rss
Sex Transm Infect 2002;78:130-132 doi:10.1136/sti.78.2.130
  • Original Article

Post-exposure prophylaxis for non-occupational exposure to HIV: current clinical practice and opinions in the UK

  1. C M Giele1,*,
  2. R Maw2,
  3. C A Carne3,
  4. B G Evans1,
  5. On Behalf Of The British Co-Operative Clinical Group Of The Medical Society For The Study Of Venereal Diseases
  1. 1PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London, UK
  2. 2Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK
  3. 3Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr Barry Evans;
 bevans{at}phls.nhs.uk
  • Accepted 13 December 2001

Abstract

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.

Footnotes

  • ↵* Current address: Communicable Disease Control Branch, Health Department of Western Australia

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.