HIV

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.

An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.

Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
 

Half a Million Real-World Participants

Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.

The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.

HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.

Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.

Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
 

Disparities Persist

While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”

“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
 

What Programs Are Helping?

Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”

The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.

Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
 

Large Study With Recent Data

“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”

Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.

Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.

“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.

An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.

Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
 

Half a Million Real-World Participants

Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.

The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.

HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.

Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.

Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
 

Disparities Persist

While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”

“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
 

What Programs Are Helping?

Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”

The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.

Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
 

Large Study With Recent Data

“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”

Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.

Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.

“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.

An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.

Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
 

Half a Million Real-World Participants

Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.

The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.

HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.

Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.

Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
 

Disparities Persist

While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”

“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
 

What Programs Are Helping?

Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”

The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.

Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
 

Large Study With Recent Data

“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”

Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.

Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.

“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Preexposure prophylaxis prescription reversals and abandonments were lower for patients seen by primary care clinicians than by other non–infectious disease clinicians, based on data from approximately 37,000 individuals.

Although preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been associated with a reduced risk of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection when used as prescribed, the association between PrEP prescription pickup and specialty of the prescribing clinician has not been examined, wrote Lorraine T. Dean, ScD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues.

“HIV PrEP is highly effective at preventing new HIV cases, and while use is on the rise, is still used much less than it should be by people who are at risk of HIV,” Dr. Dean said in an interview. “This study is helpful in pinpointing who is at risk for not picking up PrEP and in helping us think through how to reach them so that they can be better positioned to get PrEP,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data for PrEP care. The study population included 37,003 patients aged 18 years and older who received new insurer-approved PrEP prescriptions between 2015 and 2019. Most of the patients (77%) ranged in age from 25 to 64 years; 88% were male.

Pharmacy claims data were matched with clinician data from the US National Plan and Provider Enumeration System.

Clinicians were divided into three groups: primary care providers (PCPs), infectious disease specialists (IDs), and other specialists (defined as any clinician prescribing PrEP but not classified as a PCP or an ID specialist). The main binary outcomes were prescription reversal (defined as when a patient failed to retrieve a prescription) and abandonment (defined as when a patient neglected to pick up a prescription for 1 year).

Overall, of 24,604 patients 67% received prescriptions from PCPs, 3,571 (10%) received prescriptions from ID specialists, and 8828 (24%) received prescriptions from other specialty clinicians.

The prevalence of reversals for patients seen by PCPs, ID specialists, and other specialty clinicians was 18%, 18%, and 25%, respectively. The prevalence of abandonments by clinician group was 12%, 12%, and 20%, respectively.

In a regression analysis, patients prescribed PrEP by ID specialists had 10% lower odds of reversals and 12% lower odds of abandonments compared to those seen by PCPs (odds ratio 0.90 and 0.88, respectively). However, patients seen by other clinicians (not primary care or ID) were 33% and 54% more likely to have reversals and abandonments, respectively, compared with those seen by PCPs.

Many patients at risk for HIV first see a PCP and then are referred to a specialist, such as an ID physician, Dr. Dean said. “The patients who take the time to then follow up with a specialist may be most motivated and able to follow through with the specialist’s request, in this case, accessing their PrEP prescription,” she said. In the current study, the researchers were most surprised by how many other specialty providers are involved in PrEP care, which is very positive given the effectiveness of the medication, she noted.

“Our results suggest that a wide range of prescribers, regardless of specialty, should be equipped to prescribe PrEP as well as offer PrEP counseling,” Dr. Dean said. A key takeaway for clinicians is that PrEP should have no cost for the majority of patients in the United States, she emphasized. The absence of cost expands the population who should be interested and able to access PrEP, she said. Therefore, providers should be prepared to recommend PrEP to eligible patients, and seek training or continuing medical education for themselves so they feel equipped to prescribe and counsel patients on PrEP, she said.

“One limitation of this work is that, while it can point to what is happening, it cannot tell us why the reversals are happening; what is the reason patients prescribed by certain providers are more or less likely to get their PrEP,” Dr. Dean explained. “We have tried to do interviews with patients to understand why this might be happening, but it’s hard to find people who aren’t showing up to do something, compared to finding people who are showing up to do something,” she said. Alternatively, researchers could interview providers to understand their perspective on why differences in prescription pickups occur across specialties, she said.

Looking ahead, “a national PrEP program that includes elements of required clinician training could be beneficial, and research on how a national PrEP program could be implemented and impact HIV rates would be helpful in considering this strategy of prevention,” said Dr. Dean. 
 

Support All Prescribers to Increase PrEP Adherence

Differences in uptake of PrEP prescriptions may be explained by the different populations seen by various specialties, Meredith Green, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and Lona Mody, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial. However, the key question is how to support all prescribers and promote initiation and adherence to PrEP, they said.

Considerations include whether people at risk for HIV prefer to discuss PrEP with a clinician they already know, vs. a new specialist, but many PCPs are not familiar with the latest PrEP guidelines, they said.

“Interventions that support PrEP provision by PCPs, especially since they prescribed the largest proportion of PrEP prescriptions, can accelerate the uptake of PrEP,” the editorialists wrote.

“Supporting a diverse clinician workforce reflective of communities most impacted by HIV will remain critical, as will acknowledging and addressing HIV stigma,” they said. Educational interventions, including online programs and specialist access for complex cases, would help as well, they said. The approval of additional PrEP agents since the current study was conducted make it even more important to support PrEP prescribers and promote treatment adherence for those at risk for HIV, Dr. Green and Dr. Mody emphasized.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dean had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Green disclosed grants from Gilead and royalties from Wolters Kluwer unrelated to the current study; she also disclosed serving on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Health Resources and Services Administration advisory committee on HIV, viral hepatitis, and sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment. Dr. Mody disclosed grants from the US National Institute on Aging, Veterans Affairs, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NanoVibronix, and UpToDate unrelated to the current study.

Preexposure prophylaxis prescription reversals and abandonments were lower for patients seen by primary care clinicians than by other non–infectious disease clinicians, based on data from approximately 37,000 individuals.

Although preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been associated with a reduced risk of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection when used as prescribed, the association between PrEP prescription pickup and specialty of the prescribing clinician has not been examined, wrote Lorraine T. Dean, ScD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues.

“HIV PrEP is highly effective at preventing new HIV cases, and while use is on the rise, is still used much less than it should be by people who are at risk of HIV,” Dr. Dean said in an interview. “This study is helpful in pinpointing who is at risk for not picking up PrEP and in helping us think through how to reach them so that they can be better positioned to get PrEP,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data for PrEP care. The study population included 37,003 patients aged 18 years and older who received new insurer-approved PrEP prescriptions between 2015 and 2019. Most of the patients (77%) ranged in age from 25 to 64 years; 88% were male.

Pharmacy claims data were matched with clinician data from the US National Plan and Provider Enumeration System.

Clinicians were divided into three groups: primary care providers (PCPs), infectious disease specialists (IDs), and other specialists (defined as any clinician prescribing PrEP but not classified as a PCP or an ID specialist). The main binary outcomes were prescription reversal (defined as when a patient failed to retrieve a prescription) and abandonment (defined as when a patient neglected to pick up a prescription for 1 year).

