A Growing Problem, which is Potentially Contributing to Overdose Deaths

By: Marcus J. Hopkins, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor, and Founder & Executive Director of the Appalachian Learning Initiative (APPLI)

In September 2023, alarming data on overdose deaths was published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). In response, ADAP Advocacy and the Partnership for Safe Medicines (PSM) issued a press release, ADAP Advocacy Calls for More Awareness on Counterfeit Medicines, calling attention to an increase in the infiltration of counterfeit medications into both the legitimate pharmaceutical marketplace and the illicit drug markets. “Unlike counterfeit opioid pills which often kill instantly, counterfeit HIV medications will victimize patients silently and slowly. Treatment failure, with a whole host of health events, will be the only clue a patient and their physician will notice,” stated Brandon Macsata, ADAP Advocacy’s CEO.

Photo Source: HHS

There have been two recent very high-profile examples of counterfeit drugs entering the marketplace: Janssen’s Symtuza (darunavir/ cobicistat/ emtricitabine/ tenofovir alafenamide) and Gilead’s Biktarvy (bictegravir/ emtricitabine/ tenofovir alafenamide) and Descovy (emtricitabine/ tenofovir alafenamide).

The Janssen case came to light on December 24th, 2020, when the company released a statement warning patients, providers, and pharmacists that counterfeit versions of their highly effective HIV drug, Symtuza, had entered the consumer market through pharmacies that had purchased their drugs from distributors that were not authorized by Janssen. In an effort to alert consumers, Janssen began distributing information to providers, patients, and pharmacists with pictures and descriptions of authentic Symtuza pills and informing providers and pharmacists to reach out to patients to alert them to be on the lookout for counterfeits.

Similarly, Gilead Sciences announced on August 5th, 2021, that counterfeit versions of Biktarvy and Descovy had made their way to pharmacy shelves, again via unauthorized distributors, and again provided images of authentic pills and packaging to allow patients to better identify counterfeit products.

Both companies responded in similar ways—attempting to educate the consumer population about authentic products while simultaneously working to address unauthorized distributors. Gilead went further in 2022 by announcing that they were working to identify and sue two individuals responsible for leading and orchestrating the scheme. Their investigation found that these two individuals had directed the initial sale through suppliers created solely to sell counterfeit products. Further action was taken when an asset freeze order was unsealed revealing that 50 defendants were added to the suit. Janssen followed shortly after by announcing its own lawsuit.

And then, there’s the illicit drug market…

A September 1st, 2023, MMWR found evidence that the evidence of overdose deaths resulting from counterfeit pills increased from 2.0% in July-September 2019 to 4.7% in October-December 2021. Fentanyl was the only drug involved in 41.4% of deaths with evidence of counterfeit pill use and 19.5% of deaths without evidence.

The issue, here, isn’t that patients are purchasing counterfeit prescription drugs from pharmacies, but that they’re purchasing them from illicit sources (e.g., illicit drug dealers). And yet, these are still counterfeit versions of legitimate pharmaceutical drugs, each designed to look roughly identical to their authentic counterparts—in these cases, primarily oxycodone (the generic version of OxyContin, a powerful and highly addictive pain medication) and alprazolam (the generic version of Xanax, a drug used primarily to treat anxiety or panic attacks, and one of the most addictive benzodiazepine medications on the market).

Photo Source: Drug Enforcement Administration

Unlike HIV or specialty medications that have very specific, patented designs, both oxycodone and alprazolam have generic equivalents that can make spotting counterfeit versions more difficult. In September 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) put out a fact sheet with an image showing the similarities between authentic and counterfeit oxycodone, and the reality is that, unless someone is actively examining each pill they take, the differences are hard to spot. At first glance, the counterfeit version looks like it’s more authentic than the real M30 tablet because the markings are clearer and easier to read.

A bigger concern, here, is that the pills that are shown to have the highest likelihood of being counterfeited are ones to which people may be highly addicted, making them less likely to check pills for authenticity, rather than to just take the pills, either orally or via smoking, the most common non-ingestion drug use route among deaths with evidence of counterfeit drug use (39.5%). This can be exceptionally dangerous, particularly among younger people who are less likely to have experience identifying and avoiding counterfeit drugs. Moreover, those with severe addictions may be driven more by the need to satiate their need than any concerns about potential overdose risks.

Two of the findings from the MMWR report were that overdose deaths with evidence of counterfeit pill use were significantly more likely to occur among young people, with 57.1% of said overdoses occurring in people aged younger than 35 and were more often to occur in Hispanic or Latino populations (18.7%). If these young people are anything like I was in my twenties, they’re not likely to check the provenance of their drugs, rather than just take them.

Additionally, this increase in overdoses impacts a region that has traditionally seen relatively few fentanyl-based overdose deaths compared to the South, Midwest, and New England: the West (Hernandez, 2023). When looking at states in the West, the rate of overdose deaths with evidence of counterfeit pill use surged from 4.7% to 14.7% in the time period examined. Researchers indicate that the type of heroin prevalent in the West—black tar heroin—is difficult to mix with white powder fentanyl, which has made it less likely to be found in Western states. Counterfeit medications, however, make it easier to introduce fentanyl into the market.

Photo Source: CDC

Note. Retrieved from O’Donnell et al., 2023.

