scholarly journals New Canadian guideline provides evidence-based approach to non-occupational HIV prophylaxis

CJEM ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-25
Author(s):  
Shannon O’Donnell ◽  
Darrell H. S. Tan ◽  
Mark W. Hull

AbstractThe incidence of HIV infections in Canada has increased yearly since 2014. New cases of HIV have resulted almost exclusively from non-occupational exposures, including sexual contact and needle sharing. Appropriate HIV post-exposure prophylaxis is under-prescribed to patients who present to the emergency department after a high-risk exposure. In November of 2017, a Canadian guideline on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) was published. The guideline presents a standardized, evidence-based approach to assessing risk for HIV transmission and prescribing HIV prophylaxis. This summary highlights the key points from the guideline that are relevant to the practice of emergency medicine in Canada.

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 5-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Almeda ◽  
J Casabona Barbarà ◽  
B Simon ◽  
M Gérard ◽  
D Rey ◽  
...  

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is the standard of care for a healthcare worker (HCW) accidentally exposed to an HIV infected source person (occupational exposure), but this is not the case for non-occupational exposures. Very few national guidelines exist for the management of non-occupational exposures to HIV in Europe, contrarily to the occupational ones. The administration of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (NONOPEP) for HIV may be justified by: a biological plausibility, the effectiveness of PEP in animal studies and occupational exposures in humans, efficacy in the prevention of mother to child HIV transmission, and cost effectiveness studies. These evidences, the similar risk of HIV transmission for certain non-occupational exposures to occupational ones, and the conflicting information about attitudes and practices among physicians on NONOPEP led to the proposal of these European recommendations. Participant members of the European project on HIV NONOPEP, funded by the European Commission, and acknowledged as experts in bloodborne pathogen transmission and prevention, met from December 2000 to December 2002 at three formal meetings and a two day workshop for a literature review on risk exposure assessment and the development of the European recommendations for the management of HIV NONOPEP. NONOPEP is recommended in unprotected receptive anal sex and needle or syringe exchange when the source person is known as HIV positive or from a population group with high HIV prevalence. Any combination of drugs available for HIV infected patients can be used as PEP and the simplest and least toxic regimens are to be preferred. PEP should be given within 72 hours from the time of exposure, starting as early as possible and lasting four weeks. All patients should receive medical evaluation including HIV antibody tests, drug toxicity monitoring and counseling periodically for at least 6 months after the exposure. NONOPEP seems to be a both feasible and frequent clinical practice in Europe. Recommendations for its management have been achieved by consensus, but some remain controversial, and they should be updated periodically. NONOPEP should never be considered as a primary prevention strategy and the final decision for prescription must be made on the basis of the patient-physician relationship. Finally, a surveillance system for these cases will be useful to monitor NONOPEP practices in Europe.


2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (34) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Thomas ◽  
V Puro

The transmission of HIV from patient to healthcare worker in an occupational setting was first documented in 1984 (1). In countries that have surveillance and HIV testing systems to recognise occupationally acquired cases, over 100 cases of HIV transmission after an occupational exposure were reported worldwide up to June 1999 (2). Antiretroviral drugs are used for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), and zidovudine alone is said to reduce transmission of HIV by 81% (3), but failures of PEP have been documented (4). The European Commission has recently funded a project to develop guidelines for the standardised management of occupational exposures to HIV/bloodborne infections and evaluation of PEP in Europe. The EuRoPEP (European Registry of Post-Exposure Prophylaxis) project is coordinated by the Istituto Nazionale per le Malattie Infettive, Lazzaro Spallanzani, Rome, and involves a group of expert representatives from Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The group presented two abstracts at the XIV International AIDS Conference in Barcelona, Spain (7-12 July 2002, http://www.aids2002.com/). The first assessed current policies and practice for the management of occupational exposures and PEP (5); the second aimed to provide a set of recommendations based on a review of national management strategies as discussed during a consensus meeting (6), and copies are available on request: ([email protected]).


