Twenty years of human immunodeficiency virus care at the Mayo Clinic: Past, present and future

Pharmacogenomic panel testing provides insight and enhances medication management in people with HIV

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to assess the impact of pharmacogenomic panel testing in people with HIV (PWH).

DESIGN

Prospective, observational intervention assessment.

METHODS

One hundred PWH were provided a comprehensive pharmacogenomic panel during routine care visits within the HIV specialty clinic of a large academic medical center. The panel determined the presence of specific genetic variants that could predict response or toxicity to commonly prescribed antiretroviral therapy (ART) and non-ART medications. An HIV specialty pharmacist reviewed the results with participants and the care team. The pharmacist (1) recommended clinically actionable interventions based on the participants' current drug therapy, (2) assessed for genetic explanations for prior medication failures, adverse effects, or intolerances, and (3) advised on potential future clinically actionable care interventions based on individual genetic phenotypes.

RESULTS

Ninety-six participants (median age 53 years, 74% white, 84% men, 89% viral load <50 copies/ml) completed panel testing, yielding 682 clinically relevant pharmacogenomic results (133 major, 549 mild-moderate). Ninety participants (89 on ART) completed follow-up visits with 65 (72%) receiving clinical recommendations based on current medication profiles. Of the 105 clinical recommendations, 70% advised additional monitoring for efficacy or toxicity, and 10% advised alteration of drug therapy. Panel results offered explanation for prior ART inefficacy in one participant and ART intolerance in 29%. Genetic explanation for non-ART toxicity was seen in 21% of participants, with genetic contributors to inefficacy of non-ART therapy identified in 39% of participants.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary data in a small cohort of PWH demonstrates benefit of routine pharmacogenomic panel testing.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on 30-Day Readmissions, Preventability, and Strategies for Improving Transitions of Care for Patients with HIV at a Safety Net Hospital

Thirty-day hospital readmissions, a key quality metric, are common among people living with HIV. We assessed perceived causes of 30-day readmissions, factors associated with preventability, and strategies to reduce preventable readmissions and improve continuity of care for HIV-positive individuals. Patient, provider, and staff perspectives toward 30-day readmissions were evaluated in semistructured interviews (n = 86) conducted in triads (HIV-positive patient, medical provider, and case manager) recruited from an inpatient safety net hospital. Iterative analysis included both deductive and inductive themes. Key findings include the following: (1) The 30-day metric should be adjusted for safety net institutions and patients with AIDS; (2) Participants disagreed about preventability, especially regarding patient-level factors; (3) Various stakeholders proposed readmission reduction strategies that spanned the inpatient to outpatient care continuum. Based on these diverse perspectives, we outline multiple interventions, from teach-back patient education to postdischarge home visits, which could substantially decrease hospital readmissions in this underserved population.

The involvement of people living with HIV in the development of HIV-specific or inclusive health instruments: a mixed methods review

Given recent emphasis on patient engagement in the choice and development of health measures to ensure their relevance, we examined the involvement of people living with HIV (PLHIV) in the creation of health measurement instruments that are HIV-specific or inclusive. A mixed studies review was conducted describing: 1) the sampling, recruitment and characteristics of involved PLHIV; 2) the methods and extent of their involvement; and 3) study author characterizations of this involvement. Five databases were searched in November 2015. Content and thematic analyses and a patient engagement framework guided the synthesis. Forty-one studies describing the development of thirty-nine instruments were reviewed. For many instruments, there was no reporting of the sampling method used for PLHIV involvement (87%), the recruitment setting (62%), the number of PLHIV involved (44%) or their characteristics (38%). Focus groups (38%) and interviews (36%) were the most common involvement methods. Involvement typically occurred at the patient engagement level of consultation (79%). Authors primarily characterized involvement as "contributing to instrument development" and, less frequently, as "a collaboration," "integral to instrument development" or "challenging." Patient engagement frameworks and standards for the content validation of patient-reported measures offer resources for systematic reporting, contextualizing involvement, diversifying approaches, and documenting their potentialities.