5PSQ-037 Analysis of human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis in a third-level hospital

BackgroundThe World Health Organisation recognises the need to improve uptake and completion rates for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP).PurposeTo analyse PEP dispensed by the pharmacy service to patients after an occupational (OE) or nonoccupational (NOE) exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus (...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice 2019-03, Vol.26 (Suppl 1), p.A218-A219
Hauptverfasser: Estaun, C, Moya-Carmona, I, Sánchez-Yañez, E, Fernández-Ovies, JM
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page A219
container_issue Suppl 1
container_start_page A218
container_title European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice
container_volume 26
creator Estaun, C
Moya-Carmona, I
Sánchez-Yañez, E
Fernández-Ovies, JM
description BackgroundThe World Health Organisation recognises the need to improve uptake and completion rates for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP).PurposeTo analyse PEP dispensed by the pharmacy service to patients after an occupational (OE) or nonoccupational (NOE) exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).To compare usual clinical practice in our centre for PEP to European acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) Clinical Society guidelines.1Material and methodsA descriptive, observational and retrospective study performed in a third-level hospital regarding PEP dispensed from January 2015 to March 2018. The following data were retrieved from an electronic prescription program management tool (outpatients’ clinical module) and electronic clinical records: sex, age, year, time from exposure, nature of exposure (sexual contact (SC) vs blood contact (BC)), OE vs NOE, service of the prescribing doctor, antiretroviral drugs (AD) prescribed, following monitoring in outpatient visit, positive infection detected after PEP, further episodes of PEP and positive infection nowadays.We reviewed the current version of the European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines.1ResultsCurrent guidelines recommend 4 week treatment with AD after OE or NOE as early as possible (no later than 48/72 hours). PEP regimen: emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxilfumarato (FTC/TDF)+raltegravir (RAL) or darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r). Re-evaluation of PEP indication by HIV experts is recommended within 48–72 hours.Clinical records of 57 patients were analysed: distribution per year 2015 24.5% (n=14), 2016 33.3% (n=19), 2017 33.3% (n=19), 2018 8.7% (n=5). Median age 29.9 years, 77.2% (n=44) males. Time from exposure
doi_str_mv 10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.470
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_bmj_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2190012153</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2190012153</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1260-d652f3a94777ab7b0456909fe4366a26a2776feda8426a7782e369be1dc9d3c13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kNtKAzEQhoMoWGrfIeh1ak6bNJeleIKCinodsrsJm7Ink27p3nnji_okptQKwxxg5mf-D4BrgueEMHFrN1VfmdAgiolC1lR90bVuziU-AxOKuURKCX7-32fiEsxi9DnOGFsoztQEuOzl7RVhJn--vpetqcfoI-wcrIbGtNA3zdB2pXW-8LYtRrjzYYiw7-LW7lMegoV96PpqrM0-HfoWGritfChRbXe2hlUXe7819RW4cKaOdvZXp-Dj_u599YjWzw9Pq-Ua5YQKjEqRUceM4lJKk8sc80worJzlTAhDU0gpnC3NgqdBygW1TKjckrJQJSsIm4Kbo2766nOwcas33RCSr6gpURgTSpL3KciOW3mz0X3wjQmjJlgfqOoTVX2gqk9UdaLKfgH4jXH1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2190012153</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>5PSQ-037 Analysis of human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis in a third-level hospital</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Estaun, C ; Moya-Carmona, I ; Sánchez-Yañez, E ; Fernández-Ovies, JM</creator><creatorcontrib>Estaun, C ; Moya-Carmona, I ; Sánchez-Yañez, E ; Fernández-Ovies, JM</creatorcontrib><description>BackgroundThe World Health Organisation recognises the need to improve uptake and completion rates for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP).PurposeTo analyse PEP dispensed by the pharmacy service to patients after an occupational (OE) or nonoccupational (NOE) exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).To compare usual clinical practice in our centre for PEP to European acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) Clinical Society guidelines.1Material and methodsA descriptive, observational and retrospective study performed in a third-level hospital regarding PEP dispensed from January 2015 to March 2018. The following data were retrieved from an electronic prescription program management tool (outpatients’ clinical module) and electronic clinical records: sex, age, year, time from exposure, nature of exposure (sexual contact (SC) vs blood contact (BC)), OE vs NOE, service of the prescribing doctor, antiretroviral drugs (AD) prescribed, following monitoring in outpatient visit, positive infection detected after PEP, further episodes of PEP and positive infection nowadays.We reviewed the current version of the European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines.1ResultsCurrent guidelines recommend 4 week treatment with AD after OE or NOE as early as possible (no later than 48/72 hours). PEP regimen: emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxilfumarato (FTC/TDF)+raltegravir (RAL) or darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r). Re-evaluation of PEP indication by HIV experts is recommended within 48–72 hours.Clinical records of 57 patients were analysed: distribution per year 2015 24.5% (n=14), 2016 33.3% (n=19), 2017 33.3% (n=19), 2018 8.7% (n=5). Median age 29.9 years, 