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 242-248
Author(s):  
Anthony Idowu Ajayi ◽  
Mohammed Sanusi Yusuf ◽  
Elmon Mudefi ◽  
Oladele Vincent Adeniyi ◽  
Ntombana Rala ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S521-S522
Author(s):  
Jennifer R Silva-Nash ◽  
Stacie Bordelon ◽  
Ryan K Dare ◽  
Sherrie Searcy

Abstract Background Nonoccupational post exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) following sexual assault can prevent HIV transmission. A standardized Emergency Department (ED) protocol for evaluation, treatment, and follow up for post assault victims was implemented to improve compliance with CDC nPEP guidelines. Methods A single-center observational study of post sexual assault patients before/after implementation of an ED nPEP protocol was conducted by comparing the appropriateness of prescriptions, labs, and necessary follow up. A standardized order-set based on CDC nPEP guidelines, with involvement of an HIV pharmacist and ID clinic, was implemented during the 2018-2019 academic year. Clinical data from pre-intervention period (07/2016-06/2017) was compared to post-intervention period (07/2018-08/2019) following a 1-year washout period. Results During the study, 147 post-sexual assault patients (59 Pre, 88 Post) were included. One hundred thirty-three (90.4%) were female, 68 (46.6%) were African American and 133 (90.4%) were candidates for nPEP. Median time to presentation following assault was 12.6 hours. nPEP was offered to 40 (67.8%) and 84 (95.5%) patients (P< 0.001) and ultimately prescribed to 29 (49.2%) and 71 (80.7%) patients (P< 0.001) in pre and post periods respectively. Renal function (37.3% vs 88.6%; P< 0.001), pregnancy (39.0% vs 79.6%; P< 0.001), syphilis (3.4% vs 89.8%; P< 0.001), hepatitis B (15.3% vs 95.5%; P< 0.001) and hepatitis C (27.1% vs 94.3%) screening occurred more frequently during the post period. Labratory, nPEP Prescription and Follow up Details for Patients Prescribed nPEP Conclusion The standardization of an nPEP ED protocol for sexual assault victims resulted in increased nPEP administration, appropriateness of prescription, screening for other sexually transmitted infectious and scheduling follow up care. While guideline compliance dramatically improved, further interventions are likely warranted in this vulnerable population. Disclosures Ryan K. Dare, MD, MS, Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc (Research Grant or Support)


2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 30-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Marchina E Van Der Ende ◽  
Rosa M Regez ◽  
Gerrit Schreij ◽  
Jan T M Van Der Meer ◽  
...  

The mean risk of acquiring HIV after an occupational exposure, injecting drug use or sexual exposure varies from <0.1 to 3%. A high plasma HIV-RNA of the source increases the risk of each of the exposures. Other factors, such as the volume of the inoculum involved to which the individual was exposed, other sexually transmitted diseases and ruptures of mucous membranes are associated with a higher risk of HIV transmission. Based on the calculated risk, post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) should be recommended. In the Netherlands, prescription of PEP in the occupational setting is a standard procedure and has proved to be feasible. This was associated with a high percentage (62%) of mild and reversible toxicity and a small percentage (2%) of serious adverse events related to antiretroviral drugs, i.e. nephrolithiasis (due to indinavir) and toxic hepatitis (due to nevirapine). In The Netherlands so far no HIV-seroconversions have been recorded after an occupational accident.


Author(s):  
Carolyn Chu ◽  
Christopher M. Bositis

The prevention of HIV transmission involves a number of behavioral, structural, and biomedical interventions. Behavioral methods include education about sexual health, drug use, and risk reduction, as well as specific messages for at-risk populations who are HIV positive. Needle exchange programs and consistent use of condoms have proven effective for prevention of HIV infection. Post-exposure prophylaxis against HIV with antiviral drugs is often recommended in occupational health care and non-occupational settings. Voluntary male circumcision also reduces the risk of HIV acquisition. The treatment of pregnant women who are HIV infected can effectively eliminate mother-to-child transmission of the virus. Recently, the use of antiretroviral drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis has proven highly effective in preventing HIV infections in high-risk groups including men who have sex with men. Promising therapies that likely will be available in the future include injectable antiviral drugs, vaginal microbicides, and HIV vaccines.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M Wiseman ◽  
Pierre Kory ◽  
Samir A Saidi ◽  
Dan Mazzucco

