我国艾滋病病毒暴露前后预防措施的推广应用北大核心CSCD

HIV暴露前后预防是指未感染HIV者在发生易感染HIV危险行为前后使用特定抗病毒药物，以降低感染风险的方法[1-2]。根据用药时机不同，分为Pr EP和PEP。根据暴露原因不同，PEP又分为职业暴露和非职业暴露，本文主要讨论非职业暴露后药物预防。PrEP和PEP既有联系又区别明显，     

德宏傣族景颇族自治州2016-2020年医务人员和公安干警HIV职业暴露处置情况分析

目的了解德宏傣族景颇族自治州(简称德宏州)医务人员、公安干警发生职业暴露,特别是HIV职业暴露的状况,为完善职业暴露后应急处理措施、避免HIV职业暴露提供科学依据。方法下载中国疾病预防控制系统全国艾滋病检测实验室信息管理系统职业暴露数据库中的德宏州2016-2020年报告的所有职业暴露者流行病学个案资料,并对相关信息进行描述性统计分析。结果共报告908例职业暴露事件。其中,护士550例(60.6%),医生183例(20.2%),公安干警13例(1.4%),其他162例(17.8%)。暴露方式为针刺或锐器割伤802例(88.3%);暴露地点为医疗机构877例(96.6%)。暴露后立即对皮肤、黏膜或伤口进行清洗和消毒906例(99.8%),2例未进行任何处理,均发生在乡镇医疗机构。暴露源为HIV阳性117例(12.9%),暴露源为HIV阴性683例(75.2%),暴露源不明108例(11.9%)。225例HIV职业暴露者中,175例采取了暴露后预防用药(PEP),其中118例(67.4%)在暴露后2 h内采取了PEP,医务人员2 h内实施PEP的比例(72.4%)明显高于非医务人员(55.8%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。6个月随访检测无HIV抗体阳转者。结论坚持"普遍性防护原则"、暴露后立即采取应急措施、暴露评估后尽早接受PEP有益于避免和降低高危职业人员感染HIV的风险。     

深圳市2003—2007年HIV职业暴露分析

目的通过了解艾滋病病毒（HIV）职业暴露现状,分析职业暴露的原因和存在的问题,完善预防HIV感染的防控措施。方法对深圳市2003—2007年报告的HIV职业暴露案例进行调查并统计分析。结果59起（77人）职业暴露包括医务人员和公安司法人员,暴露类型包括针头刺伤、抓咬伤和血液、体液接触皮肤或粘膜,主要途径是针头刺伤暴露。69人实施暴露后预防（PEP）,有61人采用基本用药程序进行干预治疗,占79．2％（61／77）;8人采用强化用药程序。目前所有病例随访未发现HIV抗体阳转者。结论需要对医务人员、公安司法人员加强预防艾滋病宣传教育工作,以减少HIV职业暴露发生率;健全职业暴露后防护措施,可以减少暴露后的阳转率。     

HIV非职业暴露后药物阻断研究的相关进展

艾滋病病毒（HIV）职业暴露预防用药已在我国开展多年,而针对性暴露等非职业暴露后的预防用药指南截至目前我国尚未出台,美国、英国、加拿大等许多国家均制订了本国非职业暴露预防用药指南,许多医疗机构依据相关指南为暴露者提供药物阻断服务,为非职业暴露预防阻断的有效性研究提供了大量数据。文章对近年来世界上一些国家针对非职业暴露预防用药研究进展进行综述。     

HIV暴露后预防可实施于职业场所以外

三藩市一项暴露后预防（PEP）研究显示,在因性交或药物注射而处于HIV暴露危险的人群中,采用抗逆转录病毒药物治疗和咨询的PEP措施,将可能成为预防HIV感染的一种行之有效的方法。研究者以401名暴露于性伴已知为HIV感染者,或处于HIV感染危险的人员为研究对象（其中94％的人主要是通过性接触,多数为肛交）,评估了PEP的预防能力。设计的PEP方案为:4周的抗逆转录病毒药物治疗,针对个人情况进行的降低感染危险性和坚持治疗的咨询;所有措     

