to any existing HIV drug class; the subdermal implant islatravir, a first-in-class translocation inhibitor; and VRC01, a broadly neutralizing antibody (bnAb) which has been evaluated in proof-of-concept studies that may lead to the development of more potent bnAbs. Overall, PrEP is highly effective at preventing HIV infection in high-risk populations. Identifying optimal PrEP regimens in different patient populations is complex and must consider patient-specific factors and medication cost and access considerations. Lastly, providers should consider individual patient preferences with regard to prevention to improve access, retention in care, and adherence., (© 2023 The Authors. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

Long-acting cabotegravir (CAB-LA) provides an exciting new option for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in multiple populations. In this Perspective, we consider the unique pharmacokinetics of CAB-LA and the potential impact on the prescribing of CAB-LA, specifically in cis-women of reproductive potential., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Few published studies have examined the relationship between pharmacy location and retention in care or clinical outcome in people living with HIV (PLWH)., Objective: The study purpose was to determine whether using an on-site/in-clinic pharmacy to obtain antiretroviral therapy increased retention in care and virologic suppression rates., Methods: PLWH attending a Ryan White outpatient clinic in an academic center were matched based on age and insurance. Rates of retention in care ( ≥2 medical visits/calendar year) were assessed between patients using a pharmacy on-site in the clinic versus patients use off-site pharmacy options. Virologic suppression [viral load(VL)<200 copies/mL], completing ≥2 VL, and CD4 count were compared between pharmacy types., Results: 137 on-site pharmacy patients and 274 off-site pharmacy patients met inclusion and matching criteria. 91.2% of on-site pharmacy users attended ≥2 clinic visits compared to 83.2% of off-site pharmacy users ( P = .0275) and were approximately twice as likely to complete ≥2 clinic visits (odds ratio: 2.032; 1.071-3.857). A similar proportion of the on-site pharmacy group achieved virologic suppression compared to the off-site pharmacy group (92.7% vs 89.1%; P = .239, respectively)., Conclusions: On-site pharmacies may provide an opportunity to positively impact retention in care and clinical outcomes for PLWH.

Background: Limited data exist on the use of a boosted protease inhibitor plus <2 active nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors without use of additional classes of antiretroviral (ARV) therapy in treatment-experienced patients with background resistance., Objective: To evaluate clinical outcomes in HIV-infected patients harboring single- or multiclass resistant virus and receiving once-daily tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) plus darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) administered for >24 weeks., Methods: This was a single-center chart review of HIV-infected patients receiving daily TDF/FTC plus DRV/r and identified with resistant virus (including, but not limited to, an M184V/I). The primary outcome was HIV viral load (VL) <200 copies/mL (cp/mL) at last measurement. Additional end points included virological rebound (VR), resuppression, or failure (VF); VL <40 cp/mL at last measurement; and development of additional mutations., Results: Of 171 eligible patients, 32 were included in the study and received DRV 800 mg/r 100 mg daily with fixed-combination TDF/FTC. All patients had a baseline M184V/I mutation, with 10 (31%) having resistance to TDF; 27 (84%) achieved a VL <200 cp/mL, and 25(78%) had a VL <200 cp/mL at the last reading; 22 (69%) achieved a VL <40 cp/mL. VF occurred in 6/32 (19%) patients and VR in 1/32 (3%) patients. Conclusion and Relevance: Although providing a regimen containing ≤2 active drugs, the use of once-daily DRV/r plus TDF/FTC in treatment-experienced patients with single-/multiclass resistant virus resulted in virological suppression in more than three-fourths of patients. These retrospective data suggest that despite the presence of an M184V/I, this combination may be an option in patients seeking a once-daily ARV therapy to improve adherence.

This retrospective chart review evaluated changes in serum creatinine and creatinine clearance (CrCl) after initiation of an integrase inhibitor (INSTI)-based regimen as initial treatment in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults. Serum creatinine and CrCl changes were similar to those seen in clinical trials for INSTIs. No renal-related serious adverse events or discontinuations occurred.

Purpose: Evidence-based guidance is presented to assist clinicians in selecting alternative formulations of antiretroviral (ARV) agents for patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who are unable to swallow tablets or capsules., Summary: The inability to take medications in standard oral dosage forms can be associated with nonadherence or the use of alternative administration strategies such as capsule or tablet breaking, crushing, or chewing. Patients with HIV infection require long-term ARV therapy to maintain viral suppression; ARV agents are predominately available as tablets and capsules that may pose swallowing difficulties for some patients. Using a variety of sources (the primary literature, pharmaceutical package inserts, and requests for unpublished data from drug manufacturers), available evidence on the bioavailability of ARV medications after disruption of the capsule or tablet matrix was reviewed; information on alternative formulations of ARV agents was also assessed. With several ARV agents, disruption of the solid oral dosage form by crushing, chewing, or breaking tablets or opening capsules prior to ingestion has been shown to result in altered bioavailability or pharmacokinetics and thus the potential for incomplete virological suppression, increased adverse effects, and suboptimal health outcomes., Conclusion: Of the 33 single-agent ARV medications and combination ARV products in five classes available at the time of review, approximately half exist as powders, liquids, injectables, or chewable or dissolvable tablets. If alternative ARV formulations or administration methods are used, close monitoring for achievement of virological and immunologic success and potential toxicities is recommended., (Copyright © 2015 by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved.)