Outside of the United States, it was announced on October 24th, 2023, that several people living in Austria were hospitalized after using suspected counterfeits of the blockbuster diabetes and weight loss drug Ozempic (semaglutide). Ozempic, made by Danish company Novo Nordisk, has been shown to drastically improve weight loss outcomes and was approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for that purpose under the brand name Wegovy. The drug’s popularity for weight loss purposes has exacerbated supply chain issues, causing worldwide shortages of the drug for patients living with diabetes. Counterfeiters are recognizing these shortages as an opportunity to bring fake versions of the injector pens to the market packaged in official boxes. Authorities in Germany and Britain have been investigating cases where a wholesaler in Austria sold these counterfeits to Germany and to two additional wholesalers in Britain. Here in the United States, similar reports of counterfeit Ozempic were reported in August 2023.

What makes counterfeit pills so dangerous is that people have come to trust in the security of pills. We assume that medications in pill form are guaranteed to be safe, even when we purchase them from illicit sellers, and we do so because we’ve been told by numerous agencies that they are safe, from the FDA who approves them to the manufacturers, providers, and pharmacists who sell them. We also assume, when we buy pills from illicit sources, that they have procured those pills from legitimate sources and are just reselling them. When counterfeit pills enter the market, whether credible-looking fakes of specialty medications or convincing fakes of generic drugs, patients begin to lose trust in the system that fails them…assuming they’re still alive to lose that faith..

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

2023 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Biennial Report Now Available

By: Health Resources and Services Administration’s HIV/AIDS Bureau

The Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) HIV/AIDS Bureau (HAB) is excited to share that the 2023 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Highlights biennial report is now available.

To highlight innovative models of HIV care and treatment that Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and HAB Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States (EHE) initiative recipients implement in communities across the country, HRSA HAB publishes a report every two years. These reports provide an update of Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and HAB EHE efforts to improve health outcomes for people with HIV and document the successes and challenges of recipients.

Titled Harnessing the Power of Community Engagement and Innovation to End the HIV Epidemic: 2023 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Highlights, the 2023 biennial report features seven Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and HAB EHE recipients who have implemented effective strategies and syndemic approaches to HIV care by addressing health disparities and engaging the HIV community in the planning and implementation of programs. The seven recipients have focused on partnering with service providers to deliver innovative programs to priority populations, conducting outreach to youth, offering housing services, providing mpox vaccine distribution, facilitating peer-led engagement of transgender women, and integrating oral health services and dental training. These and other HRSA RWHAP recipients provide inspiration for leveraging community engagement and innovation to end the HIV epidemic in the United States.

Please note Harnessing the Power of Community Engagement and Innovation to End the HIV Epidemic: 2023 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Highlights is not copyrighted. Readers are free to duplicate and use all or part of the information contained in this publication; however, photographs require permission to be reproduced. For suggested citation, please see page ii in the report.

To read the 2023 report and previous biennial reports, please visit: https://ryanwhite.hrsa.gov/data/biennial-reports.

Editor's Note: Laura Cheever and Heather Hauck from the HIV/AIDS Bureau shared this update on October 17th via email to Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Colleagues. No editorial analysis or comment has been provided by ADAP Advocacy.

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

When You’re Still Sick: Living with Long-COVID and HIV

By: Marcus J. Hopkins, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor, and Founder & Executive Director of the Appalachian Learning Initiative (APPLI)

Recently release research in The Lancet has found that, in addition to Long COVID, other respiratory ailments (Acute Respiratory Infections, or ARIs), such as colds, flus, and pneumonias, are associated with a wide range of long-term symptoms more than four weeks after the acute infection (Vivaldi, Pfeffer, Talaei, Basera, Shaheen, & Martineau, 2023).

This article was sent to me by Brandon M. Macsata, CEO of ADAP Advocacy, after graciously allowing me to cancel my attendance at the most recent Health Fireside Chat in Philadelphia due to a respiratory ailment.

“I read this article and said, ‘Hmmm…sounds like Marcus.’”

And it did.

On July 14th, 2023, I attended an outdoor ABBA tribute band concert with my mother and stepfather, but left early because I was feeling sick. I got home, and within twelve hours, I could barely breathe and moving was a chore. The following Monday, I tested myself for COVID, and got a negative result, so I thought, “Okay…must just be a summer cold.”

And then, it lingered.

By August, I’d spent most of July sleeping ~12 hours a day, between sleeping at night and intermittent naps throughout the day. My waking hours were spent coughing for so long I would literally lose consciousness from the lack of oxygen and come to a few moments later to find myself slumped over in bed and disoriented.

I had to push back several deadlines with clients, and when I reached out to my Primary Care Physician (PCP, who is also my Infectious Disease, ID, doctor), they recommended I go to Urgent Care for testing, where I was given a breathing treatment while they tested me for fourteen different respiratory ailments, from multiple strains of COVID to flu to tuberculosis, took X-Rays of my lungs, and sent me home with an inhaler, a strong antibiotic, and instructions to rest.

Another week went by, and there were no changes. Finally, my ID doc agreed to see me, where I was put through another battery of tests to see if non-ARI issues were to blame for my symptoms, including thyroid function, testosterone levels, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, lung function, toxoplasmosis (from my eight cats), and virtually every other disorder or disease that are common for People Living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). After several hours, I left with a steroidal inhaler, a new statin drug, and additional orders to rest.

Another month went by, and my symptoms continued. 

