Use of HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis in HealthcareWorkers after Occupational Exposure: At Trang hospital
Keywords:
HIV, Postexposure prophylaxis, Health care worker, Antiretroviral drug,, Adverse eventAbstract
Background : PostExposure Prophylaxis (PEP) is widely used after exposures to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) to reduce the risk of infection in the healthcare setting. Few data are available on the safety and tolerability of Anti Retro Viral drugs (ARV) among Health Care
Workers (HCWs) who are prescribed prophylaxis.Objective : To collect information about the safety and compliance of taking ARV for HIV PEP among HCWs.Material and Method : Retrospective review on registry data regarding occupational HIV exposures, the PEP regimens used, and the adverse events associated with PEP was performed.Results : During a seven year-period, 248 episodes with
occupational blood or body fluid exposures were reported. Nurses (27%) were the largest group at risk. The most common type of exposure was percutaneous hollow needle injuries (52%). Only 23 (9%) HCWs
had occupational exposures to HIV, 100 HCWs were prescribed HIV PEP and 49 (49%) HCWs did not complete the PEP regimen as initially prescribed. The commonly prescribed ARVwas AZT/Lamivudine (58%),AZT/Lamivudine/Lopinavir/ritonavir (29%), and AZT/Lamivudine/Indinavir(9%). Overall, 86 (86%) HCWs reported symptomswhile on PEP, such as nausea/vomiting (66%), anorexia (50%), and dizziness
(33%). None of the HCWs had HIVseroconversion.Conclusions : The nature of the accident while working
mainly caused by needle stick injuries and adverse effects from HIV PEP were very common.About half of the HCWs receiving anti - HIV drugs do not fully meet the doctor ordered.Clinicians prescribing HIV
PEP need todiscuss with HCWs about PEP efficacy and side effects.Education efforts aimed at occupational exposureprevention are still important issues.
References
in hospital. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 1996;
24:32-52.
2. Garner JS. Guideline for isolation precautions in hoHospital Infection Control Practices Advisory
Committee. Am J Infect Control 1996; 24:24-31.
3. Beltrami EM, Williams IT, Shapiro CN, Chamberland ME. Risk and management of blood-borne
infections in health care workers. ClinMicrobiol Rev 2000; 13: 385-407.
4. Panlilio AL, Orelien JG, Srivastava PU, Jagger J,Cohn RD, Cardo DM, et al.Estimate of the annual
number of percutaneous injuries among hospitalbased healthcare workers in the UnitedStates,
1997-1998. Infect Control HospEpidemiol 2004;25:556-62.
5. Kiertiburanakul S, Wannaying B, Tonsuttakul S,Kehachindawat P, Apivanich S, Somsakul S, et al.
Use of HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis in healthcare workers after occupational exposure: a Thai universityhospital
setting. J Med Assoc Thai 2006;89:974-8.
6. Babcock HM, Fraser V. Differences in percutaneous injury patterns in a multi-hospital system. Infect
Control HospEpidemiol 2003; 24:731-6.
7. Black RJ. Animal studies of prophylaxis. Am J Med 1997; 102: 39-44.
8. Connor EM, Sperling RS, Gelber R, Kiselev P, Scott G, O’ Sullivan MJ. Reduction of maternal-infant
transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 with zidovudine treatment. Pediatric AIDS
Clinical Trials Group Protocol 076 Study Group. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1173-80.
9. Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA. A casecontrol study of HIV seroconversion in health care
worker after percutaneous exposure. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Needlestick Surveillance
Group. N Eng J Med 1997; 337:1485-90.
10. Updated U.S. Public health service guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to HBV, HCV and HIV and recommendations fospital. Part I. Evolution of isolation practices,
11. Gerberding JL. Clinical practice. Occupational exposure to HIV in health care settings. N Engl J
Med 2003; 348: 826-33.
12. Patrick DM. HIV postexposure prophylaxis: new recommendations. CMAJ 1997; 156: 233-4.
13. Manion DJ, Hirsch MS. Combination chemotherapy for human immunodeficiency virus-1. Am J
Med 1997; 102: 76-80.
14. Robinson EN Jr. Arguments against the chemoprophylactic use of zidovudine following occupational
exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Infect Dis 1993; 16: 357-60.
15. Tsai CC, Emau P, Follis KE, Beck TW, Benveniste RE, Bischofberger N, et al. Effectiveness of postinoculation
(R)-9-(2-phosphonylmethoxypropyl) adenine treatment for prevention of persistent simian immunodeficiency virus SIVmne infection depends critically on timing of initiation and duration of treatment. J Virol 1998; 72: 4265-73.
16. Lee LM, Henderson DK. Tolerability of postexposure antiretroviral prophylaxis for occupational
exposures to HIV. Drug Saf 2001; 24: 587-97.
17. Wang SA, Panlilio AL, Doi PA, White AD, Stek M Jr, Saah A. Experience of healthcare workers
taking postexposure prophylaxis after occupational HIV exposures: findings of the HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis Registry. Infect Control HospEpidemiol 2000; 21: 780-5.
18. Serious adverse events attributed to nevirapine regimens for postexposure prophylaxis after HIV exposures - worldwide, 1997-2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001; 49: 1153-6.
19. Carr A, Cooper DA. Adverse effects of antiretroviral therapy. Lancet 2000; 356: 1423-30.
20. Wang SA, Puro V. Toxicity of post-exposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus. In:
Panlilio L, editor. Balliere’s clinical infectious diseases. London: Balliere-Tindall; 1999: 349-63.
21. Swotinsky RB, Steger KA, Sulis C, Snyder S,Craven DE. Occupational exposure to HIV:
experience at a tertiary care center. J Occup Environ Med 1998; 40: 1102-9.
