New UK guidelines for the use of
post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) following sexual exposure have been published
in the December issue of the International
Journal of STD and AIDS. The guidelines are notable for no longer
recommending that PEP is provided in a number of situations where the ‘source
partner’ is known to be HIV-positive and to have an undetectable viral load.
The guidelines are issued by the British
Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) and the British HIV Association
(BHIVA) and replace the previous document, issued in 2006.
Post-exposure prophylaxis is an emergency
measure aiming to prevent HIV infection after possible exposure to the virus. PEP
consists of three or four anti-HIV drugs, taken for one month. The guidelines
say that it is “crucial to consider PEPSE as only one strategy in preventing
HIV infection and, as such, it should be considered as a last measure where
conventional, and proven, methods of HIV prevention have failed.”
When considering whether PEP should be provided, the document recommends that
clinicians consider:
The risk of transmission during
a particular sexual act or other type of exposure.
The risk of the source partner
being HIV positive – if his or her HIV status is unknown, this will depend on
the prevalence of HIV in different local communities.
The viral load of the source
partner, if this is known.
The recommendations concerning undetectable
viral load are new. The authors point to data showing that in many situations, an undetectable viral load makes HIV transmission highly unlikely and so PEP would be unnecessary. After sexual contact with a person with diagnosed HIV and
an undetectable viral load, PEP is no longer recommended if the sexual activity
was unprotected vaginal intercourse, unprotected insertive anal intercourse or
oral sex. But PEP is still recommended following unprotected receptive anal
intercourse.
The guidelines are also notable for not
recommending PEP in any situation in
which the source partner is thought not to belong to a social group in which
HIV prevalence is high. In other words, if a person’s sexual partner was not
thought to be either a gay man or a migrant from a high prevalence country (such
as in sub-Saharan Africa), PEP would not normally be given following sexual
exposure.
The guidelines also clarify that, due to
the very low risk of infection, PEP is unnecessary following human bites or
contact with a discarded needle.
The table below summarises this part of the
guidelines.
| |
HIV status of the person’s sexual partner
(‘the source’)
|
| |
HIV positive
|
HIV positive with undetectable viral load
|
Unknown HIV status, thought to be an
African migrant or a gay man
|
Unknown HIV status, NOT from a high
prevalence group
|
|
Receptive anal sex
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Insertive anal sex
|
Yes
|
No
|
Consider*
|
No
|
|
Vaginal sex (male or female partner)
|
Yes
|
No
|
Consider*
|
No
|
|
Fellatio (i.e. taking a penis in the
mouth), with ejaculation
|
Consider*
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
All other forms of oral sex
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Splash of semen into eye
|
Consider*
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Sharing of injecting equipment
|
Yes
|
No
|
Consider*
|
No
|
|
Human bite
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Contact with a needle or syringe
discarded in a public place
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
* When the guidelines say that PEP should be
‘considered’, it should only be given if there is an additional factor which
increases the likelihood of transmission, such as particularly high local HIV
prevalence, a sexually transmitted infection, acute HIV infection in the source partner,
sexual assault or trauma, bleeding (including menstruation) or - in the case of vaginal sex - the
HIV-negative male partner not being circumcised.
PEP should only be provided when the
patient presents within 72 hours (three days) after exposure. The sooner PEP is
taken, the more effective it is.
The recommended combination of drugs is Truvada
(tenofovir and FTC) and Kaletra
(lopinavir and
ritonavir). This combination could be modified if the ‘source’ partner was
known to be HIV-positive and to have resistance to certain anti-HIV drugs.
Another reason to modify the drugs given is if the patient is already taking
other medication which may interact with the ARVs (e.g. statins or emergency
contraceptives).
In the previous guidelines, a combination
of two nucleoside / nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors and one boosted
protease inhibitor was also recommended, but equal weight was given to a number
of different drug options.