Overall, of 24,604 patients 67% received prescriptions from PCPs, 3,571 (10%) received prescriptions from ID specialists, and 8828 (24%) received prescriptions from other specialty clinicians.

The prevalence of reversals for patients seen by PCPs, ID specialists, and other specialty clinicians was 18%, 18%, and 25%, respectively. The prevalence of abandonments by clinician group was 12%, 12%, and 20%, respectively.

In a regression analysis, patients prescribed PrEP by ID specialists had 10% lower odds of reversals and 12% lower odds of abandonments compared to those seen by PCPs (odds ratio 0.90 and 0.88, respectively). However, patients seen by other clinicians (not primary care or ID) were 33% and 54% more likely to have reversals and abandonments, respectively, compared with those seen by PCPs.

Many patients at risk for HIV first see a PCP and then are referred to a specialist, such as an ID physician, Dr. Dean said. “The patients who take the time to then follow up with a specialist may be most motivated and able to follow through with the specialist’s request, in this case, accessing their PrEP prescription,” she said. In the current study, the researchers were most surprised by how many other specialty providers are involved in PrEP care, which is very positive given the effectiveness of the medication, she noted.

“Our results suggest that a wide range of prescribers, regardless of specialty, should be equipped to prescribe PrEP as well as offer PrEP counseling,” Dr. Dean said. A key takeaway for clinicians is that PrEP should have no cost for the majority of patients in the United States, she emphasized. The absence of cost expands the population who should be interested and able to access PrEP, she said. Therefore, providers should be prepared to recommend PrEP to eligible patients, and seek training or continuing medical education for themselves so they feel equipped to prescribe and counsel patients on PrEP, she said.

“One limitation of this work is that, while it can point to what is happening, it cannot tell us why the reversals are happening; what is the reason patients prescribed by certain providers are more or less likely to get their PrEP,” Dr. Dean explained. “We have tried to do interviews with patients to understand why this might be happening, but it’s hard to find people who aren’t showing up to do something, compared to finding people who are showing up to do something,” she said. Alternatively, researchers could interview providers to understand their perspective on why differences in prescription pickups occur across specialties, she said.

Looking ahead, “a national PrEP program that includes elements of required clinician training could be beneficial, and research on how a national PrEP program could be implemented and impact HIV rates would be helpful in considering this strategy of prevention,” said Dr. Dean. 
 

Support All Prescribers to Increase PrEP Adherence

Differences in uptake of PrEP prescriptions may be explained by the different populations seen by various specialties, Meredith Green, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and Lona Mody, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial. However, the key question is how to support all prescribers and promote initiation and adherence to PrEP, they said.

Considerations include whether people at risk for HIV prefer to discuss PrEP with a clinician they already know, vs. a new specialist, but many PCPs are not familiar with the latest PrEP guidelines, they said.

“Interventions that support PrEP provision by PCPs, especially since they prescribed the largest proportion of PrEP prescriptions, can accelerate the uptake of PrEP,” the editorialists wrote.

“Supporting a diverse clinician workforce reflective of communities most impacted by HIV will remain critical, as will acknowledging and addressing HIV stigma,” they said. Educational interventions, including online programs and specialist access for complex cases, would help as well, they said. The approval of additional PrEP agents since the current study was conducted make it even more important to support PrEP prescribers and promote treatment adherence for those at risk for HIV, Dr. Green and Dr. Mody emphasized.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dean had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Green disclosed grants from Gilead and royalties from Wolters Kluwer unrelated to the current study; she also disclosed serving on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Health Resources and Services Administration advisory committee on HIV, viral hepatitis, and sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment. Dr. Mody disclosed grants from the US National Institute on Aging, Veterans Affairs, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NanoVibronix, and UpToDate unrelated to the current study.

Preexposure prophylaxis prescription reversals and abandonments were lower for patients seen by primary care clinicians than by other non–infectious disease clinicians, based on data from approximately 37,000 individuals.

Although preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been associated with a reduced risk of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection when used as prescribed, the association between PrEP prescription pickup and specialty of the prescribing clinician has not been examined, wrote Lorraine T. Dean, ScD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues.

“HIV PrEP is highly effective at preventing new HIV cases, and while use is on the rise, is still used much less than it should be by people who are at risk of HIV,” Dr. Dean said in an interview. “This study is helpful in pinpointing who is at risk for not picking up PrEP and in helping us think through how to reach them so that they can be better positioned to get PrEP,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data for PrEP care. The study population included 37,003 patients aged 18 years and older who received new insurer-approved PrEP prescriptions between 2015 and 2019. Most of the patients (77%) ranged in age from 25 to 64 years; 88% were male.

Pharmacy claims data were matched with clinician data from the US National Plan and Provider Enumeration System.

Clinicians were divided into three groups: primary care providers (PCPs), infectious disease specialists (IDs), and other specialists (defined as any clinician prescribing PrEP but not classified as a PCP or an ID specialist). The main binary outcomes were prescription reversal (defined as when a patient failed to retrieve a prescription) and abandonment (defined as when a patient neglected to pick up a prescription for 1 year).

Overall, of 24,604 patients 67% received prescriptions from PCPs, 3,571 (10%) received prescriptions from ID specialists, and 8828 (24%) received prescriptions from other specialty clinicians.

The prevalence of reversals for patients seen by PCPs, ID specialists, and other specialty clinicians was 18%, 18%, and 25%, respectively. The prevalence of abandonments by clinician group was 12%, 12%, and 20%, respectively.

In a regression analysis, patients prescribed PrEP by ID specialists had 10% lower odds of reversals and 12% lower odds of abandonments compared to those seen by PCPs (odds ratio 0.90 and 0.88, respectively). However, patients seen by other clinicians (not primary care or ID) were 33% and 54% more likely to have reversals and abandonments, respectively, compared with those seen by PCPs.

Many patients at risk for HIV first see a PCP and then are referred to a specialist, such as an ID physician, Dr. Dean said. “The patients who take the time to then follow up with a specialist may be most motivated and able to follow through with the specialist’s request, in this case, accessing their PrEP prescription,” she said. In the current study, the researchers were most surprised by how many other specialty providers are involved in PrEP care, which is very positive given the effectiveness of the medication, she noted.

“Our results suggest that a wide range of prescribers, regardless of specialty, should be equipped to prescribe PrEP as well as offer PrEP counseling,” Dr. Dean said. A key takeaway for clinicians is that PrEP should have no cost for the majority of patients in the United States, she emphasized. The absence of cost expands the population who should be interested and able to access PrEP, she said. Therefore, providers should be prepared to recommend PrEP to eligible patients, and seek training or continuing medical education for themselves so they feel equipped to prescribe and counsel patients on PrEP, she said.

