Non-occupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis at a Sydney metropolitan sexual health clinic
Trine Gulholm A , Salina Jamani A , I. Mary Poynten B and David J. Templeton A B C DA RPA Sexual Health, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia.
B The Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
C Central Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: david.templeton@email.cs.nsw.gov.au
Sexual Health 10(5) 438-441 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH13018
Submitted: 1 February 2013 Accepted: 20 June 2013 Published: 21 August 2013
Abstract
Background: Non-occupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (NPEP) is prescribed following a risk exposure in an effort to reduce the risk of HIV seroconversion. We aimed to describe the prescribing practices of NPEP at RPA Sexual Health in Sydney, the prevalence and correlates of adverse events (AEs), and factors associated with completing the 28-day course. Methods: The study population included individuals prescribed NPEP during January 2008–December 2011. Correlates of AEs and course completion were assessed by logistic regression. Results: On 319 occasions during the study period, 282 individuals presented for NPEP. Over 90% of presentations followed unprotected anal intercourse between men, mostly receptive (63.6%). Tenofovir–emtricitabine–stavudine (n = 149; 46.7%) and tenofovir–emtricitabine (n = 136; 42.6%) were most commonly prescribed. AEs were reported at 101 presentations (31.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 26.6–37.1%), with nausea and lethargy/malaise being the most common. Younger age (P for trend = 0.032), earlier year of NPEP prescription (P for trend = 0.011), being prescribed a regimen other than tenofovir–emtricitabine (P = 0.026), changing the NPEP regimen (P < 0.001) and known completion of the course (P = 0.005) were independently associated with AEs. The course was completed in 228 presentations (71.5%, 95% CI: 66.2–76.4%). Completion was associated with reporting AEs (P = 0.007) and changing regimen (P = 0.001). No documented NPEP failures were identified, although two recipients subsequently seroconverted to HIV due to ongoing high-risk behaviour. Conclusions: NPEP is appropriately targeted to the highest risk HIV exposures at our clinic. Active recall may improve follow-up rates in NPEP recipients.
Additional keywords: adverse effects, homosexuality, male, medication adherence.
References
[1] Sullivan PS, Carballo-Diéguez A, Coates T, Goodreau SM, McGowan I, Sanders EJ, et al Successes and challenges of HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. Lancet 2012; 380 388–99. [erratum in Lancet. 2012; 380: 340].| Successes and challenges of HIV prevention in men who have sex with men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22819659PubMed |
[2] Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA). National guidelines for post-exposure prophylaxis after non-occupational exposure to HIV. Canberra: DoHA; 2007. Available online at: http://www.ashm.org.au/images/publications/guidelines/2007nationalnpepguidelines2.pdf [verified February 2013].
[3] Benn P, Fisher M, Kulasegaram R, on behalf of the BASHH PEPSE Guidelines Writing Group Clinical Effectiveness Group UK guideline for the use of post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV following sexual exposure (2011). Int J STD AIDS 2011; 22 695–708.
| UK guideline for the use of post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV following sexual exposure (2011).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC387nslarsw%3D%3D&md5=caa4363822c4fd9b01d84137220ff532CAS | 22174049PubMed |
[4] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, injection-drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV in the United States: recommendations from the US Department of Health and Human Services. MMWR Recomm Rep 2005; 54 1–19.
| 16382216PubMed |
[5] Poynten IM, Jin F, Mao L, Prestage GP, Kippax SC, Kaldor JM, et al Nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis, subsequent risk behaviour and HIV incidence in a cohort of Australian homosexual men. AIDS 2009; 23 1119–26.
| Nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis, subsequent risk behaviour and HIV incidence in a cohort of Australian homosexual men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19417578PubMed |
[6] Quirino T, Niero F, Ricci E, Pusterla L, Carradori S, Gabbuti A, et al HAART tolerability: post-exposure prophylaxis in healthcare workers versus treatment in HIV-infected people. Antivir Ther 2000; 5 195–7.
| 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXot1ahsLc%3D&md5=3c8f250ce00d1d809e3fb0db6817d2d6CAS | 11075939PubMed |
[7] Tosini W, Muller P, Prazuck T, Benabdelmoumen G, Peyrouse E, Christian B, et al Tolerability of HIV postexposure prophylaxis with tenofovir/emtricitabine and lopinavir/ritonavir tablet formulation. AIDS 2010; 24 2375–80.
| 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXhtFaqsLjF&md5=130ee2310e924c88a641a9f9907fd2c4CAS | 20729709PubMed |
[8] Poynten IM, Smith DE, Cooper DA, Kaldor JM, Grulich AE. The public health impact of widespread availability of nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis against HIV. HIV Med 2007; 8 374–81.
| The public health impact of widespread availability of nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis against HIV.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2srgt1Oqtg%3D%3D&md5=b7143311b483e34f9f40b25d3ec7a1fbCAS | 17661845PubMed |
[9] Schechter M, do Lago R, Mendelsohn AB, Moreira RI, Moulton LH, Harrison LH, et al Behavioral impact, acceptability, and HIV incidence among homosexual men with access to postexposure chemoprophylaxsis for HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004; 35 519–25.
| Behavioral impact, acceptability, and HIV incidence among homosexual men with access to postexposure chemoprophylaxsis for HIV.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15021317PubMed |
[10] Mayer KH, Mimiaga MJ, Gelman M, Grasso C. Raltegravir, tenofovir DF, and emtricitabine for postexposure prophylaxis to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV: safety, tolerability, and adherence. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2012; 59 354–9.
| Raltegravir, tenofovir DF, and emtricitabine for postexposure prophylaxis to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV: safety, tolerability, and adherence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38Xjsleht7g%3D&md5=96e92d374c1eb7a2b713e8a7785ecf41CAS | 22267017PubMed |
[11] Winston A, McAllister J, Amin J, Cooper DA, Carr A. The use of a triple nucleoside–nucleotide regimen for nonoccupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis. HIV Med 2005; 6 191–7.
| The use of a triple nucleoside–nucleotide regimen for nonoccupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXlsFagu7o%3D&md5=6c46015e346a301cc1157fc8116377e1CAS | 15876286PubMed |
[12] Templeton DJ, Davies SC, Garvin AL, Garsia RJ. The uptake of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis within a sexual assault setting in Sydney, Australia. Int J STD AIDS 2005; 16 108–11.
| The uptake of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis within a sexual assault setting in Sydney, Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15807937PubMed |
[13] Lacombe K, Daguenel-Nguyen A, Lebeau V, Fonquernie L, Girard PM, Meyohas MC. Determinants of adherence to non-occupational post HIV exposure prophylaxis. AIDS 2006; 20 291–4.
| Determinants of adherence to non-occupational post HIV exposure prophylaxis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16511427PubMed |
[14] Everingham A, Ge L, Healey L. Does active follow-up improve the rate of return follow-up for clients prescribed PEP? The results of a pilot study. In Program and abstracts of the Australasian Sexual Health Conference; 28–30 September 2011; Canberra, Australia.