77.2% (n=44) males. Time from exposure &lt;72 hour in 66.6% (n=38) of patients. Nature of exposure SC 61.4% (n=35), BC 14% (n=8), rest unknown. NOE 77,2% (n=44). Preventive medicine doctors prescribed 78.9% (n=45) of PEP, emergency room doctors 14% (n=8), and infectious diseases doctors 7% (n=4). AD prescribed were: elvitegravir/cobicistat/TDF/FTC 80.7% (n=46), RAL +TDF/FTC 15.7% (n=9), LPV/r+TDF/FTC 3.5% (n=2). Monitoring in outpatient visit 51.7% (n=30). Nopositive HIV infection was registered. Further episodes of PEP 5.2% (n=3).ConclusionPEP is more frequently prescribed in young males after NOE by SC, and in our centre is not uniform regarding prescribing doctor, AD used or subsequent monitoring of patients.Our clinical practice differs from European guidelines in AD use and patient monitoring. In order to comply with those guidelines, we will implement a protocol to optimise PEP prescription and patient follow-up.References and/or acknowledgements1. European AIDS Clinical Society (2017). EACS guidelines version 9.0, October 2017.No conflict of interest.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2047-9956</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2047-9964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.470</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome ; AIDS ; Clinical medicine ; HIV ; Human immunodeficiency virus ; Infections ; Patients</subject><ispartof>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2019-03, Vol.26 (Suppl 1), p.A218-A219</ispartof><rights>2019, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>2019 2019, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Estaun, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moya-Carmona, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sánchez-Yañez, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fernández-Ovies, JM</creatorcontrib><title>5PSQ-037 Analysis of human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis in a third-level hospital</title><title>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</title><description>BackgroundThe World Health Organisation recognises the need to improve uptake and completion rates for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP).PurposeTo analyse PEP dispensed by the pharmacy service to patients after an occupational (OE) or nonoccupational (NOE) exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).To compare usual clinical practice in our centre for PEP to European acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) Clinical Society guidelines.1Material and methodsA descriptive, observational and retrospective study performed in a third-level hospital regarding PEP dispensed from January 2015 to March 2018. The following data were retrieved from an electronic prescription program management tool (outpatients’ clinical module) and electronic clinical records: sex, age, year, time from exposure, nature of exposure (sexual contact (SC) vs blood contact (BC)), OE vs NOE, service of the prescribing doctor, antiretroviral drugs (AD) prescribed, following monitoring in outpatient visit, positive infection detected after PEP, further episodes of PEP and positive infection nowadays.We reviewed the current version of the European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines.1ResultsCurrent guidelines recommend 4 week treatment with AD after OE or NOE as early as possible (no later than 48/72 hours). PEP regimen: emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxilfumarato (FTC/TDF)+raltegravir (RAL) or darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r). Re-evaluation of PEP indication by HIV experts is recommended within 48–72 hours.Clinical records of 57 patients were analysed: distribution per year 2015 24.5% (n=14), 2016 33.3% (n=19), 2017 33.3% (n=19), 2018 8.7% (n=5). Median age 29.9 years, 77.2% (n=44) males. Time from exposure &lt;72 hour in 66.6% (n=38) of patients. Nature of exposure SC 61.4% (n=35), BC 14% (n=8), rest unknown. NOE 77,2% (n=44). Preventive medicine doctors prescribed 78.9% (n=45) of PEP, emergency room doctors 14% (n=8), and infectious diseases doctors 7% (n=4). AD prescribed were: elvitegravir/cobicistat/TDF/FTC 80.7% (n=46), RAL +TDF/FTC 15.7% (n=9), LPV/r+TDF/FTC 3.5% (n=2). Monitoring in outpatient visit 51.7% (n=30). Nopositive HIV infection was registered. Further episodes of PEP 5.2% (n=3).ConclusionPEP is more frequently prescribed in young males after NOE by SC, and in our centre is not uniform regarding prescribing doctor, AD used or subsequent monitoring of patients.Our clinical practice differs from European guidelines in AD use and patient monitoring. In order to comply with those guidelines, we will implement a protocol to optimise PEP prescription and patient follow-up.References and/or acknowledgements1. European AIDS Clinical Society (2017). EACS guidelines version 9.0, October 2017.No conflict of interest.</description><subject>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome</subject><subject>AIDS</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>HIV</subject><subject>Human immunodeficiency virus</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Patients</subject><issn>2047-9956</issn><issn>2047-9964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kNtKAzEQhoMoWGrfIeh1ak6bNJeleIKCinodsrsJm7Ink27p3nnji_okptQKwxxg5mf-D4BrgueEMHFrN1VfmdAgiolC1lR90bVuziU-AxOKuURKCX7-32fiEsxi9DnOGFsoztQEuOzl7RVhJn--vpetqcfoI-wcrIbGtNA3zdB2pXW-8LYtRrjzYYiw7-LW7lMegoV96PpqrM0-HfoWGritfChRbXe2hlUXe7819RW4cKaOdvZXp-Dj_u599YjWzw9Pq-Ua5YQKjEqRUceM4lJKk8sc80worJzlTAhDU0gpnC3NgqdBygW1TKjckrJQJSsIm4Kbo2766nOwcas33RCSr6gpURgTSpL3KciOW3mz0X3wjQmjJlgfqOoTVX2gqk9UdaLKfgH4jXH1</recordid><startdate>201903</startdate><enddate>201903</enddate><creator>Estaun, C</creator><creator>Moya-Carmona, I</creator><creator>Sánchez-Yañez, E</creator><creator>Fernández-Ovies, JM</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201903</creationdate><title>5PSQ-037 