RESEARCH PAPER
When effective post-exposure prophylaxis of HIV infection fails – data from clinical practice
 
More details
Hide details
 
Submission date: 2016-10-03
 
 
Acceptance date: 2016-11-01
 
 
Publication date: 2017-01-19
 
 
HIV & AIDS Review 2017;16(1):54-57
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prophylaxis with antiretroviral treatment after sexual exposure (sPEP) is an effective and safe approach; however, its influence on future exposures and, consequently, future HIV status remains under-investigated. We have evaluated the medical records of persons who received antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) as sPEP in the years 2009-2013. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify predictors of having sexual exposure after finalising sPEP with HIV-negative status. In total 98 persons received sPEP: 37 (38%) after unprotected men who have sex with men (MSM) intercourse, 38 (39%) after sexual assault, and 23 (23%) after unprotected vaginal intercourse. In 40 (41%) cases the partner was HIV positive. Twelve persons (12%) repeated the same pattern of exposure; median time to next exposure was 1.55 (IQR 0.78-2.43) months. In multivariate Cox models older age was increasing, and heterosexual orientation decreasing the risk of having another exposure (HR = 1.06 [95% CI: 1.00-1.12; p = 0.033] and HR = 0.14 [95% CI: 0.02-1.06; p = 0.057], respectively). There were no HIV infections after completing sPEP, but three (3%) persons had occasional sexual contact afterwards, resulting in HIV infection. Median time from last negative exposure to HIV infection was 1.85 (IQR 1.79-2.43) months.
In a considerable proportion of persons sPEP had no effect on behavioural patterns, mostly in those having occasional sexual contact. The risk of having another sexual exposure was higher with age and for MSM patients. For this group of persons pre-exposure prophylaxis may be a more viable method of HIV infection prophylaxis.
 
REFERENCES (27)
1.
Roland ME. Enhancing the potential benefits of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis. AIDS 2006; 20: 1889-1890.
 
2.
Lunding S, Katzenstein TL, Kronborg G, et al. The Danish PEP registry: experience with the use of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) following sexual exposure to HIV from 1998 to 2006. Sex Transm Dis 2010; 37: 49-52.
 
3.
Casalino E, Choquet C, Leleu A, et al. Trends in condom use and risk behaviours after sexual exposure to HIV: a seven-year observational study. PLoS One 2014; 9: e104350.
 
4.
Halperin DT. Heterosexual anal intercourse: prevalence, cultural factors, and HIV infection and other health risks, Part I. AIDS Patient Care STDS 1999; 13: 717-730.
 
5.
Baggaley RF, White RG, Boily MC. HIV transmission risk through anal intercourse: systematic review, meta-analysis and implications for HIV prevention. Int J Epidemiol 2010; 39: 1048-1063.
 
6.
Roland ME. Postexposure prophylaxis after sexual exposure to HIV. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2007; 20: 39-46.
 
7.
McDougal SJ, Alexander J, Dhanireddy S, et al. Non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: 10-year retrospective analysis in Seattle, Washington. PLoS One 2014; 9: e105030.
 
8.
Sonder GJ, van den Hoek A, Regez RM, et al. Trends in HIV postex­posure prophylaxis prescription and compliance after sexual exposure in Amsterdam, 2000-2004. Sex Transm Dis 2007; 34: 288-293.
 
9.
Minas B, Laing S, Jordan H, et al. Improved awareness and appropriate use of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) for HIV prevention following a multi-modal communication strategy. BMC Public Health 2012; 12: 906.
 
10.
Jain S, Gregor C, Krakower D, et al. Attitudes and interest toward HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among participants using HIV non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis. ID Week; October 8-12, 2014; Philadelphia. Abstract Nr 1523.
 
11.
Loutfy MR, Wu W, Letchumanan M, et al. Systematic review of HIV transmission between heterosexual serodiscordant couples where the HIV-positive partner is fully suppressed on antiretroviral therapy. PLoS One 2013; 8: e55747.
 
12.
Vigil KJ, Simons P, Luna K, et al. Raltegravir plus tenofovir DF and emtricitabine for non-occupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP): African-Americans are at higher risk of non-completion of nPEP. ID Week; October 8-12, 2014; Philadelphia. Abstract Nr 1529.
 
13.
Mandala J, Nanda K, Wang M, et al. Liver and renal safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in combination with emtricitabine among African women in a pre-exposure prophylaxis trial. BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology 2014; 15: 77.
 
14.
Tosini W, Muller P, Prazuck T, et al. Tolerability of HIV postexposure prophylaxis with tenofovir/emtricitabine and lopinavir/ritonavir tablet formulation. AIDS 2010; 24: 2375-2380.
 
15.
Pietraszkiewicz E, Firlag-Burkacka E, Horban A, et al. The suspected unexpected and serious adverse events of antiretroviral drugs used as HIV prophylaxis in HIV uninfected persons. J Int AIDS Soc 2014; 17 (4 Suppl 3): 19733.
 
16.
Bryant J, Baxter L, Hird S. Non-occupational postexposure prophylaxis for HIV: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13: iii, ix-x, 1-60.
 
17.
Ford N, Irvine C, Shubber Z, et al. Adherence to HIV postexposure prophylaxis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS 2014; 28: 2721-2727.
 
18.
Donnell D, Mimiaga MJ, Mayer K, et al. Use of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis does not lead to an increase in high risk sex behaviors in men who have sex with men participating in the EXPLORE trial. AIDS Behav 2010; 14: 1182-1189.
 
19.
Schechter M, do Lago RF, Mendelsohn AB, et al. Behavioral impact, acceptability, and HIV incidence among homosexual men with access to postexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004; 35: 519-525.
 
20.
Reback CJ, Fletcher JB, Shoptaw S, et al. Methamphetamine and other substance use trends among street-recruited men who have sex with men, from 2008 to 2011. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013; 133: 262-265.
 
21.
Poon AF, Joy JB, Woods CK, et al. The impact of clinical, demographic and risk factors on rates of HIV transmission. A population-based phylogenetic analysis in British Columbia, Canada. J Infect Dis 2015; 211: 926-935.
 
22.
Drescher SM, von Wyl V, Yang WL, et al. Treatment-naive individuals are the major source of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance in men who have sex with men in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58: 285-294.
 
23.
Rosinska M, Janiec J, Niedzwiedzka-Stadnik M. Increase of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men in Poland, 2000 to 2011. Euro Surveill 2013; 18: 20642.
 
24.
Rosinska M, Marzec-Bogustawska A, Janiec J, et al. High percentage of recent HIV infection among HIV-positive individuals newly diagnosed at voluntary counseling and testing sites in Poland. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2013; 29: 805-813.
 
25.
Muessig KE, Smith MK, Powers KA, et al. Does ART prevent HIV transmission among MSM? AIDS 2012; 26: 2267-2273.
 
26.
Ankiersztejn-Bartczak M, Firlag-Burkacka E, Czeszko-Paprocka H, et al. Factors responsible for incomplete linkage to care after HIV diagnosis: preliminary results from the Test and Keep in Care (TAK) project. HIV Med 2015; 16: 88-94.
 
27.
Fernandez-Balbuena S, Belza MJ, Castilla J, et al. Awareness and use of nonoccupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis among people receiving rapid HIV testing in Spain. HIV Med 2013; 14: 252-257.
 
eISSN:1732-2707
ISSN:1730-1270
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top