云南省德宏州2004-2009年艾滋病病毒职业暴露状况分析

目的了解云南省德宏州艾滋病病毒(HIV)职业暴露发生、暴露后预防(PEP)及预后,促进HIV职业暴露防护工作。方法对德宏州2004-2009年报告的所有HIV职业暴露者进行流行病学个案调查和统计分析。结果 2004-2009年期间,德宏州共报告151人发生HIV职业暴露,其中77人(51.0%)为女性。暴露方式包括接触暴露、针刺或锐器刺伤等,以针刺或锐器刺伤为主,占59.6%(90/151);暴露发生地以医院为主,占41.1%(62/151);一级暴露87人(57.6%),二级暴露50人(33.1%),三级暴露14人(9.3%)。112人(74.2%)的职业暴露源为HIV患者,1人的暴露源为实验室标本,38人(25.2%)的暴露源不详。发生职业暴露后,139人(92.1%)对皮肤或黏膜进行清洗或消毒处理,12人(7.9%)未采取任何特殊处理。职业暴露后是否进行紧急处理与其是否接受过艾滋病安全操作培训有显著关联(2χ=6.19,P=0.01)。142人(94.0%)接受预防性用药,9人(6.0%)自愿不接受预防性用药;随访未发现HIV抗体阳转者。结论职业暴露后通过应急处理和预防性用药可有效预防HIV感染。但仍有必要加强部分人员的艾滋病安全操作和职业防护培训。     

广东省2008-2010年HIV职业暴露情况分析

目的了解广东省艾滋病病毒(Human immunodeficiency virus,HIV)职业暴露现状和职业暴露后应急预防处理的情况,完善预防职业暴露感染HIV的防控措施。方法收集广东省2008-2010年报告的HIV职业暴露案例,分析其发生的原因、应急处理情况、预防用药及时性及预防效果。结果广东省2008-2010年共报告380例HIV职业暴露者,医务人员294例,占77.4%;其次为公安人员74例,占19.5%。暴露方式以针刺和切割伤为主,占48.9%。暴露级别以I、II级为主,分别占50.3%和41.8%。88.7%(337/380)的暴露者实施了应急局部处理,85.5%(325/380)的人进行了预防性服药,58.8%(191/325)的人采用了合理的服药方案;14.5%(55/380)未进行预防性服药,其中60.0%(33/55)是真正无需预防性服药。所有病例医学观察12个月后,均未发现HIV抗体阳转。结论医务人员和公安系统人员是HIV职业暴露高发人群,应加强HIV职业暴露的宣教和防护,以减少因职业暴露发生的HIV感染。     

预防HIV传播的药物干预

对于HIV感染的治疗现己进行了大量的研究，但在世界范围内仍有14，000人新感染HIV，因此预防新感染的发生仍是很重要的任务。目前，预防HIV感染的手段包括教育和保护措施，如安全套或暴露后给予预防性药物（暴露后预防[PEP]）。未来的选择可能包括暴露前的预防（PREP）的口服抗逆转录病毒制剂、局部的杀微生物制剂及疫苗。在本次大会上，Robert Grant博士总结了目前抗HIV感染化学预防的研究现状。     

HIV职业暴露后预防用药分析

目的分析艾滋病病毒（HIV）职业暴露后预防性用药,为从事艾滋病防治工作的相关人员提供帮助和信息.方法参照卫生部《医务人员艾滋病病毒职业暴露防护工作指导原则（试行）》,分析HIV职业暴露后的处理和结果.结果42例医务人员、公安司法干警职业暴露后,经及时处理和预防性抗逆转录病毒药物治疗（ART）,在6个月的随访结束时均未发生血清阳转.结论HIV暴露后及时处理,及早用药可降低HIV感染的危险.     

喀什地区HIV职业暴露情况分析

目的了解喀什地区艾滋病病毒(HIV)职业暴露现状和职业暴露后应急预防处理的情况,完善预防HIV职业暴露感染的防控措施。方法收集喀什地区2010-2013年报告的HIV职业暴露案例,分析其发生的原因、应急处理情况、预防用药及时性及预防效果。结果喀什地区2010-2013年共计报告68例HIV职业暴露者,医务人员52例(占76.47%),公安人员16例(占23.53%)。暴露方式针刺占70.59%。暴露级别Ⅰ级为61例,Ⅱ级7例。75.00%(51/68)的人进行了预防性服药,服药者中68.63%(35/51)的人采取了合理的服药方案。所有病例医学观察6个月后,均未发现HIV抗体阳转。结论医务人员和公安人员是HIV职业暴露的高发人群,应加强HIV职业暴露的宣传和防护;目前执行的职业暴露应急措施安全、有效。     

What you need to know to educate patients about PEP

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) has been used for years for health care workers who are potentially exposed to HIV through needle sticks and other injuries involving blood or body fluids. PEP has never been routinely used for HIV exposure from unprotected sex, needle sharing with HIV-infected people, or for infants' exposure through breast milk. Ethical and practical concerns are raised related to widening the audience for PEP. No recommendations for using PEP from non-occupational exposure are available, and potential drawbacks from severe side effects and the high cost of treatment exist.     