Analysis of human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis in a third-level hospital</title><author>Estaun, C ; Moya-Carmona, I ; Sánchez-Yañez, E ; Fernández-Ovies, JM</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1260-d652f3a94777ab7b0456909fe4366a26a2776feda8426a7782e369be1dc9d3c13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome</topic><topic>AIDS</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>HIV</topic><topic>Human immunodeficiency virus</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Patients</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Estaun, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moya-Carmona, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sánchez-Yañez, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fernández-Ovies, JM</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Estaun, C</au><au>Moya-Carmona, I</au><au>Sánchez-Yañez, E</au><au>Fernández-Ovies, JM</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>5PSQ-037 Analysis of human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis in a third-level hospital</atitle><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle><date>2019-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>A218</spage><epage>A219</epage><pages>A218-A219</pages><issn>2047-9956</issn><eissn>2047-9964</eissn><abstract>BackgroundThe World Health Organisation recognises the need to improve uptake and completion rates for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP).PurposeTo analyse PEP dispensed by the pharmacy service to patients after an occupational (OE) or nonoccupational (NOE) exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).To compare usual clinical practice in our centre for PEP to European acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) Clinical Society guidelines.1Material and methodsA descriptive, observational and retrospective study performed in a third-level hospital regarding PEP dispensed from January 2015 to March 2018. The following data were retrieved from an electronic prescription program management tool (outpatients’ clinical module) and electronic clinical records: sex, age, year, time from exposure, nature of exposure (sexual contact (SC) vs blood contact (BC)), OE vs NOE, service of the prescribing doctor, antiretroviral drugs (AD) prescribed, following monitoring in outpatient visit, positive infection detected after PEP, further episodes of PEP and positive infection nowadays.We reviewed the current version of the European AIDS Clinical Society guidelines.1ResultsCurrent guidelines recommend 4 week treatment with AD after OE or NOE as early as possible (no later than 48/72 hours). PEP regimen: emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxilfumarato (FTC/TDF)+raltegravir (RAL) or darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r). Re-evaluation of PEP indication by HIV experts is recommended within 48–72 hours.Clinical records of 57 patients were analysed: distribution per year 2015 24.5% (n=14), 2016 33.3% (n=19), 2017 33.3% (n=19), 2018 8.7% (n=5). Median age 29.9 years, 77.2% (n=44) males. Time from exposure &lt;72 hour in 66.6% (n=38) of patients. Nature of exposure SC 61.4% (n=35), BC 14% (n=8), rest unknown. NOE 77,2% (n=44). Preventive medicine doctors prescribed 78.9% (n=45) of PEP, emergency room doctors 14% (n=8), and infectious diseases doctors 7% (n=4). AD prescribed were: elvitegravir/cobicistat/TDF/FTC 80.7% (n=46), RAL +TDF/FTC 15.7% (n=9), LPV/r+TDF/FTC 3.5% (n=2). Monitoring in outpatient visit 51.7% (n=30). Nopositive HIV infection was registered. Further episodes of PEP 5.2% (n=3).ConclusionPEP is more frequently prescribed in young males after NOE by SC, and in our centre is not uniform regarding prescribing doctor, AD used or subsequent monitoring of patients.Our clinical practice differs from European guidelines in AD use and patient monitoring. In order to comply with those guidelines, we will implement a protocol to optimise PEP prescription and patient follow-up.References and/or acknowledgements1. European AIDS Clinical Society (2017). EACS guidelines version 9.0, October 2017.No conflict of interest.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><doi>10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.470</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2047-9956
ispartof European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2019-03, Vol.26 (Suppl 1), p.A218-A219
issn 2047-9956
2047-9964
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2190012153
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Acquired immune deficiency syndrome
AIDS
Clinical medicine
HIV
Human immunodeficiency virus
Infections
Patients
title 5PSQ-037 Analysis of human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis in a third-level hospital
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T21%3A35%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_bmj_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=5PSQ-037%E2%80%85Analysis%20of%20human%20immunodeficiency%20virus%20postexposure%20prophylaxis%20in%20a%20third-level%20hospital&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20hospital%20pharmacy.%20Science%20and%20practice&rft.au=Estaun,%20C&rft.date=2019-03&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=A218&rft.epage=A219&rft.pages=A218-A219&rft.issn=2047-9956&rft.eissn=2047-9964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.470&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_bmj_p%3E2190012153%3C/proquest_bmj_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2190012153&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true