| Literature DB >> 30026959 |
Haruna Yamamoto1, Hiroaki Ikesue1, Mai Ikemura2, Rieko Miura1, Kazumi Fujita1, Hobyung Chung3, Yoshiki Suginoshita3, Tetsuro Inokuma3, Tohru Hashida1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are known to improve tolerability and have higher efficacy and shorter treatment durations compared with conventional interferon (IFN)-based treatments for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Management of drug interactions and maintenance of patient adherence are important to achieve adequate therapeutic effects, sustained virological response (SVR). In order to maximize the benefits of oral DAA therapy, we established an ambulatory care pharmacy practice, a model of integrated collaboration between physicians and pharmacists, for patients receiving IFN-free DAA therapy. In this study, we evaluated pharmaceutical intervention for patients visiting the ambulatory care pharmacy practice.Entities:
Keywords: Adherence; Ambulatory care; Direct-acting antivirals; Hepatitis C virus; Outpatients; Pharmacist; Sustained virological response
Year: 2018 PMID: 30026959 PMCID: PMC6048910 DOI: 10.1186/s40780-018-0113-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pharm Health Care Sci ISSN: 2055-0294
Fig. 1Patient flow in the conventional and established ambulatory care pharmacy practice. When IFN-free direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) were first prescribed, all patients visited the ambulatory care pharmacy practice after being examined by a physician. The pharmacist provided patient education, advised on the timing of taking DAAs, based on the patients’ life styles, enquired regarding concomitant medications and supplements for the prevention of drug interaction, and suggested that the physicians change the concomitant medications as necessary. At the second visit or later, the patients visited the pharmacy service before consulting the physician. The pharmacist had a face-to-face consultation with each patient and suggested modifications of the plan of treatment to the physician, based on the patient’s condition
Fig. 2Flow diagram of enrollment in study and analyses. The numbers of patients who were enrolled and analyzed in this study is described. The number of excluded patients and reasons for exclusion are also described. IFN, interferon; DAA, direct-acting antiviral agent; RDI, relative dose intensity; DCV, daclatasvir; ASV, asunaprevir; SOF, sofosbuvir; RBV, ribavirin; LDV, ledipasvir; OBV, ombitasvir; PTV, paritaprevir; r, ritonavir; EBR, elbasvir; GZR, grazoprevir and SVR; sustained virological response
Baseline characteristics of the patients
| Characteristics | Overall (n = 401) | Genotype 1 (n = 315) | Genotype 2 (n = 86 ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male sex, n (%) | 170 (42.4%) | 132 (41.9%) | 38 (44.2%) |
| Age, median years (range) | 67 (22–87) | 68 (31–87) | 65 (22–84) |
| Cirrhosis, n (%) | 89 (22.2%) | 75 (23.8%) | 14 (16.3%) |
| Treatment experienced, n (%) | 123 (30.7%) | 110 (34.9%) | 13 (15.1%) |
| HCV RNA, log IU/mL, median (range) | 6.1 (2.0–7.5) | 6.1 (2.0–7.5) | 5.9 (3.0–7.2) |
| Albumin, g/dL, median (range) | 4.1 (2.6–4.9) | 4.1 (2.6–4.9) | 4.1 (2.9–4.8) |
| Total bilirubin, mg/dL, median (range) | 0.7 (0.2–28.1) | 0.7 (0.2–28.1) | 0.7 (0.2–2.4) |
| AST, IU/L, median (range) | 41 (10–360) | 42 (10–360) | 38 (14–250) |
| ALT, IU/L, median (range) | 42 (5–382) | 42 (8–382) | 40 (5–251) |
| Platelets, ×104/mm3, median (range) | 14.6 (0.6–55.2) | 14.6 (0.6–55.2) | 14.4 (4.0–30.0) |
| Prothrombin time, %, median (range) | 90.0 (16.3–134.2) | 90.3 (20.4–134.2) | 86.9 (16.3–121.1) |
| Hemoglobin, g/dL, median (range) | 13.4 (1.1–18.4) | 13.4 (1.1–17.0) | 13.5 (9.1–18.4) |
| NS5A resistance associated variantsa, n (%) | |||
| Neither L31 or Y93 | – | 184 (58.4%) | – |
| Either L31 or Y93 | – | 40 (12.7%) | – |
| Both L31 and Y93 | – | 2 (0.6%) | – |
| Treatment agents, n (%) | |||
| DCV+ASV | 110 (27.4%) | 110 (34.9%) | 0 ( 0%) |
| SOF/LDV | 184 (45.9%) | 184 (58.4%) | 0 ( 0%) |
| OBV/PTV/r | 10 ( 2.5%) | 10 ( 3.2%) | 0 ( 0%) |
| EBR+GZR | 11 ( 2.8%) | 11 ( 3.5%) | 0 ( 0%) |
| SOF+RBV | 85 (21.2%) | 0 ( 0%) | 85 (98.8%) |
| OBV/PTV/r+RBV | 1 ( 0.2%) | 0 ( 0%) | 1 ( 1.2%) |
aEighty-nine patients treated with SOF/LDV were not checked
AST Aspartate aminotransferase, ALT Alanine aminotransferase, NS5A Nonstructural protein 5A, DCV Daclatasvir, ASV Asunaprevir, SOF Sofosbuvir, LDV Ledipasvir, OBV Ombitasvir, PTV Paritaprevir, r Ritonavir, EBR Elbasvir, GZR Grazoprevir and RBV Ribavirin
Rates of patient sustained virological responses and adherence to DAA treatments