“One limitation of this work is that, while it can point to what is happening, it cannot tell us why the reversals are happening; what is the reason patients prescribed by certain providers are more or less likely to get their PrEP,” Dr. Dean explained. “We have tried to do interviews with patients to understand why this might be happening, but it’s hard to find people who aren’t showing up to do something, compared to finding people who are showing up to do something,” she said. Alternatively, researchers could interview providers to understand their perspective on why differences in prescription pickups occur across specialties, she said.

Looking ahead, “a national PrEP program that includes elements of required clinician training could be beneficial, and research on how a national PrEP program could be implemented and impact HIV rates would be helpful in considering this strategy of prevention,” said Dr. Dean. 
 

Support All Prescribers to Increase PrEP Adherence

Differences in uptake of PrEP prescriptions may be explained by the different populations seen by various specialties, Meredith Green, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and Lona Mody, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial. However, the key question is how to support all prescribers and promote initiation and adherence to PrEP, they said.

Considerations include whether people at risk for HIV prefer to discuss PrEP with a clinician they already know, vs. a new specialist, but many PCPs are not familiar with the latest PrEP guidelines, they said.

“Interventions that support PrEP provision by PCPs, especially since they prescribed the largest proportion of PrEP prescriptions, can accelerate the uptake of PrEP,” the editorialists wrote.

“Supporting a diverse clinician workforce reflective of communities most impacted by HIV will remain critical, as will acknowledging and addressing HIV stigma,” they said. Educational interventions, including online programs and specialist access for complex cases, would help as well, they said. The approval of additional PrEP agents since the current study was conducted make it even more important to support PrEP prescribers and promote treatment adherence for those at risk for HIV, Dr. Green and Dr. Mody emphasized.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dean had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Green disclosed grants from Gilead and royalties from Wolters Kluwer unrelated to the current study; she also disclosed serving on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Health Resources and Services Administration advisory committee on HIV, viral hepatitis, and sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment. Dr. Mody disclosed grants from the US National Institute on Aging, Veterans Affairs, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NanoVibronix, and UpToDate unrelated to the current study.

Twice-yearly injections are 100% effective in preventing new infections, according to the final results from the PURPOSE 1 trial of lenacapavir.

For weeks, the HIV community has been talking about this highly anticipated clinical trial and whether the strong — and to many, surprising — interim results would hold at final presentation at the International AIDS Conference 2024 in Munich, Germany.

Presenting the results, Linda-Gail Bekker, MD, director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Center at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, reported zero new infections in those who got the shots in the study of about 5000 young women. In the group given daily oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), roughly 2% contracted HIV from infected partners.

“A twice-yearly PrEP choice could overcome some of the adherence and persistence challenges and contribute critically to our quest to reduce HIV infection in women around the world,” Dr. Bekker said about the results, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

PURPOSE 1 confirmed that lenacapavir is a “breakthrough” for HIV prevention, said International AIDS Society president Sharon Lewin, PhD, MBBS. It has “huge public health potential,” said Dr. Lewin, the AIDS 2024 conference cochair and director of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

Lenacapavir is a novel, first-in-class multistage HIV-1 capsid inhibitor with a long half-life, which enables the twice-yearly dosing.

PURPOSE 1 enrolled women aged 15-25 years who were at risk for HIV in South Africa and Uganda, with a primary endpoint of HIV infection. Because of the previously announced interim results, which showed the injection was preventing infections, study sponsor Gilead Sciences discontinued the randomized phase of the trial and shifted to an open-label design for lenacapavir.

“One hundred percent efficacy is more that we could ever have hoped for a potential prevention efficacy,” said Christoph Spinner, MD, MBA, an infectious disease specialist at the University Hospital of the Technical University of Munich and AIDS 2024 conference cochair.

Dr. Spinner added that while this is the first study of lenacapavir for PrEP, it’s also the first to explore outcomes of emtricitabine-tenofovir in cisgender women.
 

Strong Adherence Rates

The twice-yearly injection demonstrated adherence rates above 90% in the trial for both the 6- and 12-month injection intervals.

“Adherence was 91.5% at week 26 and 92.8% at week 52,” Dr. Bekker reported. 

The trial compared three PrEP options including the lenacapavir injection to once-daily oral emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir-alafenamide 25 mg (F/TAF) and once-daily emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir–disoproxil fumarate 300 mg (F/TDF).

“Most participants in both the F/TAF and F/TDF groups had low adherence, and this declined over time,” Dr. Bekker reported. At 52 weeks, the vast majority of patients on both oral therapies had low adherence with dosing, defined at less than two doses a week.

Dr. Bekker called the adherence to the oral agents in this trial “disappointing.”

Findings from the trial underscore the challenges of adherence to a daily oral medication, Rochelle Walensky, MD, and Lindsey Baden, MD, from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, wrote in an editorial accompanying the published results.

With almost 92% attendance for the twice-yearly lenacapavir injections, the “well-done,” large, randomized, controlled trial “exemplifies not only that women can dependably adhere to this administration schedule, but also that levels of an HIV-1 capsid inhibitor can remain high enough over a period of 6 months to reliably prevent infection,” they added. 

Another key focus of the presentation was adverse events. The rate of adverse events grade 3 or more in the lenacapavir arm was 4.1%, Bekker said, which is slightly lower than the rates in the oral arms. The rates of serious adverse events were 2.8% for lenacapavir, 4% for F/TAF and 3.3% for F/TDF. 
 

Injection Site Reactions

Injection site reactions occurred in 68% of the lenacapavir group, including 63% with subcutaneous nodules.

The injection can form “a drug depot which may be palpable as a nodule,” Dr. Bekker said. In the placebo group, 34% of patients had injection-site reactions and 16% had nodules. Nearly all injection-site reactions were grade 1 or 2, she said. “Higher grade injection-site reactions were rare and not serious and occurred in a similar percentage in lenacapavir and placebo,” she said.

Overall, more than 25,000 injections of lenacapavir have been given, Dr. Bekker said, and four patients discontinued treatment because of injection-site reactions. “Reporting of injection-site reactions, including nodules, decreased with subsequent doses,” she said.

Contraception was not a requirement for enrollment in the study, Dr. Bekker pointed out, and pregnancy outcomes across the treatment arms were similar to the general population.
 

First in a Series of Trials

This is the first in a series of PURPOSE trials, Bekker reported. The phase 3 PURPOSE 2 trial, enrolling 3000 gay men, transgender women, transgender men and gender nonbinary people who have sex with male partners, is the second pivotal trial now underway.

Three other smaller trials are in the clinic in the United States and Europe.

PURPOSE 1 participants will continue to access lenacapavir until the product is available in South Africa and Uganda, Dr. Bekker said. Trial sponsor Gilead Sciences is also developing a direct licensing program to expedite generic access to the drug in high-incidence, resource-limited countries, she said.

Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden report that lenacapavir currently costs about $43,000 annually in the United States. “But the results of the PURPOSE 1 trial have now created a moral imperative to make lenacapavir broadly accessible and affordable as PrEP” to people who were enrolled, as well as all those who are similarly eligible and could benefit.

So now we have a PrEP product with high efficacy, they added. “That is great news for science but not (yet) great for women.” 

