Positive Health Program, Department of Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California, USA.
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Jul 1;53(1):76-83. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir333.
The National HIV/AIDS Strategy proposes to scale-up post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Intensive risk reduction and adherence counseling appear to be effective but are resource intensive. Identifying simpler interventions that maximize the HIV prevention potential of PEP is critical.
A randomized noninferiority study comparing 2 (standard) or 5 (enhanced) risk reduction counseling sessions was performed. Adherence counseling was provided in the enhanced arm. We measured changes in unprotected sexual intercourse acts at 12 months, compared with baseline; HIV acquisition; and PEP adherence. Outcomes were stratified by degree of baseline risk.
We enrolled 457 individuals reporting unprotected intercourse within 72 h with an HIV-infected or at-risk partner. Participants were 96% male and 71% white. There were 1.8 and 2.3 fewer unprotected sex acts in the standard and enhanced groups. The maximum potential risk difference, reflected by the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, was 3.9 acts. The difference in the riskier subset may have been as many as 19.6 acts. The incidence of HIV seroconversion was 2.9% and 2.6% among persons randomized to standard and enhanced counseling, respectively, with a maximum potential difference of 3.4%. The absolute and maximal HIV seroconversion incidence was 9.9% and 20.4% greater in the riskier group randomized to standard, compared with enhanced, counseling. Adherence outcomes were similar, with noninferiority in the lower risk group and concerning differences among the higher-risk group.
Risk assessment is critical at PEP initiation. Standard counseling is only noninferior for individuals with lower baseline risk; thus, enhanced counseling should be targeted to individuals at higher risk.
《国家艾滋病防治战略》提出扩大接触后预防(PEP)的规模。强化风险降低和依从性咨询似乎是有效的,但需要大量资源。确定更简单的干预措施,最大限度地发挥 PEP 的艾滋病预防潜力至关重要。
我们进行了一项随机非劣效性研究,比较了 2 次(标准)或 5 次(强化)风险降低咨询。在强化组中提供了依从性咨询。我们测量了与基线相比,12 个月时无保护性行为的变化;艾滋病病毒的获得;以及 PEP 的依从性。根据基线风险程度对结果进行分层。
我们招募了 457 名在 72 小时内与感染艾滋病毒或有感染风险的伴侣发生无保护性行为的参与者。参与者中 96%为男性,71%为白人。标准组和强化组分别有 1.8 和 2.3 次无保护性行为。最大潜在风险差异,反映在 95%置信区间的上限,为 3.9 次。在风险较高的亚组中,差异可能多达 19.6 次。随机分配到标准和强化咨询组的人感染艾滋病毒血清转换的发生率分别为 2.9%和 2.6%,最大潜在差异为 3.4%。在风险较高的组中,随机分配到标准咨询组的人感染艾滋病毒血清转换的绝对和最大发生率分别比强化咨询组高 9.9%和 20.4%。在低风险组中,依从性结果相似,而在高风险组中存在令人担忧的差异。
PEP 启动时进行风险评估至关重要。标准咨询仅对基线风险较低的个体具有非劣效性;因此,应针对高风险个体提供强化咨询。