Kimberly K. Scarsi

Journal Article Pharmacist participation in medical rounds reduces medication errors Get access Kimberly K. Scarsi, Pharm.D., Kimberly K. Scarsi, Pharm.D. Clinical Pharmacist Department of Pharmacy, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL Address correspondence to Dr. Scarsi at the Department of Pharmacy, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Feinberg LC-700, 251 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611 (kscarsi@nmh.org). Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Michael A. Fotis, B.S.Pharm., Michael A. Fotis, B.S.Pharm. Manager of Drug Policy and Staff Development Department of Pharmacy, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Gary A. Noskin, M.D. Gary A. Noskin, M.D. Associate Professor of Medicine Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, IL Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Volume 59, Issue 21, 1 November 2002, Pages 2089–2092, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/59.21.2089 Published: 01 November 2002

The newest class of antiretrovirals for all persons living with HIV are the integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). Since 2007, five INSTIs have been introduced: raltegravir, elvitegravir, dolutegravir, bictegravir, and cabotegravir. The INSTIs have favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, which contribute to both their effectiveness and their ease of use. With the exception of cabotegravir, each INSTI is US Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment-naïve individuals initiating antiretroviral therapy. All of the INSTIs, except raltegravir, are approved for antiretroviral treatment simplification for virologically suppressed patients without INSTI resistance. Data also support the use of dolutegravir and raltegravir in individuals with antiretroviral resistance as part of an optimized antiretroviral regimen. INSTIs are generally well tolerated by people living with HIV compared with older classes of antiretrovirals, but emerging data suggest that some INSTIs contribute to weight gain. Due to their efficacy, safety, and ease of use, HIV treatment guidelines recommend oral INSTIs as preferred components of antiretroviral therapy for individuals initiating therapy. The newest INSTI, cabotegravir, represents an alternative to oral administration of life-long antiretroviral therapy with the availability of a long-acting injectable formulation. This review summarizes the current use of INSTIs in adults living with HIV, highlighting the similarities and differences within the class related to pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, safety, dosing, and administration that contribute to their role in modern antiretroviral therapy.

BackgroundHepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is increasing among pregnant women because of the opioid epidemic, yet there are no interventions to reduce perinatal HCV transmission or to treat HCV during pregnancy. Physiological changes in pregnancy alter the pharmacokinetics of some medications; thus, our aim was to compare the pharmacokinetic parameters of ledipasvir 90 mg plus sofosbuvir 400 mg during pregnancy with non-pregnant women.MethodsThis was an open-label, phase 1 study of pregnant women with genotype 1 HCV infection and their infants. A reference group of women who had participated in pharmacokinetic studies of ledipasvir–sofosbuvir during phase 2 and 3 trials was used. Participants were enrolled at Magee-Womens Hospital (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) between 23 and 24 weeks' gestation and had a 12-week course of oral ledipasvir–sofosbuvir (daily 90 mg ledipasvir plus 400 mg sofosbuvir). Three 12-h intensive pharmacokinetic visits were done at 25–26, 29–30, and 33–34 weeks' gestation and individual pharmacokinetics were summarised by geometric mean across the three visits. The primary outcome, analysed in all participants without suspected dosing errors, was the ledipasvir–sofosbuvir area under the concentration–time curve of the dosing interval (AUCtau) during pregnancy compared with the reference group by geometric mean ratio. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02683005.FindingsFrom Oct 1, 2016, to Sept 30, 2018, 29 pregnant women were screened and nine (31%) were enrolled. Eight (89%) women were included in the primary analysis. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir exposures were similar in the pregnant women versus the non-pregnant reference group (geometric mean ratio of AUCtau ledipasvir 89·3% [90% CI 68·7–116·1]; sofosbuvir 91·1% [78·0–106·3]).InterpretationLedipasvir–sofosbuvir was safe and effective without clinically meaningful differences in drug exposure among pregnant versus non-pregnant women.FundingNational Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institutes of Health/Office of Research on Women's Health, and Gilead Sciences.

BACKGROUND: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) substantially reduces the risk of HIV acquisition, yet significant barriers exist to its prescription and use. Incorporating pharmacists in the PrEP care process may help increase access to PrEP services. METHODS: Our pharmacist-led PrEP program (P-PrEP) included pharmacists from a university-based HIV clinic, a community pharmacy, and two community-based clinics. Through a collaborative practice agreement, pharmacists conducted PrEP visits with potential candidates for PrEP, according to the recommended CDC guidelines, and authorized emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate prescriptions. Demographics and retention in care over 12 months were summarized and participant satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability with the P-PrEP program were assessed by Likert-scale questionnaires. RESULTS: Sixty patients enrolled in the P-PrEP program between January and June 2017 completing 139 visits. The mean age was 34 years (range 20-61 years) and 88% identified as men who have sex with men, 91.7% were men, 83.3% were white, 80% were commercially insured, and 89.8% had completed some college education or higher. Participant retention at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months was 73%, 58%, 43%, and 28%, respectively. To date, no participant has seroconverted. One hundred percent of the participants who completed the patient satisfaction questionnaire would recommend the P-PrEP program. Pharmacists reported feeling comfortable performing point-of-care testing and rarely reported feeling uncomfortable during PrEP visits (3 occasions - 2.2%) or experiencing workflow disruption (1 occasion - 0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a pharmacist-led PrEP program is feasible and associated with high rates of patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability.