An ongoing dialogue on HIV/AIDS, infectious diseases,
October 21st, 2008
Back to School, Day 4: PEP and More PEP
After a lecture on HIV for Primary Care Providers in our course last week, the most controversial topic was, not surprisingly, the use of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for both occupational and non-occupational exposures. And today, after an entire lecture on PEP to a group of HIV providers in our AIDS course, again the subject drew numerous questions — and strong opinions — from the audience.
Since this is a relatively data-free zone, one turns to the guidelines for advice. But not surprisingly, they offer tons of wiggle room for a clinician to do pretty much anything he or she wants in all but the most florid exposures or non-exposures.
(Can there be a florid non-exposure?)
So here’s a case we just posted on AIDS Clinical Care. (Drawn from real life, of course.) Emergency room resident sticks herself with a needle while suturing a patient’s wound, a patient who’s HIV positive with an undetectable viral load on treatment. Oh, and the resident is pregnant.
To give PEP or not to give PEP?
Categories: Antiretroviral Rounds, Health Care, HIV, Infectious Diseases, Medical Education, Patient Care
Tags: blood-borne pathogens, HIV, medical resident, occupational exposure, PEP, post-exposure prophylaxis
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
7 Responses to “Back to School, Day 4: PEP and More PEP”

Paul E. Sax, MD
Associate Editor
NEJM Clinician
Biography | Disclosures & Summaries
Learn more about HIV and ID Observations.
Pages
Archives
- March 2026
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
Categories
- Antiretroviral Rounds (21)
- Health Care (786)
- HIV (405)
- Infectious Diseases (619)
- Medical Education (129)
- Misc (55)
- Patient Care (522)
- Policy (230)
- Research (217)
- Uncategorized (1)
-
Tag Cloud
- Abacavir AIDS antibiotics antiretroviral therapy ART atazanavir baseball Brush with Greatness CDC C diff COVID-19 CROI darunavir dolutegravir elvitegravir etravirine FDA HCV hepatitis C HIV HIV cure HIV testing ID fellowship ID Learning Unit Infectious Diseases influenza Link-o-Rama lyme disease medical education MRSA PEP PrEP prevention primary care raltegravir Really Rapid Review resistance Retrovirus Conference rilpivirine sofosbuvir TDF/FTC tenofovir Thanksgiving vaccines zoster

1) There has never been an occupational case of HIV infection following an injury with a suture needle. The amount of blood on solid needles is negligible and it has never been sufficient to transmit the infection. The percutaneous rate of 0.3% we estimated in our 22-year surveillance of the risk of HIV infection following occupational exposures in the Studio Italiano Rischio Occupazionale da HIV (SIROH) is related to hollow-bore, blood-filled needles, apart from one case following a cut with a scalpel in which the HCW’s finger was in direct contact with the blood of the patient. Moreover, approximately 50% of the material on the needle will remain on the surgical glove. 2) The source patient’s viral load is undetectable. 3) When giving PEP, remember that severe (requiring hospitalization) adverse effects occur in 0.7% of cases. In conclusion, my advice to thisw HCW, that I gave and give in similar cases, would be that PEP is not indicated, regardless of whether the HCW is pregnant or not.
In response to Dr. De Carli’s comments, I agree that there has not been a documented report of HIV transmission after injury with a suture needle, but that does not mean the risk of transmission is zero– absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence. As you mentioned, there have been reports of transmission following scalpel injuries. There have also been reports of HIV-infected health care providers where clear occupational exposure have not been documented but one could imagine underreporting in some instances. With that said, I agree that to observe her off antivirals seems very reasonable since the serious adverse effects of antivirals (while small) could be greater than benefit given the very low risk of transmission in this case. In keeping with CDC guidelines, I would follow this patient for at least 6 months after exposure with periodic HIV antibody testing. If the skin had remained completely intact without abrasion then I would conclude that there was zero risk for HIV transmission and would not consider antiviral PEP. I would be curious to know whether Dr. De Carli would perform periodic HIV antibody testing in this case?
There has never been a case of an occupational transmission of HIV to a surgeon by a finger stick using a suture needle in the United States,(that we know of), over 20 years into the HIV epidemic and who knows how many thousands of similar finger sticks. Surely this, coupled with the patients undetectable viral load, make transmission of HIV virtually zero. So long story short not offering PEP would also be correct.
I had to present to our surgery colleagues earlier this year regarding HIV and as it concerns surgeons. As Dr. Mariuz stated, there are no reported cases of HIV transmission via solid needle in the population of surgeons that we know of. I found interesting during my presentation how many surgeons still do not double glove. I wonder if the double vs single gloving question would change the answer of anyone regarding this case. I also wonder why one would follow guidelines in this case and give two drugs vs three. We already know what the patient is on, why not use a similar regimen like combivir/boosted reyataz. My feeling would be, if giving PEP…”GIVE IT” i.e. three drugs. If not, then observe.
>>I also wonder why one would follow guidelines in this case and give two drugs vs three.
The “scientific” argument is that 2 drugs are better tolerated than 3, and hence adherence is going to be better as well.
But I tend to agree that if you’re going to give PEP, you might as well go the whole way to 3 drugs. I use the 2 drug approach for those who don’t need PEP at all, but are simply too anxious not to take something.
If after suture incident to fingure (double glove case) the resident starts on Combivir and the HIV tests (antibodies) for the patient, being treated by the resident, turns out to be negative,. how long should the resident continue the drug or should he/she stop immdiately
>>how long should the resident continue the drug or should he/she stop immdiately.
If the source patient tests negative, Combivir can be stopped! This is one of the great (but underutilized) settings for rapid HIV testing …
Only exception to this rule is if the source patient might have acute HIV — a rare event, and one that generally would be evident clinically if one is thinking of it.