Given the high pregnancy rate among participants in the PURPOSE 1 trial, Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden point out the assessment of lenacapavir safety is a priority. They are also interested in learning more about drug resistance with this new option. 

“I f approved and delivered — rapidly, affordably, and equitably — to those who need or want it, this long-acting tool could help accelerate global progress in HIV prevention,” Dr. Lewin said.

Now, she added, “we eagerly await results from PURPOSE 2.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Twice-yearly injections are 100% effective in preventing new infections, according to the final results from the PURPOSE 1 trial of lenacapavir.

For weeks, the HIV community has been talking about this highly anticipated clinical trial and whether the strong — and to many, surprising — interim results would hold at final presentation at the International AIDS Conference 2024 in Munich, Germany.

Presenting the results, Linda-Gail Bekker, MD, director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Center at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, reported zero new infections in those who got the shots in the study of about 5000 young women. In the group given daily oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), roughly 2% contracted HIV from infected partners.

“A twice-yearly PrEP choice could overcome some of the adherence and persistence challenges and contribute critically to our quest to reduce HIV infection in women around the world,” Dr. Bekker said about the results, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

PURPOSE 1 confirmed that lenacapavir is a “breakthrough” for HIV prevention, said International AIDS Society president Sharon Lewin, PhD, MBBS. It has “huge public health potential,” said Dr. Lewin, the AIDS 2024 conference cochair and director of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

Lenacapavir is a novel, first-in-class multistage HIV-1 capsid inhibitor with a long half-life, which enables the twice-yearly dosing.

PURPOSE 1 enrolled women aged 15-25 years who were at risk for HIV in South Africa and Uganda, with a primary endpoint of HIV infection. Because of the previously announced interim results, which showed the injection was preventing infections, study sponsor Gilead Sciences discontinued the randomized phase of the trial and shifted to an open-label design for lenacapavir.

“One hundred percent efficacy is more that we could ever have hoped for a potential prevention efficacy,” said Christoph Spinner, MD, MBA, an infectious disease specialist at the University Hospital of the Technical University of Munich and AIDS 2024 conference cochair.

Dr. Spinner added that while this is the first study of lenacapavir for PrEP, it’s also the first to explore outcomes of emtricitabine-tenofovir in cisgender women.
 

Strong Adherence Rates

The twice-yearly injection demonstrated adherence rates above 90% in the trial for both the 6- and 12-month injection intervals.

“Adherence was 91.5% at week 26 and 92.8% at week 52,” Dr. Bekker reported. 

The trial compared three PrEP options including the lenacapavir injection to once-daily oral emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir-alafenamide 25 mg (F/TAF) and once-daily emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir–disoproxil fumarate 300 mg (F/TDF).

“Most participants in both the F/TAF and F/TDF groups had low adherence, and this declined over time,” Dr. Bekker reported. At 52 weeks, the vast majority of patients on both oral therapies had low adherence with dosing, defined at less than two doses a week.

Dr. Bekker called the adherence to the oral agents in this trial “disappointing.”

Findings from the trial underscore the challenges of adherence to a daily oral medication, Rochelle Walensky, MD, and Lindsey Baden, MD, from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, wrote in an editorial accompanying the published results.

With almost 92% attendance for the twice-yearly lenacapavir injections, the “well-done,” large, randomized, controlled trial “exemplifies not only that women can dependably adhere to this administration schedule, but also that levels of an HIV-1 capsid inhibitor can remain high enough over a period of 6 months to reliably prevent infection,” they added. 

Another key focus of the presentation was adverse events. The rate of adverse events grade 3 or more in the lenacapavir arm was 4.1%, Bekker said, which is slightly lower than the rates in the oral arms. The rates of serious adverse events were 2.8% for lenacapavir, 4% for F/TAF and 3.3% for F/TDF. 
 

Injection Site Reactions

Injection site reactions occurred in 68% of the lenacapavir group, including 63% with subcutaneous nodules.

The injection can form “a drug depot which may be palpable as a nodule,” Dr. Bekker said. In the placebo group, 34% of patients had injection-site reactions and 16% had nodules. Nearly all injection-site reactions were grade 1 or 2, she said. “Higher grade injection-site reactions were rare and not serious and occurred in a similar percentage in lenacapavir and placebo,” she said.

Overall, more than 25,000 injections of lenacapavir have been given, Dr. Bekker said, and four patients discontinued treatment because of injection-site reactions. “Reporting of injection-site reactions, including nodules, decreased with subsequent doses,” she said.

Contraception was not a requirement for enrollment in the study, Dr. Bekker pointed out, and pregnancy outcomes across the treatment arms were similar to the general population.
 

First in a Series of Trials

This is the first in a series of PURPOSE trials, Bekker reported. The phase 3 PURPOSE 2 trial, enrolling 3000 gay men, transgender women, transgender men and gender nonbinary people who have sex with male partners, is the second pivotal trial now underway.

Three other smaller trials are in the clinic in the United States and Europe.

PURPOSE 1 participants will continue to access lenacapavir until the product is available in South Africa and Uganda, Dr. Bekker said. Trial sponsor Gilead Sciences is also developing a direct licensing program to expedite generic access to the drug in high-incidence, resource-limited countries, she said.

Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden report that lenacapavir currently costs about $43,000 annually in the United States. “But the results of the PURPOSE 1 trial have now created a moral imperative to make lenacapavir broadly accessible and affordable as PrEP” to people who were enrolled, as well as all those who are similarly eligible and could benefit.

So now we have a PrEP product with high efficacy, they added. “That is great news for science but not (yet) great for women.” 

Given the high pregnancy rate among participants in the PURPOSE 1 trial, Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden point out the assessment of lenacapavir safety is a priority. They are also interested in learning more about drug resistance with this new option. 

“I f approved and delivered — rapidly, affordably, and equitably — to those who need or want it, this long-acting tool could help accelerate global progress in HIV prevention,” Dr. Lewin said.

Now, she added, “we eagerly await results from PURPOSE 2.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Twice-yearly injections are 100% effective in preventing new infections, according to the final results from the PURPOSE 1 trial of lenacapavir.

For weeks, the HIV community has been talking about this highly anticipated clinical trial and whether the strong — and to many, surprising — interim results would hold at final presentation at the International AIDS Conference 2024 in Munich, Germany.

Presenting the results, Linda-Gail Bekker, MD, director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Center at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, reported zero new infections in those who got the shots in the study of about 5000 young women. In the group given daily oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), roughly 2% contracted HIV from infected partners.

“A twice-yearly PrEP choice could overcome some of the adherence and persistence challenges and contribute critically to our quest to reduce HIV infection in women around the world,” Dr. Bekker said about the results, which were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

PURPOSE 1 confirmed that lenacapavir is a “breakthrough” for HIV prevention, said International AIDS Society president Sharon Lewin, PhD, MBBS. It has “huge public health potential,” said Dr. Lewin, the AIDS 2024 conference cochair and director of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

Lenacapavir is a novel, first-in-class multistage HIV-1 capsid inhibitor with a long half-life, which enables the twice-yearly dosing.

