1 / 71

Post-Exposure Prophylaxis an evidence-based review

Post-Exposure Prophylaxis an evidence-based review. Christopher Behrens, MD Hillary Liss, MD Northwest AIDS Education & Training Center University of Washington. Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP). The use of therapeutic agents to prevent infection following exposure to a pathogen

dmain
Download Presentation

Post-Exposure Prophylaxis an evidence-based review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Post-Exposure Prophylaxisan evidence-based review Christopher Behrens, MD Hillary Liss, MD Northwest AIDS Education & Training Center University of Washington

  2. Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) • The use of therapeutic agents to prevent infection following exposure to a pathogen • Types of exposures include percutaneous (needlestick), splash, bite, sexual • For health-care workers, PEP commonly considered for exposures to HIV and Hepatitis B

  3. Hepatitis B PEP • Prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection in U.S. relatively low • Most health-care workers vaccinated against hepatitis B • Hepatitis B PEP: immunization + HBIG (hepatitis B Immune Globulin) • HBIG effective up to one week following exposure Grady GF et al. JID 1978;138:625-38.

  4. HIV PEP • Exposures common • 56 documented cases of health care workers contracting HIV from exposures; 138 other possible cases • Area of considerable concern but little data MMWR June 29, 2001 / 50(RR11);1-42

  5. Case Presentation • 27 yo medical exam assistant (MA) presents to Urgent Care for evaluation of needlestick injury 2 days ago from a diabetic lancet • Source patient (SP): 35 yo male, known HIV+ • Would you offer her PEP?

  6. Case Presentation continued • What is her risk for contracting HIV? • Are there factors that might affect this risk? • How effective is PEP? • Is it too late to start PEP? • What are the drawbacks of starting PEP? • Which regimen(s) should be considered? • What follow-up should be arranged?

  7. What is her risk of contracting HIV? What factors affect this risk?

  8. Risk of HIV Transmission Following Percutaneous (Needlestick) Exposure • Pooled analysis of prospective studies on health care workers with occupational exposures suggests risk is approximately 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2% - 0.5%)1 • Presence or absence of key risk factors may influence this risk in individual exposures 1. Bell DM. Am J Med 1997;102(suppl 5B):9-15.

  9. Risk Factors for Seroconversion Following Needlesticks • CDC-sponsored case-control study • 33 cases, 665 controls with needlesticks from confirmed HIV+ SPs • Zidovudine (AZT) monotherapy as PEP Cardo DM et al. NEJM 1997;337:1485-90

  10. Risk Factors for Seroconversion *p<0.01 for all Cardo DM et al. NEJM 1997;337:1485-90

  11. Other Likely Risk Factors • Viral load • Glove use • 50% decrease in volume of blood transmitted1 • Hollow bore vs solid bore • Large diameter needles weakly associated with increased risk (p = 0.08)2 • Drying conditions • tenfold drop in infectivity every 9 hours3 1. Mast ST et al. JID 1993;168(6):1589-92. 2. Cardo DM et al. NEJM 1997;337:1485-90 3. Resnick L et al, JAMA 1986;255(14):1887-91. 3.

  12. How effective is PEP?

  13. Evidence of Efficacy of PEP • Animal models: high level of protection when started within 24 hours1 • OR = 0.19 for zidovudine use in case-control study2 • Two drugs, three drugs: • No direct evidence that more effective than 1 drug • Cases of seroconversion despite 3-drug PEP imply efficacy less than 100%3,4 1. Tsai C-C et al. J Virol 1998;72:4265-73. 2. Cardo DM et al. NEJM 1997;337:1485-90. 3. Jochinsen EM et al. Arch Int Med 1999;159:2361-3. 4. MMWR June 29, 2001 / 50(RR11);1-42

  14. What are the drawbacks of PEP?

  15. Tolerability of HIV PEP in Health Care Workers Incidence of Common Side Effects Percent of HCWs Wang SA. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;231:780-5.

  16. HIV Postexposure ProphylaxisSerious Adverse Events Associated with Nevirapine 22 Serious Adverse events - 12 hepatotoxicity - 2 cases of liver failure - 14 dermatologic Number Year MMWR 2001;49(51):1153-6.

