Advertisement

 

 

[Post-exposure prophylaxis against HIV, do we use our resources appropriately?]

[Post-exposure prophylaxis against HIV, do we use our resources appropriately?]
Author Information (click to view)

Escudero-Sánchez R, Kurt Meier-de-Taboada CJ, Bartolome-García E, Rodríguez-de-Bethencourt-Sanjuan PM, Losa-García JE,


Escudero-Sánchez R, Kurt Meier-de-Taboada CJ, Bartolome-García E, Rodríguez-de-Bethencourt-Sanjuan PM, Losa-García JE, (click to view)

Escudero-Sánchez R, Kurt Meier-de-Taboada CJ, Bartolome-García E, Rodríguez-de-Bethencourt-Sanjuan PM, Losa-García JE,

Advertisement
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia 2017 06 1430(4) 293-296 pii

Abstract
OBJECTIVE
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) against human immunodeficiency virus can be occupational, non-occupational or vertical transmission. The aim of our study was to analyse the indication and treatment carried out in a hospital.

METHODS
Retrospective observational study that included all patients who received PEP between 2006 and 2014. The project was approved by the Committee for Ethics in Clinical Research.

RESULTS
We evaluated 54 PEP, which were started at 11.8 hours’ average. The antiretroviral drugs were adequately chosen, but the duration pattern did not adjusted to the recommendations published at that time. Tolerance was good, being gastrointestinal symptoms the most frequent adverse effects; only once was necessary to replace the pattern. There were usual losses during follow up, reaching in some subgroups 50%.

CONCLUSIONS
Indication and choice of drugs were adequate in the three kinds of contact risks, but monitoring should improve.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

one × three =

[ HIDE/SHOW ]