It’s been three months since my initial illness, and still, I find myself regularly out of breath, physically exhausted from simple tasks such as walking down the stairs or into the kitchen, and suffering from neverending bouts of intestinal issues. Ultimately, they determined I must have initially had a negative reaction to receiving a second Shingrix vaccine on July 12th—a claim that seemed plausible, but still unlikely.

And then, Brandon sent me The Lancet article.

These symptoms I am still experiencing align perfectly with those described in The Lancet. Patients who had Non-COVID ARIs were more likely than COVID patients to report certain symptoms, including diarrhea, sleep problems, and coughing. They were also likely to report muscle or joint pain, difficulty concentrating, and lightheadedness or dizziness (Figure 1):

Figure 1.

Regularly Reported Symptoms by Patients Dependent Upon Infection Status

Photo Source: The Lancet

While this research does not definitively answer the underlying question, “What the Hell is Wrong with Typhoid Marcus,” it does provide me with another piece of information to send to my ID specialist for consideration.

One of the most humiliating parts of living with a chronic condition, like HIV/AIDS, is having to navigate the various conversations we must have with any number of parties to explain our health issues without opening ourselves up to unwanted or undue levels of scrutiny. Some of the conversational barriers we must overcome include:

1. How do we communicate our symptoms to our healthcare providers without coming across as a hypochondriac?
• Will our providers believe us? (This concern is particularly felt by persons of color or of trans experience)
• Will additional tests or examinations provide us with definitive answers?
2. How do we communicate our health issues with our employers or clients without risking our employment or incomes?
• Will our employers or clients be understanding of our health challenges and willing to extend deadlines so that we are able to meet them?
• Will our employers or clients consider these delays unacceptable and terminate our employment or contracts? If so, is there any recourse?
3. How do we communicate our health issues to friends and loved ones?
• Will our friends understand that we may not have the capacity or ability to respond to their inquiries about our health?
• Will our family members understand that we may not have the energy or ability to live up to familial obligations?
• Will anyone be able or willing to help us pick up the slack, in terms of chores, daily tasks, or caring for dependents?

When it comes to our incomes, how will we navigate the very real possibility that our incomes will suffer if we’re physically unable to work? Will we be able to make rent? For PLWHA, is there an immediate support system in place that can quickly respond to our needs as they relate to utility and housing costs, given the dysfunction that typifies the Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) program?

Luckily, my clients have been largely understanding and accommodating, in no small part because I, personally, am an open book when it comes to my health. Other PLWHA may have neither the luxury of being open about their health issues nor the interest in telling others about their health. This is another area where PLWHA must navigate what level of disclosure is right for them, if any at all.

So, here we are.

I am slated to fly to Washington, DC, next week to attend an in-person meeting, and…if I’m being honest, I’m not certain whether or not I will have the energy to do so.

This places me in the very frustrating position of having to explain to the organizer that I will have to attend virtually, even though I confirmed my in-person attendance in July…before all of this started.

Hopefully, I’ll be able to return to some semblance of normal health sooner, rather than later. In the meantime, I’ll keep using my inhaler and resting.

References:

Vivaldi, G., Pfeffer, P.E., Talaei, M., Basera, T.J., Shaheen, S.O., & Martineau, A.R. (2023, October 06). Long-term symptom profiles after COVID-19 vs other acute respiratory infections: an analysis of data from the COVIDENCE UK study. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102251.

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

Fireside Chat Retreat in Philadelphia, PA Tackles Pressing Public Health Issues

By: Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy

ADAP Advocacy hosted its "Health Fireside Chat" retreat in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania among key stakeholder groups to discuss pertinent public health issues facing patients in the United States. The Health Fireside Chat convened Thursday, September 21st through Saturday, September 23rd. The growing threat to public health from the spread of medical misinformation and disinformation, reforming the 340B Drug Pricing Program to better serve patients rather than providers, and the effective implementation of longer-acting HIV treatment and prevention programs were evaluated and discussed by the 20 diverse stakeholders.

The Fireside Chat's “ice breaker” activity included some fun and games at Dave & Buster's with their pool tables, video games, carnival challenges, and virtual reality. Attendees enjoyed some bonding and laughter before collectively rolling up their sleeves and taking a deep dive into the policy discussions.

Photo Source: Getty Images

The Health Fireside Chat included moderated white-board style discussion sessions on the following issues:

• Public Health Alert: Medical Misinformation Can be Dangerous to Your Health — moderated by Rick Guasco, Acting Editor-in-Chief and Creative Director at Positively Aware
• 340B Drug Discount Program: The Issues Spurring Discussion, Stakeholder Stances, and Possible Resolutions? — moderated by Tim Horn, Director, Medication Access at NASTAD
• Long Acting Injectables: Effective Implementation of Longer-Acting HIV Treatment and PrEP Requires Delivery System Innovation — moderated by Jeffrey Crowley, Distinguished Scholar/Program Director, Infectious Disease Initiatives at the O'Neill Institute/Georgetown Law

The discussion sessions were designed to capture key observations, suggestions, and thoughts about how best to address the challenges being discussed at the Health Fireside Chat. The following represents the attendees:

• Ninya Bostic, National Policy and Advocacy Director, IDV, Johnson & Johnson
• Jeffrey S. Crowley, Distinguished Scholar & Program Director at the Infectious Disease Initiatives, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown Law
• Theresa Daugherty, Patient Advocate
• David Gana, Patient Advocate
• Alexander Garbera, Co-Chair, New Haven Mayor’s Task Force on AIDS, City of New Haven, CT
• Dusty Garner, Patient Advocate
• Rick Guasco, Acting Editor-in-Chief and Creative Director at Positively Aware
• Tim Horn, Director, Medication Access at NASTAD
• Riley Johnson, Founder, RAD Remedy
• Thomas Johnson, Executive Director, Alliance to Save America’s 340B Program
• Jen Laws, President & CEO, Community Access National Network
• Darnell Lewis, Program Coordinator, RAO Community Health
• Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy
• J. Maurice McCants-Pearsall, Government Relations Director (Southeast), ViiV Healthcare
• Aisha McKenzie, Patient Advocate
• Warren O’Meara-Dates, Founder & CEO, The 6:52 Project Foundation
• Brian Smith, Alliance Development and Strategic Advocacy
• Matt Toresco, CEO & CPO, Archo Advocacy LLC & Elavay
• Stacey L. Worthy, Director, Healthcare Policy & Strategy, Johnson & Johnson
• Joey Wynn, Chairman, Florida HIV/AIDS Advocacy Network

The Covid-19 pandemic is still ongoing. Covid-19 cases and hospitalizations are both on the rise again, according to data by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) With that in mind, ADAP Advocacy implemented strong Covid-19 safety protocols for the Health Fireside Chat, which included proof of vaccination/booster, robust self-administered testing (prior to travel, upon arrival, and after returning home), complimentary rapid self-test kits and hand sanitizer for each of the attendees, as well as guidelines for masks on commercial travel to the event, and optional masks during the sessions (which some attendees exercised without feeling shunned).

ADAP Advocacy is pleased to share the following brief recap of the Health Fireside Chat.

Medical Misinformation:

The first policy session, “Public Health Alert: Medical Misinformation Can be Dangerous to Your Health”, lead by the Positively Aware Magazine’s Rick Guasco, challenged guests to evaluate their own role in potentially sharing medical misinformation without even knowing it. Guasco highlighted that everyone can do something about misinformation, starting with being cognizant of how people can potentially spread it. A little information is a dangerous thing. Medical misinformation is information that is false, inaccurate, or misleading. A little misinformation can become the building block of lies and ignorance. As such, medical disinformation is misinformation with a purpose. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's recent poll, most Americans encounter health misinformation, and most aren’t sure whether it’s true or false local TV.

Drawing on KFF's Misinformation Pilot Poll, KFF released three follow-up reports examining exposure to, and belief in, health misinformation among Black adults, Hispanic adults, and rural communities.

Guasco shared what he viewed as the best three ways to combat medical misinformation and disinformation. They included 1) promoting the truth by proactively talking about health literacy, 2) pre-bunking fake medical news by putting counter-arguments out in anticipation, and 3) de-bunking fake medical news, but it is more difficult because it is harder to change minds once the misinformation and disinformation is spread. Significant conversation centered around lingering medical mistrust in the Black community after the Tuskegee Airmen experiments. Rev. Alexander Garbera offered an excellent quote to summarize how to combat the dangers associated with medical misinformation and disinformation: "Combat fear with empathy."

Photo Source: Florida International University

The following materials were shared with retreat attendees:

• Ex-JAMA Chief: Cut the Hype, Spin in Published Studies — Howard Bauchner, MD, says researchers want to report accurately, but "they too have their biases" via MedPage Today
• Doctors who put lives at risk with covid misinformation rarely punished via The Washington Post
• Abortion health information via National Library of Science
• Science Communication in the Age of Misinformation via CROI 2023

ADAP Advocacy would like to publicly acknowledge and thank Rick Guasco for facilitating this important discussion.

340B Drug Discount Program:

As a backdrop to the discussion over the 340B Drug Discount Program, an opinion piece dropped calling out the hypocrisy behind the forces fighting reform. NASTAD's Tim Horn kicked-off the discussion with an overview of the program, including an analysis on how 340B intersects with the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, including State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP). In that, some challenges were addressed – such as explosive program growth, lack of transparency, and calls for more oversight. There was particular focus on ADAPs and their specific programmatic use of the 340B dollars exclusively for patient care, and that in many ways it represents the "gold standard" among Covered Entities participating in the program. The discussion also centered around some of the pros and cons associated with ongoing reform proposals; they included contract pharmacy restrictions, discriminatory reimbursement laws, and possible federal legislation (e.g., ASAP 340B). The conversation touched the rising medical debt crisis in the United State (of which, most medical debt is actually hospital-associated debt), declining charity care among hospitals, as well as the adverse impact on patients via provider consolidation. Ongoing scrutiny over the lack of transparency in the program continues to grow, evidenced by the Request for Information (RFI) issued by a group of bipartisan senators, including Senator John Thune (R-SD), Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), and Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD). Read the joint statement by ADAP Advocacy and CANN, here.