  17. When should PEP be started?

  18. When should PEP be started? • Efficacy of PEP thought to wane with time • At what point is PEP “no longer worth it”? benefits of PEP risks of PEP time exposure

  19. Timing of PEP: what’s the evidence? • Animal models and animal PEP studies: suggest substantially less effective beyond 24 - 36 hours1,2 • Case-control study: most subjects in each group received PEP within 4 hours3 • Analysis of PEP failures does not suggest a clear cut-off4 1. Tsai C-C et al. J Virol 1998;72:4265-73. 2. Shih CC et al. JID 1991. 3. Cardo DM et al. NEJM 1997;337:1485-90. 4. MMWR June 29, 2001:50(RR11);1-42.

  20. Timing of PEP: An Anecdote • 13 yo girl in Italy transfused with one unit of blood from donor who was acutely infected with HIV but not yet HIV-antibody positive • Seroconversion risk estimated to be virtually 100% • 3-drug PEP initiated 50 hours post-transfusion, continued for 9 months • No evidence of HIV infection 15 months later Ann Int Med 2000;133:31-4.

  21. Timing of PEP: CDC Guidelines • “PEP should be initiated as soon as possible, preferably within hours rather than days of exposure.” • Interval after which there is no benefit for humans is not known • Obtain expert advice when interval has exceeded 24-36 hours MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-9).

  22. How Long Should PEP be Administered? • N = 24 macaques inoculated with SIV intravenously • PEP initiated 24 hours post-inoculation • PEP administered for 3, 10, or 28 days Tsai C-C et al. J Virol 1998;72:4265-73.

  23. Duration of PEP • In animal model, 28 days more effective than 10 days or 3 days of PEP1 • 4 weeks (28 days) used in case-control study2 and recommended by CDC guidelines3 1. Tsai C-C et al. J Virol 1998;72:4265-73. 2. Cardo DM et al. NEJM 1997;337:1485-90. 3. MMWR June 29, 2001:50(RR11);1-42.

  24. Back to the Case • 27 yo Medical Assistant presents to Urgent Care for evaluation of needlestick 2 days ago from a diabetic lancet • Source patient (SP): 35 yo male, known HIV+ • What other questions do you have for her?

  25. Back to the Case • According to the MA, the SP has never received treatment for his HIV. She does not know his VL or CD4 count, but “he looks pretty healthy.” • The lancet was visibly bloody and stuck her through her glove, causing her to bleed • Exam: pinpoint puncture wound on thumb • What are your PEP recommendations?

  26. Which PEP regimen should be considered?

  27. PEP Regimens: Basic regimens • Two NRTIs • Simple dosing, fewer side effects • Preferred basic regimens: zidovudine (AZT) OR tenofovir (TDF) plus lamivudine (3TC) OR emtricitabine (FTC) • Alternative basic regimens: stavudine (d4T) OR didanosine (ddI) plus lamivudine (3TC) OR emtricitabine (FTC) MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-9).

  28. Expanded PEP Regimens • Basic regimen plus a third agent • Rationale: 3 drugs may be more effective than 2 drugs, though direct evidence is lacking • Consider for more serious exposures or if resistance in the source patient is suspected • Adherence more difficult • More potential for toxicity

  29. Expanded PEP Regimens • Preferred Expanded Regimen: • Basic regimen plus lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) • Alternate Expanded Regimens: • Basic regimen plus one of the following: • Atazanavir* +/- ritonavir • Fosamprenavir +/- ritonavir • Indinavir +/- ritonavir • Saquinavir (hgc; Invirase) + ritonavir • Nelfinavir • Efavirenz MMWR 2005;54(RR-9) *Atazanavir requires ritonavir boosting if used with tenofovir

  30. Adverse Effects: Basic vs Expanded Regimens % of individuals Puro V et al. 9th CROI, February 2002, Abstract 478-M

  31. Other Antiretrovirals • ARVs to be considered only with expert consultation: • Enfuvirtide (Fuzeon; T-20) • ARVs not generally recommended for PEP: • Delavirdine • Zalcitabine • Abacavir • Nevirapine MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-9).

  32. 0 MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-9).

