English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background People with HIV (PWH) utilize various pharmacy types beyond the traditional local pharmacy including mail order and specialty pharmacies. Some pharmacies often provide additional adherence services such as refill reminders, expedited delivery, and adherence packaging. Limited data are available describing the relationship between pharmacy type and HIV viral suppression (VS). We evaluated the impact of pharmacy type on VS. Methods We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study of PWH (≥19 years) receiving care at a Midwestern HIV clinic between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018, with at least 1 HIV RNA reading during the study period. We collected sociodemographic information, ART regimen, adherence (PDC—percentage of days covered), and clinical characteristics. Patients were stratified by pharmacy type: local (traditional pharmacy without adherence services), local specialty (traditional pharmacy with adherence services and same-day, couriered delivery), and mail order (mail order pharmacy with or without adherence services). Pearson Chi-squared tests and binary logistic regression were used to examine the effect of pharmacy type on VS (HIV viral load ≤50 copies/mL). Results A total of 1014 patients met study criteria; 164 (16%) utilized a local, 720 (71%) local specialty, and 130 (13%) mail order. VS rates were similar between pharmacy types: local (91%), semi-specialty local (88%), and mail order (96%). After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, ART regimen, ART adherence and other clinical characteristics, there was no association between pharmacy type and VS when comparing local and mail to local specialty pharmacy types (local—aOR: 0.98, 95% CI, 0.46–2.12; mail—aOR: 1.65, 95% CI, 0.46–6.0). Factors found to be negatively associated with VS were single marital status (aOR: 0.49; 95% CI, 0.24–0.95), current or historical opportunistic infection (aOR: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26–0.99), and usage of a multiclass or dual ART regimen (aOR: 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16–0.98). Conclusion Despite additional services offered by some pharmacies, no differences were observed in HIV VS between pharmacy types. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

1303. Impact of Pharmacy Type on HIV Viral Suppression at a University-Based HIV Clinic in the Midwest