Photo Source: Positively Aware

The following materials were shared with retreat attendees:

• ADAP Crisis Task Force Fact Sheet via NASTAD
• Principles for Ensuring the 340B Program Benefits Patients and True Safety-Net Providers via ASAP 340B
• Creating Long-Overdue Clarity Around Patient Definition in the 340B Program via ASAP 340B
• Estimated Changes in Manufacturer and Health Care Organization Revenue Following List Price Reductions for Hepatitis C Treatments via JAMA Network
• 340B-Where Do We Go From Here? via JAMA Network 
• Pharmaceutical Manufacturer 340B Price Restriction Policies and Exemptions Summary. Ryan White Clinics for 340B Access via RWC340B
• HIV Prevention and the 340B Drug Pricing Program via The New England Journal of Medicine
• The 340B Drug Discount Program Exceeds #100B in 2022 via IQVIA
• 340B and Ending the Epidemics via National Coalition of STD Directors
• 340B: A Critical Program for Health Centers via National Association of Community Health Centers
• A Syndemic Approach to STD 340B Correctional Facility Partnerships for Health Department Prevention Programs via NASTAD
• Best Practices for Shared ADAP and Other 340B Covered Entity Clients via NASTAD
• Association of 340B Contract Pharmacy Growth with County-Level Characteristics via American Journal of Managed Care
• How a Hospital Chain Used a Poor Neighborhood to Turn Huge Profits via The New York Times

ADAP Advocacy would like to publicly acknowledge and thank Tim Horn for facilitating this important discussion.

Editor's Note: The ADAP Advocacy Association has offered opinions on 340B over the last several years, including Industry’s Changes to 340B Drug Discount Program (April 2022), 340B – Reply Hazy, Try Again (January 2020), The Federal 340B Program: A Call to Order (March 2019), and 340B Program: Don't Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater (March 2017)

Long-Acting Injectables:

The O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law recently published a brief, Effective Implementation of Longer-Acting HIV Treatment and PrEP Requires Delivery System Innovation. The O'Neill Institute summarized long-acting injectables:

"Scientific advancements resulting from our long-term national commitment to HIV research have begun producing new products both for HIV treatment and prevention that do not require daily dosing. The first standalone longer-acting (LA) FDA-approved products are delivered by intramuscular injection every 1-2 months, but future products may require far less frequent injections or could come in other forms such as small implants under the skin or oral medications. These products represent exciting advances because they give users more options to stay engaged in the HIV treatment or prevention continuum. While many patients and providers speak of how transformative these products can be, access to these products is limited and a myriad of barriers prevent individuals from accessing them. Deliberate policy actions are needed to ensure that these innovations do not bypass the individuals and communities that stand to benefit the most from them."

Read the brief and its related materials. 

Jeffrey S. Crowley led this important discussion. While early in the implementation of these products, several barriers have arisen that must be overcome.  Among these are:

1. Adapting our current clinics and health care programs to allow for greater scale;
2. Overcoming insurance and financing barriers to access;
3. Addressing regulatory and financing barriers to new delivery models, such as greater use of pharmacies, mobile clinics, or self-administration; and,
4. Ensuring that innovations in HIV services delivery reduces rather than increases equity.

Some perspective was also shared on the work done by the O'Neill Institute in this area. Dusty Garner offered his perspective on some of the challenges he has encountered accessing his LAI treatment. Additionally, several members of the ADAP Advocacy's ADAP Injectables Advisory Committee, including Jen Laws, Riley Johnson, and Warren O-Dates, offered their perspectives on LAIs and the challenges being faced by patients.

Photo Source: European AIDS Treatment Group

The following materials were shared with retreat attendees: 

• Big Ideas Brief: Effective Implementation of Longer-Acting HIV Treatment and PrEP Requires Delivery System Innovation via O'Neill Institute
• Quick Take: Equitable Access to New HIV Treatment and Prevention Options is Needed Across Payers via O'Neill Institute
• Quick Take: New Options for HIV Treatment and Prevention are Here via O'Neill Institute
• Cabenuva (cabotegravir & rilpivirine extended-release injections) Considerations for AIDS Drug Assistance Programs via NASTAD
• Pipeline Report 2023 via Treatment Action Group
• Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir for PrEP: Understanding Results of HPTN 083 & 084 and key areas for advocacy via AVAC
• Long-Acting Injectables Antiretrovirals for Treatment and Prevention via AVAC

ADAP Advocacy would like to publicly acknowledge and thank Jeffrey S. Crowley for facilitating this important discussion.

Additional Fireside Chats are planned for 2023 in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

Tell HIV Stigma: Stay in Your Lane

By: Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy Association

****Important Support Resources Included****

Recently, I posted some commentary on my personal Twitter handle (@Purple_Strategy) noting an observed uptick in HIV stigma in the gay dating world. Gay dating apps are notorious for it. Likely, it isn't limited to the dating space, evidenced by a recent report issued by GLAAD, as well as subsequent commentary in private conversations and social shares highlighting examples of HIV stigma. It is very rare for me to interject my personal life's situations into ADAP Advocacy's daily advocacy and public policy activities, but it is vitally important to combat such stigma whenever possible. Frankly, HIV stigma has no place in my life and thus it needs to stay in its lane.

I'm a Taurus; we're pretty confident. I'm Italian; we're tough as nails. You hit me; I hit you ten times harder. But not everyone is like me. These recent dating rejections surrounding my status (undetectable, since 2004) weren't the first experiences with HIV stigma, and I know they won't be the last of them. But I can honestly say that I've taken them with a grain of salt. And now, U=U (undetectable equals untrabnsmittable) and fine work being done by Prevention Access Campaign and U=U plus has changed the national conversation.