  33. Back to the Case • After extensive counseling, she decides to take zidovudine + lamivudine (Combivir) basic regimen • You write the prescription and arrange for follow-up, but before the patient leaves, the triage nurse informs you that she has finally tracked down the SP’s Primary Care Provider

  34. Back to the Case, continued • The SP’s PCP tells you the following: • His CD4 count was 450 cells/mm3 two months ago, his CD4 nadir is 280 cells/mm3, he has never had an OI. • SP is not naïve to therapy; for the past year he has been on AZT/3TC/RTV/IDV (1st regimen). • Viral load 2 months ago was around 60,000 copies/mL. • What do you do with this information?

  35. HELP! • Expanded regimens and expert advice indicated for severe exposures or when resistance is suspected • Northwest AETC • Hillary Liss (206) 541-7082 pager • Chris Behrens (206) 994-8773 pager • National Clinicians’ Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Hotline (PEPline) • (888) HIV-4911

  36. Case: PEP options • Source patient’s high-level VL despite ART suggests that he is either not taking his medications, or that he has developed resistance to his regimen • Turn-around time for a resistance assay too long for this to be a useful tool in designing her PEP regimen – Must make best guess about patterns of anticipated resistance to SP’s regimen • If resistance has developed, would suspect resistance to lamivudine, zidovudine, and possibly ritonavir/indinavir • Cross-resistance considerations would suggest that resistance to stavudine and abacavir may also exist; resistance to tenofovir and didanosine also possible but less likely

  37. Case: PEP options • Given concerns over efficacy of a 2-NRTI regimen, would recommend a 3 or 4 drug PEP regimen • Resistance to PIs: difficult to estimate, but PI resistance generally evolves less rapidly than does resistance to the NRTI components of typical ART regimens • Would not expect any resistance to NNRTI class • One reasonable PEP regimen: tenofovir + d4T + (efavirenz OR lopinavir/ritonavir) • Notes: • Efavirenz is contraindicated in pregnancy • Combining ddI + tenofovir + efavirenz no longer recommended in ART regimens

  38. CDC Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Guidelines MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-9). http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov

  39. CDC Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Guidelines MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-9).

  40. CDC Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Guidelines MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-9).

  41. Situations for which expert consultation* for HIVpostexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is advised * Either with local experts or by contacting the National Clinicians’ Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Hotline (PEPline), 888-448-4911. MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-9).

  42. 0 Follow-up of health-care personnel (HCP) exposed to known or suspected HIV-positive sources • Exposed HCP should be advised to use precautions (e.g., avoid blood or tissue donations, breastfeeding, or pregnancy) to prevent secondary transmission, especially during the first 6–12 weeks post-exposure. • For exposures for which PEP is prescribed, HCP should be informed regarding: • need for monitoring • possible drug interactions • the need for adherence to PEP regimens. • Consider re-evaluation of exposed HCP 72 hours post-exposure, especially after additional information about the exposure or SP becomes available. MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-9).

  43. Follow-up HIV Testing • CDC recommendations: HIV Ab testing for 6 months post-exposure (e.g., at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months) • Extended HIV Ab testing at 12 months is recommended if health care worker contracts HCV from a source patient co-infected with HIV and HCV • VL testing not recommended unless primary HIV infection (PHI) suspected MMWR 2005;54(No. RR-9).

  44. Case 2: Non-occupational exposure • 34 yo woman presents to ED after being sexually assaulted by someone that she says is HIV-infected • Physical exam reveals perineal bruising, shallow vaginal lacerations • What is her level of risk? • Should PEP be considered? • Are there guidelines that cover this situation?

  45. Exposure Risks (average, per episode, involving HIV-infected source patient)

  46. Is PEP effective for non-occupational exposures? • Brazilian non-randomized trial of PEP following sexual assault: rate of HIV transmission was 2.7% in control subjects compared with 0% in those who received PEP (P < .05). • Buenos Aires study involving MSM: HIV transmission occurred in 4.2% of 131 men who did not receive PEP, compared with 0.6% of 66 men who received PEP (P < .05). Schechter M. Program and abstracts of the Sixth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection; November 17-21, 2002; Glasgow. Abstract PL6.1.

  47. Guidelines???

  48. Non-occupational PEP: Evaluation & Treatment Algorithm MMWR January 21, 2005, Vol 54, No. RR-2

  49. Non-occupational PEP Regimens MMWR January 21, 2005, Vol 54, No. RR-2

More Related