SHORT REPORT

¹ PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London, UK
² Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK
³ Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr Barry Evans;
bevans{at}phls.nhs.uk

Objectives: To assess the frequency and nature of requests for post-exposure prophylaxis following non-occupational exposure (NONOPEP) to HIV and to describe variations in practice and opinions on the need for its administration at UK genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics.

Method: A retrospective survey was carried out of physicians representative of all UK GUM clinics using self completed questionnaires requesting information for January to December 1999. The number of requests for NONOPEP, reasons for the requests, the number prescribed, and physician opinions regarding the justification for its administration were noted.

Results: The number of requests and prescriptions for NONOPEP increased fourfold and sevenfold respectively in comparison with a survey from 1997. Of 242 requests, 130 people were prescribed NONOPEP. Half the requests followed sexual exposures between known HIV discordant couples. Requests for NONOPEP were received by 56 of 132 (42%) clinics, with nine clinics receiving over half of them (145/242, 60%). Similarly, over half the prescriptions for NONOPEP (83/130, 64%) were given by six of 39 prescribing clinics. Most physicians thought that post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) was justified for people exposed to a known HIV positive source patient resulting from sexual assault or unprotected receptive anal or peno-vaginal sex.

Conclusion: The use of NONOPEP has increased since the last survey and there is considerable variation between GUM clinics in practice and beliefs regarding administration of NONOPEP.

Keywords: non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis; HIV infection; 32; 60

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Roedling, S, Reeves, I, Copas, A J, Beattie, A, Edwards, S G, Fisher, M, Benn, P (2008). Changes in the provision of post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV after sexual exposure following introduction of guidelines and publicity campaigns. Int J STD AIDS 19: 241-242 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Cohen, M. S., Gay, C., Kashuba, A. D.M., Blower, S., Paxton, L. (2007). Narrative Review: Antiretroviral Therapy to Prevent the Sexual Transmission of HIV-1. ANN INTERN MED 146: 591-601 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hamlyn, E, McAllister, J, Winston, A, Sinclair, B, Amin, J, Carr, A, Cooper, D A (2006). Is screening for sexually transmitted infections in men who have sex with men who receive non-occupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis worthwhile?. Sex. Transm. Infect. 82: 21-23 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ellis, J C, Ahmad, S, Molyneux, E M (2005). Introduction of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis for sexually abused children in Malawi. Arch. Dis. Child. 90: 1297-1299 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Fisher, M (2005). Can the promotion of post-exposure prophylaxis following sexual exposure to HIV (PEPSE) cause harm?: Response. Sex. Transm. Infect. 81: 191-192 [Full Text]  
• Sonder, G. J B, Regez, R. M, Brinkman, K., Prins, J. M, Mulder, J.-W., Spaargaren, J., Coutinho, R. A, van den Hoek, A. (2005). Prophylaxis and follow-up after possible exposure to HIV, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus outside hospital: evaluation of policy 2000-3. BMJ 330: 825-829 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Crossley, J (2004). HIV post-exposure prophylaxis after sexual assault. Emerg. Med. J. 21: 403-403 [Full Text]