Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is a promising but under-utilized strategy for HIV prevention in high-risk populations. Between March 2010 and June 2011, two community-based clinics in Los Angeles County provided PEP in a pilot program to 267 unique individuals. Courses were primarily dispensed to men who have sex with men (84%) and consisted overwhelmingly of a three-drug antiretroviral therapy regimen containing two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and either an integrase inhibitor (raltegravir) or a boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir/ritonavir). Approximately 64% of all PEP courses were followed for at least 12 weeks, and seven individuals seroconverted. Of the seven seroconversions, six had subsequent re-exposure. The low rate of PEP failure calls for expanded funding for PEP in other jurisdictions.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Announcement: updated guidelines for antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, injection-drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV - United States, https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27149423 (2016, accessed 06 May 2016).
2.
TsaiCCFollisKESaboAet al.
Prevention of SIV infection in macaques by (R)-9-(2-phosphonylmethoxypropyl)adenine. Science1995;
270: 1197–1199.
3.
OttenRASmithDKAdamsDRet al.
Efficacy of postexposure prophylaxis after intravaginal exposure of pig-tailed macaques to a human-derived retrovirus (human immunodeficiency virus type 2). J Virol2000;
74: 9771–9775.
4.
SubbaraoSOttenRARamosAet al.
Chemoprophylaxis with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate provided partial protection against infection with simian human immunodeficiency virus in macaques given multiple virus challenges. J Infect Dis2006;
194: 904–911.
5.
BourryOBrochardPSouquiereSet al.
Prevention of vaginal simian immunodeficiency virus transmission in macaques by postexposure prophylaxis with zidovudine, lamivudine and indinavir. AIDS2009;
23: 447–454.
6.
CardoDMCulverDHCiesielskiCAet al.
A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure. N Engl J Med1997;
337: 1485–1490.
7.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Management of possible sexual, injecting-drug-use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV, including considerations related to antiretroviral therapy. Public Health Service statement. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep1998;
47: 1–14.
8.
MitchellJWSophusAI andPetrollAE.HIV-negative partnered men's willingness to use non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis and associated factors in a US sample of HIV-negative and HIV-discordant male couples. Lgbt Health2016;
3: 146–152.
9.
RodriguezAECastelADParishCLet al.
HIV medical providers' perceptions of the use of antiretroviral therapy as nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis in 2 major metropolitan areas. JAIDS-J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2013;
64: S68–S79.
10.
LandovitzRJCombsKB andCurrierJS.Availability of HIV postexposure prophylaxis services in Los Angeles County. Clin Infect Dis2009;
48: 1624–1627.
PanlilioALCardoDMGrohskopfLAet al.
Public Health Service guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to HIV and recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis. MMWR Recomm Rep2005;
54: 1–17.
IrvineCEganKJShubberZet al.
Efficacy of HIV postexposure prophylaxis: systematic review and meta-analysis of nonhuman primate studies. Clin Infect Dis2015;
60: S165–S1S9.
15.
BeymerMRWeissREBolanRKet al.
Differentiating nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis seroconverters and non-seroconverters in a community-based clinic in Los Angeles, California. Open Forum Infect Dis2017;
4: ofx061.