Numerical benefits low for non-occupational PEP

The costs associated with post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for non-occupational HIV exposure would only benefit a relatively low number of people, making it unlikely that wide-scale PEP programs will be initiated. PEP is used now in sexual assault cases where the assailant is known to be HIV-positive or be at high risk of being infected. PEP has been considered for injection drug users, who make up one-third of all new HIV cases. PEP is not attractive as a public health alternative when cost-benefit issues are considered.     

Post-exposure prophylaxis following non-occupational exposure to HIV: risks, uncertainties, and ethics

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is the standard of care for occupational exposure to HIV infection although it has not been evaluated following non-occupational exposure. Although the most effective methods for preventing HIV infection remain those that prevent exposure to HIV in the first place, this article discusses the dilemmas surrounding post-exposure therapy following non-occupational exposure.     

Post-exposure prophylaxis after occupational and non-occupational exposures to HIV: an overview of the policies implemented in 27 European countries

The aim of this survey, which was part of an English-French project supported by the Commission of the European Communities, was to compare access to HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) in the occupational and non-occupational contexts in 27 European countries. A protocol was designed in May 1998 in collaboration with all country consultants. Data were collected at country level by each consultant through interviews, review of local and national recommendations and results of national or local surveys. The final comparative analysis was carried out from the individual country reports and a review of the literature. The large majority of European countries have detailed procedures regarding occupational PEP: 20/27 have produced national guidelines, three have adopted the US CDC recommendations and only four have no official recommendations. Although no standard protocol exists, the more common one is a four-week implementation of a triple combination therapy. In the context of non-occupational exposure to HIV, only five countries have guidelines with specific recommendations and one country has adopted the CDC recommendations. In the majority of cases (13 countries), PEP is never recommended but is only available in a few circumstances, sometimes with major limitations. In the last eight countries, such PEP is not currently available. Although the estimations of HIV transmission risks in occupational and non-occupational contexts are really comparables, easy access to PEP after accidental sexual or blood exposures is not guaranteed for the general population in the majority of European countries.     

Scientific basis for PEP rests in animal trials

The efficacy of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) in treating non-occupational HIV exposure is not yet known, primarily due to the inability to conduct a double-blind, randomized study. Clinical monkey trials have shown that treatment given within 24 hours after exposure can protect the animals from SIV. However, the only data for humans is from a 1995 case-control study of exposed health care workers, and from ACTG 076, a clinical trial that showed that AZT could reduce perinatal HIV transmission by two-thirds. To that end, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hopes to collect more data from a registry through which it monitors more than 2,000 exposed health care workers who have received treatment.     

Haemodynamic crisis and reversible multiorgan failure caused by HIV post-exposure prophylaxis after needle-stick injury in a health care worker

We report the case of a 59-year-old nurse from our HIV ward who developed a severe haemodynamic crisis with concomitant acute multiorgan failure after initiation of a post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with zidovudine/lamivudine (Combivir^TM) and lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra^TM) after a needle-stick injury with an HIV-contaminated needle. Although serious and life-threatening adverse effects of post-exposure prophylaxis have been documented in several cases, this is the first report of a severe acute cardiovascular incident following PEP initiation.     

Challenges in HIV post-exposure prophylaxis for occupational injuries in a large teaching hospital in Malawi

We describe the evaluation of the HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) programme for occupational injuries in Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, Blantyre, Malawi. An audit was performed 1 year after introduction, by reviewing files of all clients who sought advice regarding PEP. In addition, the incidence of occupational injuries and awareness of the programme were assessed through interviews with nurses. The logistics of the programme were adequate. Of 29 clients who reported occupational injuries,19 started PEP. Only double antiretroviral drug therapy was available; side-effects were common but generally mild. Attendance of scheduled follow-up visits was poor, and few HIV test results after completion of PEP were obtained. Interviews with nurses revealed a high incidence of occupational injuries, but many did not report for advice about PEP; mostly because of unawareness of the programme and a reluctance to be tested for HIV.