Article

Postexposure Prophylaxis for HIV Infection

University of California at Los Angeles Center for Clinical AIDS Research and Education and the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90035, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 10/2009; 361(18):1768-75. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcp0904189
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A 24-year-old man presents to an outpatient clinic, reporting that 36 hours previously he had receptive anal intercourse without the use of a condom with an anonymous male partner who was known to have had sex with other men. The patient is known to the clinical practice and has had several negative tests for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, most recently 6 months previously. How should he be evaluated and treated?

0 Followers
 · 
91 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Healthcare providers are in constant risk of exposure to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) during their routine practice. This makes it paramount to evaluate their knowledge, attitude and practice of Post- Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP). Since this will determine their likely line of action if exposed to HIV. Therefore, this study aimed to determine their level of knowledge, altitude and practice of PEP among Primary health care workers in Enugu State. Method: The study was a descriptive cross sectional study conducted in Enugu state, South East Nigeria. Data were collected from 129 health workers in 10 primary health centers using questionnaire adopted from the US guideline for the management of occupational exposure. Data was analysed using SPSS Result: About 86% (111/129) had knowledge of PEP, 92.2% (119/129) agreed that PEP reduces the risk of occupational HIV and 29% (38/129) treated themselves with PEP on exposure aggressively, while 71% (91/129) were not serious with PE treatment. On their practice of PEP, 17.8% (23/129) were frequent, 26.4% (34/129) practice is sometimes, 27.9% (36/129) were regular and 27.9% (36/129) do not practice PEP. Conclusion: The gap between the impressive knowledge or attitude on PEP by the healthcare workers and their poor practices is unacceptable. A study to determine factors that contribute to the poor practices can provide solution on how to improve on their practice and therefore, reduces the risk of getting infected when exposed to HIV.
    Journal of AIDS & Clinical Research 11/2014; 5(12). DOI:10.4172/2155-6113.1000381 · 6.83 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Latent reservoirs of HIV-1-infected cells are refractory to antiretroviral therapies (ART) and remain the major barrier to curing HIV-1. Because latently infected cells are long-lived, immunologically invisible, and may undergo homeostatic proliferation, a "shock and kill" approach has been proposed to eradicate this reservoir by combining ART with inducers of viral transcription. However, all attempts to alter the HIV-1 reservoir in vivo have failed to date. Using humanized mice, we show that broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) can interfere with establishment of a silent reservoir by Fc-FcR-mediated mechanisms. In established infection, bNAbs or bNAbs plus single inducers are ineffective in preventing viral rebound. However, bNAbs plus a combination of inducers that act by independent mechanisms synergize to decrease the reservoir as measured by viral rebound. Thus, combinations of inducers and bNAbs constitute a therapeutic strategy that impacts the establishment and maintenance of the HIV-1 reservoir in humanized mice.
    Cell 08/2014; 158(5). DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2014.07.043 · 33.12 Impact Factor
  • Official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care 08/2014; 53(5):462-466. DOI:10.1080/20786204.2011.10874135