PURPOSE 1 enrolled women aged 15-25 years who were at risk for HIV in South Africa and Uganda, with a primary endpoint of HIV infection. Because of the previously announced interim results, which showed the injection was preventing infections, study sponsor Gilead Sciences discontinued the randomized phase of the trial and shifted to an open-label design for lenacapavir.

“One hundred percent efficacy is more that we could ever have hoped for a potential prevention efficacy,” said Christoph Spinner, MD, MBA, an infectious disease specialist at the University Hospital of the Technical University of Munich and AIDS 2024 conference cochair.

Dr. Spinner added that while this is the first study of lenacapavir for PrEP, it’s also the first to explore outcomes of emtricitabine-tenofovir in cisgender women.
 

Strong Adherence Rates

The twice-yearly injection demonstrated adherence rates above 90% in the trial for both the 6- and 12-month injection intervals.

“Adherence was 91.5% at week 26 and 92.8% at week 52,” Dr. Bekker reported. 

The trial compared three PrEP options including the lenacapavir injection to once-daily oral emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir-alafenamide 25 mg (F/TAF) and once-daily emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir–disoproxil fumarate 300 mg (F/TDF).

“Most participants in both the F/TAF and F/TDF groups had low adherence, and this declined over time,” Dr. Bekker reported. At 52 weeks, the vast majority of patients on both oral therapies had low adherence with dosing, defined at less than two doses a week.

Dr. Bekker called the adherence to the oral agents in this trial “disappointing.”

Findings from the trial underscore the challenges of adherence to a daily oral medication, Rochelle Walensky, MD, and Lindsey Baden, MD, from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, wrote in an editorial accompanying the published results.

With almost 92% attendance for the twice-yearly lenacapavir injections, the “well-done,” large, randomized, controlled trial “exemplifies not only that women can dependably adhere to this administration schedule, but also that levels of an HIV-1 capsid inhibitor can remain high enough over a period of 6 months to reliably prevent infection,” they added. 

Another key focus of the presentation was adverse events. The rate of adverse events grade 3 or more in the lenacapavir arm was 4.1%, Bekker said, which is slightly lower than the rates in the oral arms. The rates of serious adverse events were 2.8% for lenacapavir, 4% for F/TAF and 3.3% for F/TDF. 
 

Injection Site Reactions

Injection site reactions occurred in 68% of the lenacapavir group, including 63% with subcutaneous nodules.

The injection can form “a drug depot which may be palpable as a nodule,” Dr. Bekker said. In the placebo group, 34% of patients had injection-site reactions and 16% had nodules. Nearly all injection-site reactions were grade 1 or 2, she said. “Higher grade injection-site reactions were rare and not serious and occurred in a similar percentage in lenacapavir and placebo,” she said.

Overall, more than 25,000 injections of lenacapavir have been given, Dr. Bekker said, and four patients discontinued treatment because of injection-site reactions. “Reporting of injection-site reactions, including nodules, decreased with subsequent doses,” she said.

Contraception was not a requirement for enrollment in the study, Dr. Bekker pointed out, and pregnancy outcomes across the treatment arms were similar to the general population.
 

First in a Series of Trials

This is the first in a series of PURPOSE trials, Bekker reported. The phase 3 PURPOSE 2 trial, enrolling 3000 gay men, transgender women, transgender men and gender nonbinary people who have sex with male partners, is the second pivotal trial now underway.

Three other smaller trials are in the clinic in the United States and Europe.

PURPOSE 1 participants will continue to access lenacapavir until the product is available in South Africa and Uganda, Dr. Bekker said. Trial sponsor Gilead Sciences is also developing a direct licensing program to expedite generic access to the drug in high-incidence, resource-limited countries, she said.

Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden report that lenacapavir currently costs about $43,000 annually in the United States. “But the results of the PURPOSE 1 trial have now created a moral imperative to make lenacapavir broadly accessible and affordable as PrEP” to people who were enrolled, as well as all those who are similarly eligible and could benefit.

So now we have a PrEP product with high efficacy, they added. “That is great news for science but not (yet) great for women.” 

Given the high pregnancy rate among participants in the PURPOSE 1 trial, Dr. Walensky and Dr. Baden point out the assessment of lenacapavir safety is a priority. They are also interested in learning more about drug resistance with this new option. 

“I f approved and delivered — rapidly, affordably, and equitably — to those who need or want it, this long-acting tool could help accelerate global progress in HIV prevention,” Dr. Lewin said.

Now, she added, “we eagerly await results from PURPOSE 2.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable HIV-1 capsid inhibitor, has shown 100% efficacy in preventing HIV in women at a high risk for infection, according to an interim analysis of the phase 3 PURPOSE 1 trial.

The results were so promising that the independent data monitoring committee recommended that Gilead Sciences stop the blinded phase of the trial and offer open-label lenacapavir to all participants.

The results were both unexpected and exciting. “I’ve been in the HIV field for a really long time, and there’s no other phase 3 PrEP trial that found zero infections,” said Moupali Das, MD, PhD, executive director of clinical development at Gilead Sciences, Foster City, California.

PURPOSE 1 is evaluating the safety and efficacy of two regimens — twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir for pre-exposure prophylaxis and once-daily oral Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg) — in women and girls aged 16-25 years. The two drugs are being compared with the standard once-daily oral Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg).

There were no cases of HIV infection among the more than 2000 women in the lenacapavir group; in contrast, the incidence of HIV in the Descovy group was 2.02 per 100 person-years and in the Truvada group was 1.69 per 100 person-years.

The background incidence of HIV, one of the primary endpoints of the trial, was 2.41 per 100 person-years with lenacapavir. All the drugs were shown to be safe and well tolerated, and the full interim data from the trial will be released at an upcoming conference, according to Dr. Das.
 

No New Cases

The medical community is “thrilled” with the results so far, said Monica Gandhi, MD, director of the UCSF-Gladstone Center for AIDS Research. “We have to wait for the full data, but so far, it has been 100% effective and far superior to other treatments.”

Dr. Gandhi said she is waiting to see more details on side effects and tolerability, as well as discontinuation rates in the trial and the reasons people dropped out. For example, lenacapavir tends to cause nodules to form under the skin, which are the depots from which the drug is released over the course of 6 months. Gandhi said she is interested in whether any participants found them bothersome enough to discontinue the treatment.

The global HIV epidemic is still ongoing, with 1.3 million new infections in 2022, and existing oral PrEP options, and even the long-acting injectable cabotegravir, have so far failed to make as much of a dent in infection rates as hoped, said Dr. Gandhi. “We’ve been waiting for another option.”

The twice-yearly lenacapavir shot is easy and convenient to administer, compared with oral PrEP. Many people — especially younger individuals such as those enrolled in PURPOSE 1 — find it difficult to remember to take the pills every day.
 

A Discreet Option

Many participants in the trial said that they were uncomfortable with the stigma that can be attached to HIV PrEP. They did not want people to see the pill bottle in their house or hear it rattling in their purse. So an injection given just twice a year in a doctor’s office is attractive.

