Potential drug-drug interactions in males living with HIV who use drugs to treat lower urinary tract symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are becoming more prevalent in the ageing population of males living with HIV. Drugs to treat LUTS are known for both their potential role as victims in drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and their side effects. We aimed to evaluate the current use of drugs to treat LUTS and to assess potential DDIs in our cohort of adult males living with HIV. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of pharmacy records. METHODS: We recorded the combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) regimen and any use of drugs to treat LUTS (anatomical therapeutic chemical codes G04CA/CB/CX and G04BD). Potential DDIs were assessed using the interaction checker developed by the University of Liverpool (https://www.hiv-druginteractions.org/checker). RESULTS: A total of 411 adult males living with HIV were included in this analysis. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 53 (41-62) years. Nineteen (4.6%) patients used one or more drugs to treat LUTS. As expected, older patients were more likely to be receiving treatment for LUTS: Q1 (20-40 years) = 0%; Q2 (41-52 years) = 2%; Q3 (53-61 years) = 7%; Q4 (62-79 years) = 10%. Seven potential DDIs between cART and LUTS treatment were noted in six of the 19 (32%) patients. Following medication reviews of these six patients, the following interventions were proposed: evaluate safe use of alpha-blocker (n = 4), change in cART (n = 2), and dose reduction of the anticholinergic agent (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Treatment for LUTS coincided with cART in 7%-10% of patients aged above the median age of 53 years in our cohort. Improvements in DDI management appeared to be possible in this growing cohort of males living with HIV and with LUTS.

Negative impact of a health insurer-mandated de-simplification from a single-tablet regimen to a two-tablet regimen.

OBJECTIVES: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) accounts for a considerable proportion of HIV care expenses. In June 2021, a Dutch healthcare insurer implemented a mandatory policy to de-simplify branded RPV/TDF/FTC (Eviplera) into a two-tablet regimen containing rilpivirine (Edurant) and generic TDF/FTC as part of cost-saving measures. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the acceptance of this policy, the trends in ART dispensation, and cost developments. DESIGN: A retrospective database study. METHODS: In this study, medication dispensation data were obtained from the Dutch Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics (SFK). This database covers 98% of all medication dispensations from Dutch pharmacies including people with HIV who receive ART. We received pseudonymized data exclusively from individuals insured by the insurer for the years 2020-2022. Costs were calculated using Dutch drug prices for each year. RESULTS: In June 2021, 128 people with HIV were on branded RPV/TDF/FTC. Following the policy implementation, 59 (46%) had switched to RPV + generic TDF/FTC, but after 1.5 years, only 17 of 128 individuals (13%) used the proposed two-tablet regimen. The other 111/128 used RPV/TDF/FTC with prescriptions for 'medical necessity' ( n  = 29), switched to RPV/TAF/FTC ( n  = 51), or other ART ( n  = 31). Despite expectations of cost-savings, costs increased from €72 988 in May 2021 to €75 649 in May 2022. CONCLUSION: A mandatory switch from an STR to a TTR in people with HIV proved unsuccessful, marked by low acceptance, and increased costs after 1 year. This underscores the necessity of incorporating patient and prescriber involvement in changing medication policies.

First-line antiretroviral therapy initiation for newly diagnosed people with HIV in the Netherlands: A retrospective analysis from 2016 to 2020.

INTRODUCTION: HIV treating physicians in the Netherlands follow the guidelines of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Most of these recommended initial regimens are single-tablet regimens (STRs), which incur higher costs. By the end of 2017, generic NRTI backbones had become widely available, offering a potentially cheaper multi-tablet regimen. This study aimed to evaluate guideline compliance in people with HIV who started antiretroviral therapy (ART), the uptake of generic multi-tablet regimens (gMTRs), and associated medication costs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Dutch HIV Monitoring Foundation to determine the proportion of treatment-naïve people entering care who initiated ART according to the DHHS and type of ART regimens prescribed between January 2016 and December 2020. We analyzed ART prescriptions, both at the national level and per individual HIV treatment centers. We calculated the monthly ART costs based on Dutch medicine prices listed on www.medicijnkosten.nl for each calendar year. RESULTS: In 2016, an integrase inhibitor-containing regimen was initiated in 77.3% which increased to 87.8% in 2020. The compliance rate to DHHS-recommended initial regimens ranged from 82.8% in 2016 to 90.9% in 2020. Most patients received single-tablet regimens, 81.3% in 2016 to 60.3% in 2020. After the introduction the gMTRs showed a steady increase from 17.8% in 2018 to 37.8% in 2020. The cost of the first-line regimen per patient decreased by 22.9% in 2020 compared with 2017. The decrease was larger in centers where treatment-naïve individuals with HIV were preferentially initiated on a gMTR. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high compliance to the "DHHS-recommended initial regimens for most people with HIV" in the Netherlands. Most people who initiated ART received STRs, although the percentage of people who started on STRs gradually decreased over time. The use of gMTRs increased over time and was associated with lower medication costs.

