+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Experience of healthcare workers taking postexposure prophylaxis after occupational HIV exposures: findings of the HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis Registry



Experience of healthcare workers taking postexposure prophylaxis after occupational HIV exposures: findings of the HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis Registry



Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 21(12): 780-785



To collect information about the safety of taking antiretroviral drugs for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). A voluntary, confidential registry. Hospital occupational health clinics, emergency departments, private physician offices, and health departments in the United States. 492 healthcare workers (HCWs) who had occupational exposures to HIV, were prescribed HIV PEP, and agreed to be enrolled in the registry by their healthcare providers were prospectively enrolled in the registry. Three hundred eight (63%) of 492 of the PEP regimens prescribed for these HCWs consisted of at least three antiretroviral agents. Of the 449 HCWs for whom 6-week follow-up was available, 195 (43%) completed the PEP regimen as initially prescribed. Forty-four percent (n=197) of HCWs discontinued all PEP drugs and did not complete a PEP regimen. Thirteen percent (n=57) discontinued > or =1 drug or modified drug dosage or added a drug but did complete a course of PEP Among the 254 HCWs who modified or discontinued the PEP regimen, the two most common reasons for doing so were because of adverse effects attributed to PEP (54%) and because the source-patient turned out to be HIV-negative (38%). Overall, 340 (76%) HCWs with 6-week follow-up reported some symptoms while on PEP: nausea (57%), fatigue or malaise (38%), headache (18%), vomiting (16%), diarrhea (14%), and myalgias or arthralgias (6%). The median time from start of PEP to onset of each of the five most frequently reported symptoms was 3 to 4 days. Only 37 (8%) HCWs with 6-week follow-up were reported to have laboratory abnormalities; review of the reported abnormalities revealed that most were unremarkable. Serious adverse events were reported to the registry for 6 HCWs; all but one event resolved by the 6-month follow-up visit. Fewer side effects were reported by HCWs taking two-drug PEP regimens than by HCWs taking three-drug PEP regimens. Side effects from HIV PEP were very common but were rarely severe or serious. The nature and frequency of HIV PEP toxicity were consistent with information already available on the use of these antiretroviral agents. Clinicians prescribing HIV PEP need to counsel HCWs about PEP side effects and should know how to manage PEP toxicity when it arises.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 010631402

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 11140914

DOI: 10.1086/501736


Related references

Experience of health-care workers taking postexposure prophylaxis after occupational human immunodeficiency virus exposures Findings of the HIV PEP registry. Abstracts of the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents & Chemotherapy 38: 415, 1998

Human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis following occupational HIV exposure Findings from the HIV PEP Registry. Clinical Infectious Diseases 25(2): 444, 1997

Use of HIV postexposure prophylaxis in healthcare workers after occupational exposure: A Thai university hospital settingt. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 89(7): 974-978, 2006

Profile of occupational exposures to bloodborne pathogens and a 2-year experience of postexposure antiretroviral prophylaxis for occupational exposure to HIV among HCWs in Rio de Janeiro City, Brazil. Abstracts of the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents & Chemotherapy 39: 604, 1999

Recommendations for non-occupational postexposure HIV prophylaxis. Spanish Working Group on Non-Occupational Postexposure HIV Prophylaxis of the Catalonian Center for Epidemiological Studies on AIDS and the AIDS Study Group. Enfermedades Infecciosas Y Microbiologia Clinica 20(8): 391-400, 2002

Postexposure prophylaxis after occupational HIV exposures. Clinical Infectious Diseases 25(2): 444, 1997

Tolerability of postexposure antiretroviral prophylaxis for occupational exposures to HIV. Drug Safety 24(8): 587-597, 2001

Tolerability of HIV postexposure prophylaxis among healthcare workers. Journal of Hospital Infection 62(1): 112-114, 2006

Updated information regarding antiretroviral agents used as HIV postexposure prophylaxis for occupational HIV exposures. 2007

Investigations of possible failures of postexposure prophylaxis following occupational exposures to human immunodeficiency virus. Archives of Internal Medicine 159(19): 2361-2363, 1999

Evaluation of HIV postexposure prophylaxis for occupational and nonoccupational exposures at a deployed U.S. military trauma hospital. Military Medicine 177(12): 1524-1532, 2012

Pilot study of postexposure prophylaxis for hepatitis C virus in healthcare workers. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 30(10): 1000-1005, 2009

Updated U.S. Public Health Service guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to HIV and recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis. Mmwr. Recommendations and Reports 54(Rr-9): 1-17, 2005

Management of occupational exposures to HIV: updated guidelines for postexposure prophylaxis. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. Journal of the Association of Nurses in Aids Care 10(1): 66-70, 1999

What's new in the updated U.S. Public Health Service guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to HIV and recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis?. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 48(7): 750-751, 2006