BUT! Not everyone is a stubborn bull like me. I've had countless conversations with friends and colleagues, whereby their personal "run-ins" with HIV stigma really hurt them. It hurt their feelings, self-confidence, pride, and dare I even say, their self-worth. It has always bothered me on a very deep level seeing them struggle to cope with the ugliness that is HIV stigma.

Fighting HIV stigma won't come easily. According to GLAAD's 2023 State of HIV Stigma Report, only half of the respondents indicated they're "knowledgable" about HIV. Whereas GenX is considered most "knowledgable" about HIV, still one in four don't fall into that designation. What is most troubling is the trend line is going in the wrong direction on the general publics' comfortability interacting with people living with HIV—especially among certain professionals such as barbers or hair stylists, and teachers. Interacting with co-workers living with HIV is now problematic for 1:3 respondents.

Photo Source: GLAAD, 2023

It is 2023, and we're still dealing with 1993 attitudes (pre-HAART). I truly believe that there is plenty of fight left in all of us. I also believe that we are in this fight together, so I felt compelled to share some helpful resources available to my fellow POZ folks who might be coping with HIV stigma:

• Prevention Access Campaign - U=U Resource Center
• CDC - Facts About HIV Stigma and Discrimination
• CDC - Ways to Stop HIV Stigma and Discrimination
• CDC - Stigma Scenarios: Support in Action
• HIV.gov - Standing Up to Stigma
• GLAAD - 2023 State of HIV Stigma Report
• Healthline - How We Start Erasing the Stigma Around HIV
• Center for HIV Law & Policy - Stigma
• SERO Project - United States Resources and Groups
• Transgender Law Center - Legal Information Helpdesk
• Positively Aware - A Day with HIV
• Greater than HIV - Real People. Real Stories.
• ImstillJosh - Twitter
• MarninaTheQueen - TikTok 
• PozLeigh - YouTube Channel

(email info@adapadvocacy.org if you wish to recommend a resource be added above)

Life is hard enough without having to confront stigma, simply over sero status. HIV stigma says more about the people dishing it out, and less about defining who you are. We have the tools to keep HIV stigma in its lane. There are over a million of us POZ folks in the United States, so remember that you're not alone and there are resources available!

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

340B Hypocrisy: The Inconvenient Truth Behind Why We Need to Reform This Vital Safety Net Program

By: Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy
       Jen Laws, President & CEO, Community Access National Network

The 340B Drug Pricing Program (“340B”) is probably one of the most transformative public health programs providing lifesaving supports and services to people living with HIV in the United States, second only to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (“RWHAP”). As such, rigorous debate about the future of the program is not only healthy, but it is also paramount to its success. As patients (and patient advocates), it is our responsibility to demand accountability, transparency, and stability. There is universal agreement about the vital role 340B plays in improving access to healthcare. But for many – including ADAP Advocacy and the Community Access National Network – we contend that the program could be doing more…and better! The focus of the program should be on the patients, and not the Covered Entities, medical or service providers, or any other business enterprises making lots of money off it. That is the inconvenient truth behind why we need to reform this vital safety net program.

Photo Source: CANN

Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) is a Drug Pricing Program established by the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992. That year, Congress struck a deal with pharmaceutical manufacturers to expand access to care and medication for more patients; if pharmaceutical manufacturers wanted to be included in Medicaid’s coverage, then they’d have to offer their products to outpatient entities serving low-income patients at a discount. The idea was brilliantly simple. Drug manufacturers could have a guaranteed income from participation in the Medicaid program and Covered Entities could have guaranteed access to discounted medications. Congress set-up a payment system by way of rebates and discounts affording certain healthcare providers a way to fund much needed care to patients who could not otherwise afford it. 

“…to stretch scarce Federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services.” 

H.R. Rep. No. 102-384(II), at 12 (1992)

THAT is the legislative intent behind 340B. THAT is where some of us want to return 340B’s focus. THAT is why reform is coming!

Ironically, critics of the 340B reform movement – often motivated by self-preservation and protecting their ever-expanding budget and geographic footprint – are quick to attack the idea of the need for reforms. Sadly, they’re also quick to turn their criticism into personal attacks, including questioning the intentions, morals, and character of the people supporting reform. They charge, using Inspector Clouseau “gotcha” style rhetoric, that we’re in the “pockets” of the drug manufacturers because we accept their money to help with our patient advocacy and education (yet there is no “gotcha”, since this information is quite publicly available on our websites, annual tax returns, Guidestar, as well as frequent public commentary). 

Isn’t it funny how the “gotcha” mentality cannot accept the obvious, that maybe our interests align with the drug manufacturers because it is in the best interest of the patients. Drug manufacturers make products patients want and need. Ensuring funding flows in a way that expands patient access to medications does indeed benefit both patients and the drug manufacturers. It should be noted, this criticism tends to also neglect mentioning the interests of the entities challenging reform: anti-competitive consolidation among hospitals and pharmacies (leaving whole areas without services), increasing profits, paying for salaries unrelated to healthcare, and increasing administrative salaries are all excellent examples of why we’re left asking “Who is actually benefiting from this program?”

