Kowalska Justyna Dominika, Firlag-Burkacka Ewa, Niezabitowska Małgorzata, Bakowska Elzbieta, Ignatowska Anna, Pulik Piotr, Horban Andrzej
Poradnia Profilaktyczno-Lecznicza Wojewódzki Szpital Zakaźny ul. Leszno 17, 01-199 Warszawa.
Przegl Epidemiol. 2006;60(4):789-94.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) after exposure to potentially infectious material remains one of the most important elements of HIV prevention. In some cases it requires antiretroviral drugs administration, which might cause serious side effects. The following analysis was performed to identify adverse events of antiretroviral therapy in PEP as well as to evaluate patients adherence to consultations and tests schedule. Data were collected from standard forms filled in by physicians during consultation visits in 2001-2002. To identify HIV infection HIV Duo-quick test (BioMerieux, Vidas) was performed on the first visit, then after 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Among 177 patients (pts) there were 79 exposures in health care workers (HCWs), 98 in non-HCWs. In 70 of HCWs exposure was by needle-stick injury (NSI), in 3 cases by other medical instrument. In non-HCWs 88 cases exposure was by NSI and in three cases by human's bite. Only one HIV test was performed in 25 cases (31,6%) in HCWs group vs 16 pts (16,3%) in non-HCWs group (p=0.016). Twelve HCWs (15,2%) and 9 non-HCWs did not come back for the test result (p=0,2). The mean time from exposure to initiating PEP was 6 hours 48 min in HCWs vs 7 hours 16 min in non-HCWs group (p=0,77). Except 2 cases of d4T+ddl in HCWs group all others were AZT+3TC (63 HCWs and 91 non-HCWs). Three drug regimen with PI as third drug (indinavir or nelfinavir) was used in 14 cases of HCWs and 7 non-HCWs. Side effects (SE) were observed in 25 HCWs (31,6%) vs 37 non-HCWs (37,8%) (p=0,467), leading to PEP discontinuation in 11 vs 4 respectively (p=0,0028). PEP was continued despite SE in 14 HCWs vs 33 non-HCWs (p=0,007). There was no post-exposure HIV infection. Adherence to consultations and tests schedule was better in non-HCWs. Although the risk of infection was potentially lower in that group pts showed up and tested more regularly, less pts did not collect the test result. Even though tolerability in terms of SE frequency was slightly better in HCWs group, non-HCWs were more willing to take ARV for four weeks even in presence of SE. More of non-HCWs followed full drug prophylaxis.
接触潜在感染性物质后的暴露后预防(PEP)仍然是艾滋病病毒预防的最重要环节之一。在某些情况下,这需要服用抗逆转录病毒药物,而这些药物可能会引起严重的副作用。进行以下分析是为了确定暴露后预防中抗逆转录病毒治疗的不良事件,并评估患者对咨询和检测计划的依从性。数据收集自医生在2001 - 2002年咨询就诊时填写的标准表格。为确定是否感染艾滋病病毒,首次就诊时进行HIV Duo - quick检测(生物梅里埃公司,Vidas),然后在2周、6周、3个月和6个月后再次检测。在177名患者中,有79名是医护人员暴露,98名是非医护人员暴露。在医护人员中,70例暴露是针刺伤(NSI),3例是其他医疗器械所致。在非医护人员中,88例暴露是针刺伤,3例是人类咬伤。医护人员组25例(31.6%)仅进行了1次HIV检测,而非医护人员组为16例(16.3%)(p = 0.016)。12名医护人员(15.2%)和9名非医护人员未回来获取检测结果(p = 0.2)。医护人员从暴露到开始PEP的平均时间为6小时48分钟,非医护人员组为7小时16分钟(p = 0.77)。除医护人员组2例使用d4T + ddl外,其他所有病例均为AZT + 3TC(63名医护人员和91名非医护人员)。14名医护人员和7名非医护人员采用了以蛋白酶抑制剂(PI)作为第三种药物(茚地那韦或奈非那韦)的三联药物治疗方案。25名医护人员(31.6%)和37名非医护人员(37.8%)出现了副作用(SE)(p = 0.467),分别导致11名医护人员和4名非医护人员停止PEP治疗(p = .0028)。14名医护人员和33名非医护人员尽管出现副作用仍继续进行PEP治疗(p = 0.007)。未发生暴露后艾滋病病毒感染。非医护人员对咨询和检测计划的依从性更好。尽管该组感染风险可能较低,但患者前来就诊和检测更规律,未领取检测结果的患者较少。尽管医护人员组副作用发生频率方面的耐受性略好,但非医护人员即使出现副作用也更愿意接受四周的抗逆转录病毒治疗。更多非医护人员遵循了全程药物预防。