Compliance with clinical guidelines and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among patients living with HIV.

Objective: Evaluation of provider compliance with antiretroviral (ARV) treatment guidelines and patient adherence to ARVs is important for HIV care quality assessment; however, there are few current real-world data for guideline compliance and ARV adherence in the US. This study evaluated provider compliance with US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) guidelines and patient adherence to ARVs in a US population of patients with HIV.Methods: This was a retrospective claims study of adults with HIV-1 receiving ARV treatment between January 2010-December 2014. Follow-up began at first ARV treatment and ended at health plan disenrollment or study end. ARV regimens for treatment-naïve patients were categorized as "preferred/recommended", "alternative", or "non-preferred/recommended/alternative" according to DHHS guidelines. ARV adherence was evaluated using proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR).Results: The analysis included 25,320 patients (84.4% male, mean age 45.3 years) and 39,071 regimens. Preferred/recommended regimens were most common during each study year, but the proportion of non-preferred/recommended/alternative regimens was substantial (15.9-20.6%). Only 53.6% of patients had optimal adherence by PDC ≥0.95, and 57.9% by MPR ≥0.95. Guideline non-compliance and sub-optimal adherence were more prevalent among female vs male patients (22.6% vs 14.8% [in 2014] and 65.9% vs 53.7%, respectively).Conclusions: Provider non-compliance with DHHS guidelines and sub-optimal ARV adherence among patients with HIV remain common in real-world practice, particularly for female patients. Healthcare providers should follow the latest clinical guidelines to ensure that patients receive recommended therapy, and address non-adherence when selecting ARV regimens.

Efficacy and safety of simeprevir and sofosbuvir with and without ribavirin in subjects with recurrent genotype 1 hepatitis C postorthotopic liver transplant: the randomized GALAXY study.

This prospective, randomized, phase 2 study in subjects with recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 postorthotopic liver transplant evaluated once-daily simeprevir 150 mg + sofosbuvir 400 mg, with and without ribavirin 1000 mg. Primary endpoint was proportion of subjects with week 12 sustained virologic response (SVR12). Thirty-three subjects without cirrhosis were randomized 1:1:1 into three arms (stratified by genotype/subtype and Q80K): Arm 1, simeprevir + sofosbuvir + ribavirin, 12 weeks; Arm 2, simeprevir + sofosbuvir, 12 weeks; Arm 3, simeprevir + sofosbuvir, 24 weeks; 13 additional subjects (two with cirrhosis, 11 without cirrhosis) entered Arm 3. All 46 subjects received at least one dose of study drug; median age, 60 years; 73.9% male; 80.4% White; 71.7% genotype/subtype 1a [12 (36.4%) of these had Q80K]; median 4.5 years post-transplant. Among randomized subjects, SVR12 was achieved by 81.8% in Arm 1, 100% in Arm 2, and 93.9% in Arm 3; two subjects did not achieve SVR12: one viral relapse (follow-up week 4; Arm 1) and one missing follow-up week 12 data. In total, five subjects had a serious adverse event, considered unrelated to treatment per investigator. Simeprevir exposure was increased relative to the nontransplant setting, but not considered clinically relevant. Simeprevir + sofosbuvir treatment, with or without ribavirin, was efficacious and well tolerated (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02165189).

Peak antifactor xa activity produced by dalteparin treatment in patients with renal impairment compared with controls.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between impaired renal function and antifactor Xa activity in patients receiving dalteparin. DESIGN: Open-label prospective study. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient units of a large teaching hospital. SUBJECTS: Eleven patients with renal impairment and 11 control subjects with normal renal function. INTERVENTION: Subjects were administered dalteparin at a dosage of approximately 100 U/kg subcutaneously every 12 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Peak steady-state antifactor Xa levels were compared between the groups. Mean +/- SD levels were similar for patients with and without renal impairment: 0.47 +/- 0.25 and 0.55 +/- 0.20 U/ml, respectively. A test of equivalency showed statistical significance (p=0.0001). CONCLUSION: No meaningful difference in peak antifactor Xa activity was found between patients with renal impairment and control subjects. To the extent that peak antifactor Xa levels can be used as markers for adjusting doses of dalteparin, these data suggest that such adjustments are not necessary for patients with renal impairment who are not receiving dialysis.