The truth of the matter is, aside from a growing list of patients, patient advocacy organizations, and drug manufacturers, there is a growing chorus calling for reform. Academia wants it (NEJM, Penn LDI, USC Schaeffer), economists want it (Nikpay, Gracia), national trade associations want it (NACHC, NTU), policy think tanks want it (CMPI, NAN), and even multiple news media outlets are suggesting it (Forbes, NYT, WSJ). Local activists are also increasingly fed-up with what they’re witnessing (Dinkins, Feldman, Winstead).

Dr. Diane Nugent, Founder & Medical Director of the Center for Inherited Blood Disorders, recently noted an opinion piece in the Times of San Diego, “A September 2022 analysis by the Community Oncology Alliance revealed that some hospitals participating in 340B price leading oncology medications nearly five times more than the price they paid. Another study found that hospital systems charge an average of 86% more than private clinics for cancer drug infusions.”

But speaking of deep pockets, isn’t it also an inconvenient truth that the very folks fighting reform, and fighting improving the program so patients can benefit more directly from it, are the same folks financed by big hospital systems, and mega service providers abusing 340B intent?

A question often asked by advocates learning about 340B: “So, exactly how much money are we talking about here?”

Photo Source: Business 2 Community

Well, we don’t really know…sort of. For Federal Grantees covered under 340B, their grant contracts require accounting of 340B rebates as part of their programmatic revenues. Those revenues are required to be re-invested in the program, which generated the income. This level of transparency is pretty much a “gold standard” that other Covered Entities (less maybe hemophiliac centers) in the 340B space are required to meet. That’s part of why we, and other advocates, are calling on minimum reporting requirements for hospitals, contract pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers (insurers covering medications) to begin providing some data. Clearing up the murkiness, if you will. What we do know is drug manufacturers reported more than $100 BILLION in 340B-related sales last year.

That’s concerning especially because “charity care” is declining and medical debt is a growing issue for more and more patients and their families. The Affordable Care Act mandated “charity care”, or “financial assistance”, to be offered by non-profit hospitals seeking to qualify as 340B entities but did not place any definitions behind the mandate, including any “floor” of how much charity care a hospital has to offer. 

Now, in all rhetoric opposing any type of transparency in 340B, hospitals tend to conflate their “uncompensated care” and “unreimbursed care” or “off-sets” for public health programs – these don’t necessarily reflect any “charity” being provided to patients. These things should be separated when considering what benefit hospitals provide a community. And under that lens, things get kind of ugly with far too many of the 340B hospitals reporting providing less than 1% of their operating costs as charity. When reviewing how much hospitals write off in bad debt, or going after patients who can’t afford care, often far exceeding those charity care levels, we’re left asking if the “non-profit” designation is really a declaration of concentrating “profits” by way of salaries to top executives rather than formal shareholders?

That bad debt shows up for patients as medical debt. And we need to be very specific here: according to the Urban Institute, some 72% of patients with medical debt owe some or all of that debt to hospitals. Meaning, what we call medical debt is really hospital debt. The situation is unarguably bad. This year alone the Los Angeles County Office of Public Health issued a report outlining for policymakers the role and responsibility hospitals have in driving medical debt and how increasing charity care might stem this problem. 

Photo Source: Business Insider

As patients, and frankly as patient advocates who represent thousands like us, medical debt isn’t an issue that can be swept under the carpet. Entire communities avoid necessary care to protect their financial interests. We’ve personally watched our friends open GoFundMe accounts to cover medical expenses. We’ve helped our loved one’s cover food and light bills to not miss a medical bill. We also well recognize how negative credit reporting from medical debt can hurt people from getting rental housing or a car loan, or even simple necessities. And when thinking about how much we don’t know about what’s behind that $100 billion price tag, the fact that patients face these concerns on the regular is pretty obscene.

We do know there are plenty of good actors in the 340B space. Particularly, Federal Grantee Covered Entities, like Ryan White Clinics and AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs). And we know they’re generally great actors because of that transparency in reporting and the oversight offered by their grant contracts. Ultimately, we’re not necessarily asking for a whole lot more than that for literally everyone else who stands to make a buck in the chain between drug manufacturers and patients. Indeed, that trust on Federal Grantees, particularly Ryan White Clinics and ADAPs, is part of why drug manufacturers restricting 340B sales held a carve out for these Federal Grantees. (To be fair and without much public fanfare, years ago, we – as in ADAP Advocacy and CANN – helped to negotiate these carve-outs as part of our advocacy. Our relationship with drug manufacturers isn’t a one-way street as detractors might try and sell you on. 

$100 billion is a lot of money! Is it too much to ask, “Why aren’t patients benefiting more directly from this ever-growing healthcare program?” Facts show that 340B revenues are soaring year after year, yet against the grim backdrop of consistently declining charity care in the impoverished communities needing the most help. To make matters worse, rising medical debt is crushing families. Patients deserve better. People living with HIV who depend on the RWHAP and 340B deserve better! And THAT is why we need reform.

Read our policy reform suggestions here.

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

New Study Dissects Efficacy of Lenacapavir

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

Lenacapavir, a novel HIV treatment medication, again appears in the medical news cycle. A recent article in Medical Express, ‘FDA approves treatment for multi-drug resistant HIV,’ was published on September 1st.[1] The article title would lead the reader to think the drug was just approved. However, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially approved lenacapavir in December of 2022.[2] Gilead Sciences released the medication under the name Sunlenca. Please view the previous ADAP Advocacy discussion of Sunlenca and its background here. So, what happened?