“This is a discrete option. People were very excited about the privacy and not having to take daily pills,” said Dr. Das. “PrEP only works if you take it.”

Better adherence to the treatment regimen is likely one reason that lenacapavir outperformed oral PrEP. But lenacapavir also has a unique mechanism of action as a multistage viral capsid inhibitor, Dr. Das said. It targets the capsid both before and after the virus integrates into the nucleus, which could be another reason for its potency.

Although the results are encouraging, there is still some concern about how accessible the drug will be, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of HIV is the highest. “No one has any clue on how Gilead plans to make this accessible,” said Dr. Gandhi.
 

Access Issues

The company has not signed up for the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) to allow companies to manufacture generic formulations of lenacapavir, which Dr. Gandhi said is the traditional route to provide cheaper alternatives in poorer countries. The “disastrous” rollout of injectable cabotegravir, which is still not widely available in lower-income countries, is a worrying precedent.

Gilead Sciences confirmed that all 5300 participants in the PURPOSE 1 study will have the option to continue receiving lenacapavir until the drug is generally available in their country. The company has committed to ensuring a dedicated Gilead Sciences supply in the countries where the need is the greatest until voluntary licensing partners are able to supply high-quality, low-cost versions of lenacapavir.

And rather than going through the third-party MPP, Gilead Sciences is negotiating a voluntary licensing program directly with other partners to supply generic versions of the drug in poorer countries.

Lenacapavir is already approved for the treatment of multidrug-resistant HIV but is not yet approved for HIV prevention. A sister trial, PURPOSE 2, is ongoing and is testing lenacapavir in men who have sex with men and in transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary individuals who have sex with partners assigned male at birth. Should those results, expected by the end of 2024 or early 2025, be positive, the company will move forward with regulatory filings for lenacapavir PrEP.

Three other trials are also ongoing. PURPOSE 3 and PURPOSE 4 are smaller US-based studies of women and people who inject drugs, and PURPOSE 5 is enrolling people at a high risk for HIV in France and the United Kingdom to provide European data for European regulators.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable HIV-1 capsid inhibitor, has shown 100% efficacy in preventing HIV in women at a high risk for infection, according to an interim analysis of the phase 3 PURPOSE 1 trial.

The results were so promising that the independent data monitoring committee recommended that Gilead Sciences stop the blinded phase of the trial and offer open-label lenacapavir to all participants.

The results were both unexpected and exciting. “I’ve been in the HIV field for a really long time, and there’s no other phase 3 PrEP trial that found zero infections,” said Moupali Das, MD, PhD, executive director of clinical development at Gilead Sciences, Foster City, California.

PURPOSE 1 is evaluating the safety and efficacy of two regimens — twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir for pre-exposure prophylaxis and once-daily oral Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg) — in women and girls aged 16-25 years. The two drugs are being compared with the standard once-daily oral Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg).

There were no cases of HIV infection among the more than 2000 women in the lenacapavir group; in contrast, the incidence of HIV in the Descovy group was 2.02 per 100 person-years and in the Truvada group was 1.69 per 100 person-years.

The background incidence of HIV, one of the primary endpoints of the trial, was 2.41 per 100 person-years with lenacapavir. All the drugs were shown to be safe and well tolerated, and the full interim data from the trial will be released at an upcoming conference, according to Dr. Das.
 

No New Cases

The medical community is “thrilled” with the results so far, said Monica Gandhi, MD, director of the UCSF-Gladstone Center for AIDS Research. “We have to wait for the full data, but so far, it has been 100% effective and far superior to other treatments.”

Dr. Gandhi said she is waiting to see more details on side effects and tolerability, as well as discontinuation rates in the trial and the reasons people dropped out. For example, lenacapavir tends to cause nodules to form under the skin, which are the depots from which the drug is released over the course of 6 months. Gandhi said she is interested in whether any participants found them bothersome enough to discontinue the treatment.

The global HIV epidemic is still ongoing, with 1.3 million new infections in 2022, and existing oral PrEP options, and even the long-acting injectable cabotegravir, have so far failed to make as much of a dent in infection rates as hoped, said Dr. Gandhi. “We’ve been waiting for another option.”

The twice-yearly lenacapavir shot is easy and convenient to administer, compared with oral PrEP. Many people — especially younger individuals such as those enrolled in PURPOSE 1 — find it difficult to remember to take the pills every day.
 

A Discreet Option

Many participants in the trial said that they were uncomfortable with the stigma that can be attached to HIV PrEP. They did not want people to see the pill bottle in their house or hear it rattling in their purse. So an injection given just twice a year in a doctor’s office is attractive.

“This is a discrete option. People were very excited about the privacy and not having to take daily pills,” said Dr. Das. “PrEP only works if you take it.”

Better adherence to the treatment regimen is likely one reason that lenacapavir outperformed oral PrEP. But lenacapavir also has a unique mechanism of action as a multistage viral capsid inhibitor, Dr. Das said. It targets the capsid both before and after the virus integrates into the nucleus, which could be another reason for its potency.

Although the results are encouraging, there is still some concern about how accessible the drug will be, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of HIV is the highest. “No one has any clue on how Gilead plans to make this accessible,” said Dr. Gandhi.
 

Access Issues

The company has not signed up for the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) to allow companies to manufacture generic formulations of lenacapavir, which Dr. Gandhi said is the traditional route to provide cheaper alternatives in poorer countries. The “disastrous” rollout of injectable cabotegravir, which is still not widely available in lower-income countries, is a worrying precedent.

Gilead Sciences confirmed that all 5300 participants in the PURPOSE 1 study will have the option to continue receiving lenacapavir until the drug is generally available in their country. The company has committed to ensuring a dedicated Gilead Sciences supply in the countries where the need is the greatest until voluntary licensing partners are able to supply high-quality, low-cost versions of lenacapavir.

And rather than going through the third-party MPP, Gilead Sciences is negotiating a voluntary licensing program directly with other partners to supply generic versions of the drug in poorer countries.

Lenacapavir is already approved for the treatment of multidrug-resistant HIV but is not yet approved for HIV prevention. A sister trial, PURPOSE 2, is ongoing and is testing lenacapavir in men who have sex with men and in transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary individuals who have sex with partners assigned male at birth. Should those results, expected by the end of 2024 or early 2025, be positive, the company will move forward with regulatory filings for lenacapavir PrEP.

Three other trials are also ongoing. PURPOSE 3 and PURPOSE 4 are smaller US-based studies of women and people who inject drugs, and PURPOSE 5 is enrolling people at a high risk for HIV in France and the United Kingdom to provide European data for European regulators.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable HIV-1 capsid inhibitor, has shown 100% efficacy in preventing HIV in women at a high risk for infection, according to an interim analysis of the phase 3 PURPOSE 1 trial.

The results were so promising that the independent data monitoring committee recommended that Gilead Sciences stop the blinded phase of the trial and offer open-label lenacapavir to all participants.

