Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:25:06.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postexposure Prophylaxis for Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Frequency of Initiation and Completion of Newly Recommended Regimen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Kent A. Sepkowitz ,
Pedro Rivera ,
Joyce Louther ,
Suzanne Lim  and
Betty Pryor
Kent A. Sepkowitz*
Affiliation:
St Clare's Hospital, New York City, New York Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York
Pedro Rivera
Affiliation:
St Clare's Hospital, New York City, New York
Joyce Louther
Affiliation:
St Clare's Hospital, New York City, New York
Suzanne Lim
Affiliation:
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York
Betty Pryor
Affiliation:
New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, New York City, New York
*
Clinical Affairs, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, Box 288, New York, NY 10021
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent evidence demonstrating the efficacy of zidovudine, as well as experience with protease inhibitors, led to revision of recommendations for occupational exposures to human immunodeficiency virus-infected blood. At our hospital, this resulted in significant increases in rates of reported exposures and prophylaxis initiation. Among 10 healthcare workers given three-drug, protease-inhibitor-containing regimens, five completed 4 weeks, two completed 4 weeks of two drugs, and three stopped due to intolerance. Three workers missed work due to side effects

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 19 , Issue 7 , July 1998 , pp. 506 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Marcus, R, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cooperative Needlestick Surveillance Group. Surveillance of health care workers exposed to blood from patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1118–1123.Google Scholar
2.Ippolito, G, Puro, V, De Carli, G, the Italian Study Group on Occupational Risk of HIV Infection. The risk of occupational human immunodeficiency virus infection in health care workers: Italian Multicenter Study. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:1451–1458.Google Scholar
3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1996;8(2):21.Google Scholar
4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers during phlebotomy procedures—Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993-1995. MMWR 1997;46:21–25.Google Scholar
5.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health-care workers after percutaneous exposure to HIV-infected blood—France, United Kingdom, and United States, January 1988-August 1994. MMWR 1995;44:929–933.Google Scholar
6.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: provisional Public Health Service recommendations for chemopro-phylaxis after occupational exposure to HIV. MMWR 1996;45:468–480.Google Scholar
7.Gerberding, JL. Prophylaxis for occupational exposure to HIV. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:497–501.Google Scholar
8.Tokars, JI, Marcus, R, Culver, DH, Schable, CA, McKibben, PS, Bandea, CI, et al.Surveillance of HIV infection and zidovudine use among health care workers after occupational exposure to HIV-infected blood. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:913–919.Google Scholar