BACKGROUND: A recent trial (NCT04308668) found that post-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was associated with a reduced incidence of Covid-19 by 17% overall; 36% in younger subjects, 31% in household contacts and 49% given within one day. To understand these trends, we re-analyzed the released dataset. METHODS: Our protocol conformed to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT). We compared the incidence of Covid-19 after HCQ or placebo, stratifying by intervention lag, age, and gender. RESULTS: Requesting additional data, we found that 52% of subjects received medication 1-2 days after the intended overnight delivery; 19% of them outside the intended four-day intervention lag. After re-analysis, there was a reduced incidence of Covid-19 associated with HCQ compared with placebo (9.6% vs. 16.5%) when received Early (up to 3 days) after exposure (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.35 - 0.97; p=0.044; NNT 14.5) but not Late (RR 1.22, 95%CI 0.72 - 2.04). We found a significant HCQ-associated Covid-19 reduction in subjects 18 to 45 years old with Early (RR 0.54, 95%CI 0.29-0.97; p=0.0448, NNT 11.5) but not Late (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.55-1.89) prophylaxis, attenuated in older subjects (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0-27-2.05) and by co-morbidities. There were reductions associated with Early prophylaxis in household contacts (RR 0.35, 95%CI 0.13-0.89; p=0.025, NNT 5.7) and Health Care Workers (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.4-1.38). We did not detect effects of gender, folate, zinc, or ascorbic acid. CONCLUSIONS: Using novel data with a prospective post hoc re-analysis, hydroxychloroquine, in an age-dependent manner, was associated with reduced illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when supplied for post-exposure prophylaxis between 1 and 3 days after high-risk or moderate-risk exposure, at higher loading and maintenance doses than in similar studies. This finding warrants prospective confirmation. Registered with the Open Science Framework (last revised September 27, 2020, osf.io/fqtnw). Plain Language Summary A recent clinical trial examined the ability of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to prevent Covid-19 just after an exposure to a person confirmed to have Covid-19. There was an HCQ-associated reduction of Covid-19 by an overall 17%; 36% in younger subjects, and 49% in subjects given HCQ within one day of being exposed. Likely because the study had too few patients to find what may have been a medically and economically meaningful, reduction, this effect was not statistically significant. Studying the trial data, we discovered an unintended and variable delay in the delivery of study drug which may have masked any drug effect. The investigators provided further information at our request that confirmed our theory. About half of the participants received drugs one or two days later than intended, about a fifth beyond the four days the investigators thought the drug might work. When we factored in this new information, we found that if HCQ was given early (up to three days after exposure), it was associated with a statistically significant 42% reduction of Covid-19. Giving HCQ later had no effect. There was a greater effect in younger (less than 45 years) rather than older subjects (47% vs. 25%). Gender did not seem to affect the results, but there was a greater HCQ-associated reduction (65%) when it was given early to people exposed to Covid-19 in a household environment rather than to health care workers (26%). The effects associated with HCQ were better in people without co-existing conditions. These re-calculations are important because the study, as originally analyzed, was the only randomized study that dealt with preventing Covid-19 cited by FDA to support a key public health decision made in June 2020 regarding HCQ. Although other studies have shown that the drug is not effective to treat established cases of Covid-19, our research suggests that that it is effective for prevention. Other prevention studies have failed to show a benefit of HCQ, possibly because they have used lower doses or have estimated the timing of dosing differently. Our research paves the way for our result to be confirmed under clinical trial conditions and for a re-examination of public health policy regarding this drug. Even with the introduction of vaccination, there remains a need for approaches like this to prevent Covid-19 while individual and community immunity develops, especially in subjects given a lower priority for vaccination. Short Summary A prospective re-analysis of a public dataset integrated with novel data found an HCQ-associated reduction of illness compatible with Covid-19 when received between 1 and 3 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.97, p=0.044, NNT14.5).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document