The results were both unexpected and exciting. “I’ve been in the HIV field for a really long time, and there’s no other phase 3 PrEP trial that found zero infections,” said Moupali Das, MD, PhD, executive director of clinical development at Gilead Sciences, Foster City, California.

PURPOSE 1 is evaluating the safety and efficacy of two regimens — twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir for pre-exposure prophylaxis and once-daily oral Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg) — in women and girls aged 16-25 years. The two drugs are being compared with the standard once-daily oral Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg).

There were no cases of HIV infection among the more than 2000 women in the lenacapavir group; in contrast, the incidence of HIV in the Descovy group was 2.02 per 100 person-years and in the Truvada group was 1.69 per 100 person-years.

The background incidence of HIV, one of the primary endpoints of the trial, was 2.41 per 100 person-years with lenacapavir. All the drugs were shown to be safe and well tolerated, and the full interim data from the trial will be released at an upcoming conference, according to Dr. Das.
 

No New Cases

The medical community is “thrilled” with the results so far, said Monica Gandhi, MD, director of the UCSF-Gladstone Center for AIDS Research. “We have to wait for the full data, but so far, it has been 100% effective and far superior to other treatments.”

Dr. Gandhi said she is waiting to see more details on side effects and tolerability, as well as discontinuation rates in the trial and the reasons people dropped out. For example, lenacapavir tends to cause nodules to form under the skin, which are the depots from which the drug is released over the course of 6 months. Gandhi said she is interested in whether any participants found them bothersome enough to discontinue the treatment.

The global HIV epidemic is still ongoing, with 1.3 million new infections in 2022, and existing oral PrEP options, and even the long-acting injectable cabotegravir, have so far failed to make as much of a dent in infection rates as hoped, said Dr. Gandhi. “We’ve been waiting for another option.”

The twice-yearly lenacapavir shot is easy and convenient to administer, compared with oral PrEP. Many people — especially younger individuals such as those enrolled in PURPOSE 1 — find it difficult to remember to take the pills every day.
 

A Discreet Option

Many participants in the trial said that they were uncomfortable with the stigma that can be attached to HIV PrEP. They did not want people to see the pill bottle in their house or hear it rattling in their purse. So an injection given just twice a year in a doctor’s office is attractive.

“This is a discrete option. People were very excited about the privacy and not having to take daily pills,” said Dr. Das. “PrEP only works if you take it.”

Better adherence to the treatment regimen is likely one reason that lenacapavir outperformed oral PrEP. But lenacapavir also has a unique mechanism of action as a multistage viral capsid inhibitor, Dr. Das said. It targets the capsid both before and after the virus integrates into the nucleus, which could be another reason for its potency.

Although the results are encouraging, there is still some concern about how accessible the drug will be, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of HIV is the highest. “No one has any clue on how Gilead plans to make this accessible,” said Dr. Gandhi.
 

Access Issues

The company has not signed up for the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) to allow companies to manufacture generic formulations of lenacapavir, which Dr. Gandhi said is the traditional route to provide cheaper alternatives in poorer countries. The “disastrous” rollout of injectable cabotegravir, which is still not widely available in lower-income countries, is a worrying precedent.

Gilead Sciences confirmed that all 5300 participants in the PURPOSE 1 study will have the option to continue receiving lenacapavir until the drug is generally available in their country. The company has committed to ensuring a dedicated Gilead Sciences supply in the countries where the need is the greatest until voluntary licensing partners are able to supply high-quality, low-cost versions of lenacapavir.

And rather than going through the third-party MPP, Gilead Sciences is negotiating a voluntary licensing program directly with other partners to supply generic versions of the drug in poorer countries.

Lenacapavir is already approved for the treatment of multidrug-resistant HIV but is not yet approved for HIV prevention. A sister trial, PURPOSE 2, is ongoing and is testing lenacapavir in men who have sex with men and in transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary individuals who have sex with partners assigned male at birth. Should those results, expected by the end of 2024 or early 2025, be positive, the company will move forward with regulatory filings for lenacapavir PrEP.

Three other trials are also ongoing. PURPOSE 3 and PURPOSE 4 are smaller US-based studies of women and people who inject drugs, and PURPOSE 5 is enrolling people at a high risk for HIV in France and the United Kingdom to provide European data for European regulators.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

The studies received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

The studies received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

The studies received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least three clients of an unlicensed spa in New Mexico contracted HIV after receiving platelet-rich plasma (PRP) microneedling facials, according to an investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The investigation, spanning 5 years with parts of it still ongoing, has resulted in the closure of the spa and is raising questions about public safety in cosmetic clinics.

Though transmission of HIV by unsterile injection practices is a known risk, this is the first time it has been linked to cosmetic injection services, said Anna Stadelman-Behar, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Sometimes called a vampire facial, the PRP treatment involves taking a patient’s own blood and separating it in a centrifuge. The portion containing a high concentration of platelets is then reinjected with a syringe or microneedling device.

“The idea is that when you inject this concentrated amount of platelets, the growth factors that the platelets release help to stimulate the regenerative nature of that area,” said Anthony Rossi, MD, professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, and attending dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

The infections under investigation first came to light when a woman was diagnosed with HIV with no known risk factors for the disease other than exposure to microneedling facials at a cosmetic spa.

The New Mexico Department of Health and the CDC launched an investigation of the spa and discovered a litany of “gross violations of infection control practices,” said Dr. Stadelman-Behar.
 

Infection-Control Violations

At the spa in New Mexico, investigators found:

• On a kitchen counter, a centrifuge, a heating dry bath, and a rack of unlabeled tubes containing blood
• In a refrigerator, unlabeled tubes of blood and medical injectables including botox and lidocaine stored along with food
• Unwrapped syringes in drawers, on counters, and discarded in regular trash cans
• No autoclave for steam sterilization on the premises
• Only surface cleaning for procedure equipment with ammonium chloride disinfecting spray and benzalkonium chloride disinfecting wipes after each client visit
• Disposable electric desiccator tips cleaned only by alcohol immersion to be reused

The spa’s owner operated without appropriate licenses at multiple locations and did not have an appointment scheduling system that stored client contact information.

Investigators contacted as many people as they could find and launched a large-scale community outreach effort to find more. 

In total, four clients and one intimate partner of a client were diagnosed with HIV during the investigation, but one client and her partner were determined to likely have been infected before the spa visit.

It is not clear whether the infections were due to unlabeled contaminated blood products being given to the wrong client or contamination on shared needles. Investigators did not have the authority to collect specimens during their site visit that would have allowed them to study that.

“We can’t definitively say what the route of contamination was,” noted Dr. Stadelman-Behar.

Anne Chapas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, and instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, added that just because a procedure is cosmetic, that doesn’t mean it is not medical. “Personally, I feel it should only be done by medical practitioners who understand the risks.”
 

A Medical Procedure

PRP microneedling has been used extensively in orthopedic surgery to promote joint regeneration. For the past 10 years, it has also been used in dermatology to treat hair loss from alopecia, to augment wound healing, and cosmetically to reduce facial wrinkles.

