Management of occupational and nonoccupational postexposure HIV prophylaxis
- 25 Downloads
The principles of managing patients with recent HIV exposure are similar whether the exposure occurs in an occupational or nonoccupational setting. For both settings, clinicians should assess the likelihood that HIV and other bloodborne viruses will be transmitted as a consequence of the exposure; advise the patient about the risks and benefits of treatment; choose an appropriate antiretroviral treatment regimen (if the decision is made to treat); screen for other illnesses that may complicate treatment or follow-up; counsel patients about the importance of adhering to treatment; promote safe-sex practices and methods to avoid future exposures; follow the patient for potential side effects of treatment; and provide follow-up care including repeat HIV testing for seroconversion, surveillance for primary HIV infection, and reinforcement of counseling messages.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References and Recommended Reading
- 2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Updated U.S. Public Health Service guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to HBV, HCV, and HIV and recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis. MMWR 2001, 50(RR-11). Centers for Disease Control guidelines for management of occupational exposures.Google Scholar
- 18.Wiebe ER, Comay SE, McGregor M, Ducceschi S: Offering HIV prophylaxis to people who have been sexually assaulted: 16 months’ experience in a sexual assault service. Can Med Assoc J 2000, 162:641–645.Google Scholar
- 26.Kahn JO, Martin JN, Roland ME, et al.: Feasibility of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) against human immunodeficiency virus infection after sexual or injection drug use exposure: The San Francisco PEP Study. J Infect Dis 2001, 183:707–714. Feasibility study of providing nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis; it demonstrated that it was feasible, adherence to treatment was high, and there were no long-term side effects or seroconversions among the 401 participants.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Serious adverse events attributed to nevirapine regimens for postexposure prophylaxis after HIV exposures—worldwide, 1997–2000. MMWR 2001, 49:1153–1156.Google Scholar
- 32.Wang SA, Panlilio AL, the HIV PEP Registry Group: Experience of health-care workers (HCWs) taking postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) after occupational human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) exposures: findings of the HIV PEP registry [abstract 127-LI-161]. In Program and Abstracts of the 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Diego. September 1998.Google Scholar
- 35.Tannebaum J, Anastasoff J: The role of psychosocial assessment and support in occupational exposure management. AIDS Educ Prevent 1997, 9:275–284.Google Scholar
- 36.Martin JN, Roland ME, Bamberger JD, et al.: Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for sexual exposure to HIV does not lead to increases in high risk behavior: the San Francisco PEP Project. Paper presented at 8th Conference of Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Chicago. February 5, 2001.Google Scholar