Photo Source: sunlencahcp.com

The impetus for the recent article is newly reported data regarding lenacapavir’s ongoing clinical trials. The August 2023 issue of The Lancet included the story, 'HIV presents an article where researchers discuss week 52 results of the phase 2/3 trial',[3] which discusses the study's results. But just as important is examining the study’s design.

The ongoing clinical trial of lenacapavir is also known as the Capella study, ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04150068. There are 72 subjects divided into two cohorts. Previous data had been reported for evaluations performed at 26 weeks. In Cohort 1, 36 subjects were randomly assigned oral lenacapavir or placebo on days 1,2, and 8 in addition to simultaneously continuing their failing antiretroviral therapy for 14 days. On day 15, those in the lenacapavir group began subcutaneous lenacapavir once every six months (26 weeks) in addition to an optimized background therapy. On day 15, the placebo group began oral lenacapavir plus an optimized background therapy for one week, then switched to subcutaneous lenacapavir once every six months.[3]

The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients that had a decrease in the HIV-1 viral load of at least 0.5log10 copies/ml by day 15. In the lenacapavir group, that endpoint was seen in 88% of the patients while in only 17% of the placebo group.[4]  In Cohort 2, 36 subjects were given an optimized background regimen on day 1 along with oral lenacapavir on days 1,2, and 8, switching to subcutaneous lenacapavir once every six months (26 weeks) starting on day 15.

A secondary efficacy endpoint involved viral load. The endpoint was a viral load of less than 50 copies per/ml or a viral load of less than 200 copies per/ml. In cohort 1, at 26 weeks, a viral load of 50 copies per/ml was seen in 81% (29 of 36), and a viral load of less than 200 copies was seen in 89% (32 of 36).[4]  In cohort 2, less than 50 copies per/ml was observed in 83% (30 of 36); and less than 200 copies in 86% (31 of 36).[4] The recent report in Lancet: HIV reports data at the 52-week point. At week 52, 83% (30 of 36) subjects in cohort 1 had HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL, and 86% (31 of 36 ) had HIV-1 RNA of less than 200 copies per mL.[3] For cohort 2 at 52 weeks, 72% (26 of 36) had less than 50 copies per/ml, and 78% (28 of 36) had less than 200 copies per/ml.

Photo Source: European AIDS Treatment Group

The overall theme is that the results at 52 weeks support the efficacy of lenacapavir injections every six months for those with multi-drug resistance to retrovirals. Consistent viral suppression was met, and therapeutic drug levels were maintained in the blood between injections. Most importantly, since lenacapavir is to be used with other medications, the injections do not increase pill burden or complicate daily regimens. 

Although the results are promising, there are reasons to research much further before expanding lenacapavir for other uses, such as prevention. The cohort size was very small, at 72 participants. That is partly due to the requirements of the subjects. The participants had to have documented resistance to at least two drugs from at least three of the four major antiretroviral classes in addition to having advanced HIV disease. Additionally, while the data showed no significant safety issues, people living with HIV are known to have hypersensitivity issues with drug reactions. The CAPELLA clinical trial, along with CALIBRATE, a different lenacapavir clinical trial, together only have a total of 229 subjects.[5]

Much larger cohorts need to be examined in order to have comprehensive cross-sectional data to explore gender, age, and ethnicity differences. The complex variances of combination antiviral regimens of multi-drug resistant patients are also a significant concern. Once further lenacapavir research is conducted, the path of its utilization will be more apparent. It could even possibly become paired with another complete long-acting drug, creating an easy-to-use twice-yearly injection for all patients, whether multi-drug resistant or not.[5]

[1] Rivera, Viviana. (2023, September 1). FDA approves treatment for multi-drug resistant HIV. Retrieved from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-09-fda-treatment-multi-drug-resistant-hiv.html

[2] FDA Press Release (2022, December 22). FDA Approves New HIV Drug for Adults with Limited Treatment Options. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-hiv-drug-adults-limited-treatment-options

[3] Ogbuagu, O., Segal-Maurer, S., Ratanasuwan, W., Avihingsanon, A., Brinson, C., Workowski, K. A., Antinori, A., Yazdanpanah, Y., Trottier, B., Wang, H., Margot, N., Dvory-Sobol, H., Rhee, M. S., Baeten, J. M., Molina, J., DeJesus, E., Richmond, G., Berhe, M., Ruane, P., . . . Rassool, M. (2023). Efficacy and safety of the novel capsid inhibitor lenacapavir to treat multidrug-resistant HIV: week 52 results of a phase 2/3 trial. The Lancet HIV, 10(8), e497–e505. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-3018(23)00113-3

[4] Segal-Maurer, S., DeJesus, E., Stellbrink, H., Castagna, A., Richmond, G., Sinclair, G., Siripassorn, K., Ruane, P., Berhe, M., Wang, H., Margot, N., Dvory-Sobol, H., Hyland, R. H., Brainard, D. M., Rhee, M. S., Baeten, J. M., & Molina, J. (2022). Capsid Inhibition with Lenacapavir in Multidrug-Resistant HIV-1 Infection. The New England Journal of Medicine, 386(19), 1793–1803. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2115542

[5] SHarris, M. (2023). Lenacapavir: an attractive option, but proceed with caution. The Lancet HIV, 10(8), e486–e487. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-3018(23)00170-4

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.