It is generally done in a doctor’s office or medical spa, and the procedure takes about half an hour.

Dr. Stadelman-Behar said that this ongoing investigation highlights the importance of front-line healthcare workers using their clinical expertise to help identify potential new routes of transmission for infections. “It was provider-led intuition that sparked this investigation, so it’s important to let the department of health know if there is something amiss with any of the exposures that the patient might have had,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least three clients of an unlicensed spa in New Mexico contracted HIV after receiving platelet-rich plasma (PRP) microneedling facials, according to an investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The investigation, spanning 5 years with parts of it still ongoing, has resulted in the closure of the spa and is raising questions about public safety in cosmetic clinics.

Though transmission of HIV by unsterile injection practices is a known risk, this is the first time it has been linked to cosmetic injection services, said Anna Stadelman-Behar, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Sometimes called a vampire facial, the PRP treatment involves taking a patient’s own blood and separating it in a centrifuge. The portion containing a high concentration of platelets is then reinjected with a syringe or microneedling device.

“The idea is that when you inject this concentrated amount of platelets, the growth factors that the platelets release help to stimulate the regenerative nature of that area,” said Anthony Rossi, MD, professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, and attending dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

The infections under investigation first came to light when a woman was diagnosed with HIV with no known risk factors for the disease other than exposure to microneedling facials at a cosmetic spa.

The New Mexico Department of Health and the CDC launched an investigation of the spa and discovered a litany of “gross violations of infection control practices,” said Dr. Stadelman-Behar.
 

Infection-Control Violations

At the spa in New Mexico, investigators found:

• On a kitchen counter, a centrifuge, a heating dry bath, and a rack of unlabeled tubes containing blood
• In a refrigerator, unlabeled tubes of blood and medical injectables including botox and lidocaine stored along with food
• Unwrapped syringes in drawers, on counters, and discarded in regular trash cans
• No autoclave for steam sterilization on the premises
• Only surface cleaning for procedure equipment with ammonium chloride disinfecting spray and benzalkonium chloride disinfecting wipes after each client visit
• Disposable electric desiccator tips cleaned only by alcohol immersion to be reused

The spa’s owner operated without appropriate licenses at multiple locations and did not have an appointment scheduling system that stored client contact information.

Investigators contacted as many people as they could find and launched a large-scale community outreach effort to find more. 

In total, four clients and one intimate partner of a client were diagnosed with HIV during the investigation, but one client and her partner were determined to likely have been infected before the spa visit.

It is not clear whether the infections were due to unlabeled contaminated blood products being given to the wrong client or contamination on shared needles. Investigators did not have the authority to collect specimens during their site visit that would have allowed them to study that.

“We can’t definitively say what the route of contamination was,” noted Dr. Stadelman-Behar.

Anne Chapas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, and instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, added that just because a procedure is cosmetic, that doesn’t mean it is not medical. “Personally, I feel it should only be done by medical practitioners who understand the risks.”
 

A Medical Procedure

PRP microneedling has been used extensively in orthopedic surgery to promote joint regeneration. For the past 10 years, it has also been used in dermatology to treat hair loss from alopecia, to augment wound healing, and cosmetically to reduce facial wrinkles.

It is generally done in a doctor’s office or medical spa, and the procedure takes about half an hour.

Dr. Stadelman-Behar said that this ongoing investigation highlights the importance of front-line healthcare workers using their clinical expertise to help identify potential new routes of transmission for infections. “It was provider-led intuition that sparked this investigation, so it’s important to let the department of health know if there is something amiss with any of the exposures that the patient might have had,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least three clients of an unlicensed spa in New Mexico contracted HIV after receiving platelet-rich plasma (PRP) microneedling facials, according to an investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The investigation, spanning 5 years with parts of it still ongoing, has resulted in the closure of the spa and is raising questions about public safety in cosmetic clinics.

Though transmission of HIV by unsterile injection practices is a known risk, this is the first time it has been linked to cosmetic injection services, said Anna Stadelman-Behar, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Sometimes called a vampire facial, the PRP treatment involves taking a patient’s own blood and separating it in a centrifuge. The portion containing a high concentration of platelets is then reinjected with a syringe or microneedling device.

“The idea is that when you inject this concentrated amount of platelets, the growth factors that the platelets release help to stimulate the regenerative nature of that area,” said Anthony Rossi, MD, professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, and attending dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

The infections under investigation first came to light when a woman was diagnosed with HIV with no known risk factors for the disease other than exposure to microneedling facials at a cosmetic spa.

The New Mexico Department of Health and the CDC launched an investigation of the spa and discovered a litany of “gross violations of infection control practices,” said Dr. Stadelman-Behar.
 

Infection-Control Violations

At the spa in New Mexico, investigators found:

• On a kitchen counter, a centrifuge, a heating dry bath, and a rack of unlabeled tubes containing blood
• In a refrigerator, unlabeled tubes of blood and medical injectables including botox and lidocaine stored along with food
• Unwrapped syringes in drawers, on counters, and discarded in regular trash cans
• No autoclave for steam sterilization on the premises
• Only surface cleaning for procedure equipment with ammonium chloride disinfecting spray and benzalkonium chloride disinfecting wipes after each client visit
• Disposable electric desiccator tips cleaned only by alcohol immersion to be reused

The spa’s owner operated without appropriate licenses at multiple locations and did not have an appointment scheduling system that stored client contact information.

Investigators contacted as many people as they could find and launched a large-scale community outreach effort to find more. 

In total, four clients and one intimate partner of a client were diagnosed with HIV during the investigation, but one client and her partner were determined to likely have been infected before the spa visit.

It is not clear whether the infections were due to unlabeled contaminated blood products being given to the wrong client or contamination on shared needles. Investigators did not have the authority to collect specimens during their site visit that would have allowed them to study that.

“We can’t definitively say what the route of contamination was,” noted Dr. Stadelman-Behar.

Anne Chapas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, and instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, added that just because a procedure is cosmetic, that doesn’t mean it is not medical. “Personally, I feel it should only be done by medical practitioners who understand the risks.”
 

A Medical Procedure

PRP microneedling has been used extensively in orthopedic surgery to promote joint regeneration. For the past 10 years, it has also been used in dermatology to treat hair loss from alopecia, to augment wound healing, and cosmetically to reduce facial wrinkles.

It is generally done in a doctor’s office or medical spa, and the procedure takes about half an hour.

Dr. Stadelman-Behar said that this ongoing investigation highlights the importance of front-line healthcare workers using their clinical expertise to help identify potential new routes of transmission for infections. “It was provider-led intuition that sparked this investigation, so it’s important to let the department of health know if there is something amiss with any of the exposures that the patient might have had,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir). 

The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.

Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.

The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).

Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.

Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:

• Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
• Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
• Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
• Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
• Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
• Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
• Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).

The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir). 

The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.

Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.

The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).

Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.

Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:

• Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
• Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
• Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
• Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
• Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
• Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
• Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).

The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir). 

The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.

Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.

The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).

Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.

Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:

• Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
• Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
• Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
• Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
• Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
• Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
• Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).

The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.