| Outcomes | DCV+ASV | SOF/LDV | OBV/PTV/r | EBR+GZR | SOF+RBV | OBV/PTV/r | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adherence | |||||||
| 100%, n (%) | 84 (76.4%) | 170 (92.4%) | 10 (100%) | 10 (90.9%) | 65 (76.5%) | 0 (0%) | 339 (84.5%) |
| ≥95%, n (%) | 109 (99.1%) | 182 (98.9%) | 10 (100%) | 10 (90.9%) | 85 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 397 (99.0%) |
| 90–94%, n (%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.2%) |
| <90%, n (%) | 1 (0.9%) | 1 (0.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (9.1%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (0.7%) |
| Completion the treatments, n (%) | 101 | 180 | 9 | 10 | 85 | 1 | 386 |
| Achieved SVR12, n (%) a | – | 176/177 (99.4%) | 10/10 (100%) | 2/2 (100%) | 77/77 (100%) | 0/0 (0%) | 265/266 (99.6%) |
| Achieved SVR24, n (%) a | 93/99 (93.9%) | – | – | – | – | – | 93/99 (93.9%) |
aPatients were excluded if they have not reached12 or 24 weeks after the completion of treatment
DCV Daclatasvir, ASV Asunaprevir, SOF Sofosbuvir, RBV Ribavirin, LDV Ledipasvir, OBV Ombitasvir, PTV Paritaprevir, r Ritonavir, EBR Elbasvir and GZR Grazoprevir
Numbers of suggestions provided by the pharmacists and the responses of the physicians
| Number of suggestions | Number of accepted suggestions by physicians (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| At the beginning of the treatment | ||
| Drug-drug interaction | 68 | 44 (64.7%) |
| Dose reductions of ribavirin | 6 | 6 (100%) |
| Second visit or later | ||
| Management of adverse drug events | 194 | 172 (88.7%) |
| Others | 50 | 45 (90.0%) |
| TOTAL | 318 | 267 (84.0%) |
Numbers of the questions from patients regarding DAAs treatment
| Type of questions | Number (%) |
|---|---|
| Adverse drug events | 577 (53.8%) |
| Drug interaction a | 205 (19.1%) |
| Management in the event of a missed dose of DAAs | 57 ( 5.3%) |
| Others | 233 (21.8%) |
| TOTAL | 1,072 (100%) |
DAAs Direct-acting antivirals
a These included questions according to drug-drug (152 cases), drug-supplement (32 cases), and drug-food (21 cases) interactions
Comparison of the rate of SVR12 and adherence to DAAs
| Reference (published year) | Study design | Genotype | Medications | Adherence assessment | SVR12 (%) | Adherence (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Present study | Retrospective | 1 and 2 | Various kinds of DAA | Pill count | 99.6% (265/266) | Adherent (defined as ≥95% of pill count): 99.0% (397/401) |
| Retrospective analyses of clinical practice | ||||||
| 9 (2016) | Retrospective | 1–3 | Various kinds of DAA | Patient report | 93.2% (124/133) | Adherent (defined as 100% of adherence): 79.1% (102/129) |
| 12 (2017) | Retrospective | 1–4 | Various kinds of DAA | PDC from pharmacy record b | Specialty pharmacy | Adherent (defined as ≥80% of PDC): 100% (206/206) |
| Nonintegrated pharmacies | Adherent (defined as ≥80% of PDC): 97% (55/57) | |||||
| 16 (2016) | Retrospective | 1 a | SOF/LDV | PDC from pharmacy record b | All subjects: 95.3% (928/974) | 100% of PDC: 65.7% (632/962) |
| 2 or 3 | SOF+RBV | PDC from pharmacy record b | All subjects: 88.2% (585/663) | 100% of PDC: 92.1% (606/658) | ||
| 17 (2016) | Retrospective | 1 a | SOF, SOF/LDV, simeprevir | Patient report | 90.4% (225/249) | Adherent (defined as 100% of adherence): 97.0% (360/371) |
| 18 (2017) | Retrospective | 1–3 | Various kinds of DAA | PDC from pharmacy record b | 94.1% (350/372) | Mean PDC: 98.7% |
| Analyses of phase 2 and/or 3 clinical trials | ||||||
| 15 (2016) | Pooled analysis of phase 2-3 studies | 1–6 | SOF+RBV±LDV | Pill count | All subjects: 84.4% (2134/2528) | Mean: 91.3% |
| Pooled analysis of phase 2-3 studies | 1–6 | SOF/LDV | Pill count | All subjects: 96.5% (1441/1493) | Mean: 97.5% | |
| 19 (2016) | Pooled analysis of phase 3 studies | 1 | SOF/ LDV±RBV | Pill count | 96.7% (1888/1952) | Adherent (defined as ≥80% of doses): 92.3% (1802/1952) |
| 20 (2016) | Pooled analysis of phase 3 studies | 1–6 | SOF/velpatasvir | Pill count | 98.1% (1015/1035) | Adherent (defined as ≥90% of doses): 95.8% (992/1035) |
| 21 (2016) | Phase 2a study | 1 | SOF/LDV | MEMS | 96.6% (58/60) | MEMS: mean 96.7% |
MEMS Electronic medication event monitoring system, PDC The proportion of days covered, SOF Sofosbuvir, LDV Ledipasvir, RBV Ribavirin
aThe majority of the patients were infected with HCV genotype 1. Four patients were infected with genotype 4 and 175 patients were infected with an unknown genotype of HCV.
bPDC was defined as the total number of days with possession of medication in a period of time