Article

Seroconversion following nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis against HIV.

Positive Health Program at San Francisco General Hospital, California, USA.
Clinical Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 9.42). 12/2005; 41(10):1507-13.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The efficacy of antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) against infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) following occupational exposures has prompted the use of PEP after nonoccupational exposures. There are, however, important differences between occupational and nonoccupational exposures, and the effectiveness of PEP following nonoccupational exposure is unknown. We sought to describe the occurrence and circumstances of HIV seroconversion following nonoccupational PEP.
HIV uninfected individuals reporting potential sexual or injection drug use exposures to HIV in the preceding 72 h received a 28-day regimen of antiretroviral therapy and counseling in a nonrandomized trial. The level of HIV antibody was measured 12 weeks after PEP initiation.
Of 877 exposed subjects, 702 were evaluable 12 weeks after exposure. Seroconversion was detected in 7 subjects (1%; 95% confidence interval, 0.4%-2%). Three seroconverters reported having no exposures after PEP initiation and, thus, probably represent evidence of chemoprophylactic failure. In the other 4 subjects, additional exposures to HIV after PEP initiation or detection of HIV RNA in plasma specimens obtained at baseline precluded determination of the source of seroconversion. No exposure source was available to assess genetic concordance with the seroconverter's virus.
As for occupational exposure, PEP is not completely effective in preventing HIV infection following nonoccupational exposure. Therefore, primary prevention remains essential. In contrast to the occupational setting, the potential source of exposure is rarely available for testing in the nonoccupational setting, and exposures are often not isolated. Thus, it is often impossible to determine whether seroconversion resulted from failure of PEP or from other exposures, posing difficulties for future comparative studies seeking to evaluate the effectiveness of PEP.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
87 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection continues to rise among core groups and efforts to reduce the numbers of new infections are being redoubled. Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is the use of short-term antiretroviral therapy (ART) to reduce the risk of acquisition of HIV infection following exposure. Current guidelines recommend a 28-day course of ART within 36-72 hours of exposure to HIV. As long as individuals continue to be exposed to HIV there will be a role for PEP in the foreseeable future. Nonoccupational PEP, the vast majority of which is for sexual exposure (PEPSE), has a significant role to play in HIV prevention efforts. Awareness of PEP and its availability for both clinicians and those who are eligible to receive it are crucial to ensure that PEP is used to its full potential in any HIV prevention strategy. In this review, we provide current evidence for the use of PEPSE, assessment of the risk of HIV transmission, indications for PEP, drug regimens, and management of patients started on PEP. We summarize national and international guidelines for the use of PEPSE. We explore the place of PEP within the wider strategy of reducing HIV incidence rates in the era of treatment as prevention and pre-exposure prophylaxis. We also consider the implications of recent data from interventional and observational studies demonstrating significant reductions in the risk of HIV transmission within a serodiscordant relationship if the HIV-positive partner is taking effective ART upon PEP guidelines.
    HIV/AIDS - Research and Palliative Care 01/2014; 6:147-58.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Emerging data warrant the integration of biomedical and behavioral recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention in clinical care settings.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 07/2014; 312(4):390-409. · 30.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with antiretroviral medication has been used as an HIV-prevention strategy for nearly 20 years. The fact that approximately 50 000 new HIV infections occur in the United States each year reflects marked underutilization of nonoccupational PEP (NPEP). There have been several advances in NPEP in the past 10 years. Clinical trials from different countries have demonstrated better tolerability, completion rates, and fewer drug-drug interactions with newer antiretroviral agents. Notably, there has been a shift from zidovudine-based to tenofovir-based regimens. Three-drug therapy is now favored for all potential HIV exposures. More recently, the US Public Health Service and the New York State Department of Health recommended tenofovir/emtricitabine and raltegravir as the first-line regimen universally for PEP. Advances in HIV testing technology may also allow shorter duration of follow-up HIV testing after a high-risk exposure. This review will discuss challenges with previously recommended regimens, newer potential candidate agents and the rationale for using them, intervals for laboratory monitoring, and cost considerations for NPEP. NPEP can be viewed as an educable moment and a potential bridge to preexposure prophylaxis, as part of a combination prevention package, for those who are likely to have recurrent higher-risk exposures. Thus, risk-reduction counseling should be an integral aspect of NPEP.
    AIDS (London, England) 04/2014; · 6.56 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
190 Downloads
Available from
May 31, 2014

Similar Publications