Switching to Doravirine in cART-Experienced Patients: An Effective and Highly Tolerated Option With Substantial Cost Savings.

BACKGROUND: Doravirine is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy as a third agent in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced people living with HIV (PLWH) in registration studies. However, limited real-world data are available. METHODS: By searching electronic health care records, PLWH using doravirine-based regimens were selected with at least 1 year of follow-up after their first prescription. All stable PLWH who were switched to a doravirine-based regimen were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the durability of a doravirine-based regimen 1 year after prescription. Reasons for stopping were also collected. Secondary outcomes for PLWH continuing a doravirine-based regimen after 1 year were routine laboratory assessment, body mass index, and differences in medication costs compared with their previous cART. RESULTS: A total of 687 patients (92% men) were included from September 2019 to August 2022: 97.7% switched to doravirine/tenofovir/lamivudine (DOR/TDF/3TC). After 1 year, 94/687 (13.6%) PLWH stopped this therapy. The main reason for discontinuation was patient-reported adverse events in 70/687 (10.2%). Medical reasons for discontinuation included increased alanine tranaminase levels in 6/687 (0.9%), decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate in 3/687 (0.4%), and precautions after diagnosis of osteoporosis in 2/687 (0.3%) patients. Virologic failure occurred in 4/687 cases (0.6%), and 1 case demonstrated resistance mutations. The secondary outcomes demonstrated a statistically significant increase in alanine tranaminase levels and decrease in LDL-c levels. The switch to a doravirine-based regimen in the Netherlands reduced medication costs by 27%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that switching to a doravirine-based regimen, mostly DOR/TDF/3TC, was highly effective and generally well tolerated, with substantial cost savings.

The oncology pharmacist as part of the palliative treatment team.

OBJECTIVES: Patients who are no longer eligible for curative treatment often suffer from multiple complaints and require a multidisciplinary treatment approach. We incorporated two pharmacists in the palliative team, one hospital pharmacist and one pharmacist who were trained as a community pharmacist. The objective of our study was to evaluate their contribution to the palliative team. METHODS: During 13 months, the two pharmacists participated in all regular patient reviews and rounds and were available for individual consultation by all members of the palliative team on a daily basis. Each intervention (consults at request or during the patient rounds) was logged and categorised. KEY FINDINGS: During the study period, 115 patients were under the care of the palliative treatment team. The pharmacists were actively involved in 107 of these (93%). Pharmacists interventions occurred in 76% of patients, with an average of 1.5 interventions per patient. The most common intervention types were giving general therapeutic advice, starting of a drug for an uncontrolled symptom and stopping a drug that was given as prophylaxis. When comparing the contribution of the hospital pharmacist and the outpatient pharmacist, their interventions overlapped with regard to starting drugs, choice of drugs and side-effect management. However, interventions on parenteral drugs or optimising the route of administration mostly came from the hospital pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist more often intervened in increasing adherence and stopping drugs. CONCLUSION: The palliative pharmacist team adds expertise to the palliative treatment team, with an active contribution in 76% of patients.

Improving adherence to lipid-lowering therapy in a community pharmacy intervention program: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies has been shown to improve adherence to chronic therapies. Long-term impact on clinical outcomes or medical cost savings, however, remains understudied.  OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a pharmaceutical care intervention program in Dutch community pharmacies that improved patients' adherence to lipid-lowering therapy.  METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed using a time-dependent Markov model from the health care payer perspective. Participants were patients initiating lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention (40%) or secondary prevention (60%) of cardiovascular events (CVEs). The intervention was the pharmaceutical care program MeMO (Medication Monitoring and Optimisation) in 9 community pharmacies in the Netherlands, based on continuous monitoring and optimization of lipid-lowering therapy in new patients. The follow-up period of the program was 1 year. The main outcome of the intervention program was discontinuation of lipid-lowering therapy. This outcome was extrapolated in the economic model to lifelong costs, quality of life, reductions in cardiovascular events, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Patients in the MeMO program had a lower risk for therapy discontinuation, RR = 0.49 (0.37 to 0.66); the effectiveness was similar in primary and secondary prevention. In a cohort of 1,000 primary and secondary prevention patients, the MeMO program resulted in a reduction of 7 nonfatal strokes, 2 fatal strokes, 16 nonfatal myocardial infarctions (MIs), 7 fatal MIs, and 16 revascularizations over patients' lifetime. Additional medication, disease management, and intervention costs in the MeMO program were €411,000; the cost savings due to reduced CVEs were €443,000. The MeMO program resulted in 84 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and net cost savings of €32,000. Clinical benefits and cost savings were highest in the secondary prevention population. CONCLUSION: Pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies can improve statin therapy adherence, resulting in better prevention of CVEs. The MeMO program resulted in considerable clinical benefits and net cost savings. Programs by community pharmacies targeted at improving adherence may provide good value for money, and health care insurers should consider reimbursing these activities.