Cited by 377HIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsInfection Control in HealthcareHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment

Updated US Public Health Service guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to human immunodeficiency virus and recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis.

Kuhar, David T., Henderson, David K., Struble, Kimberly A., Heneine, Walid, Thomas, Vasavi, Cheever, Laura W., Gomaa, Ahmed, Panlilio, Adelisa L. +1 more·2013·Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology

Abstract

This report updates US Public Health Service recommendations for the management of healthcare personnel (HCP) who experience occupational exposure to blood and/or other body fluids that might contain human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Although the principles of exposure management remain unchanged, recommended HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) regimens and the duration of HIV follow-up testing for exposed personnel have been updated. This report emphasizes the importance of primary prevention strategies, the prompt reporting and management of occupational exposures, adherence to recommended HIV PEP regimens when indicated for an exposure, expert consultation in management of exposures, follow-up of exposed HCP to improve adherence to PEP, and careful monitoring for adverse events related to treatment, as well as for virologic, immunologic, and serologic signs of infection. To ensure timely postexposure management and administration of HIV PEP, clinicians should consider occupational exposures as urgent medical concerns, and institutions should take steps to ensure that staff are aware of both the importance of and the institutional mechanisms available for reporting and seeking care for such exposures. The following is a summary of recommendations: (1) PEP is recommended when occupational exposures to HIV occur; (2) the HIV status of the exposure source patient should be determined, if possible, to guide need for HIV PEP; (3) PEP medication regimens should be started as soon as possible after occupational exposure to HIV, and they should be continued for a 4-week duration; (4) new recommendation-PEP medication regimens should contain 3 (or more) antiretroviral drugs (listed in Appendix A ) for all occupational exposures to HIV; (5) expert consultation is recommended for any occupational exposures to HIV and at a minimum for situations described in Box 1 ; (6) close follow-up for exposed personnel ( Box 2 ) should be provided that includes counseling, baseline and follow-up HIV testing, and monitoring for drug toxicity; follow-up appointments should begin within 72 hours of an HIV exposure; and (7) new recommendation-if a newer fourth-generation combination HIV p24 antigen-HIV antibody test is utilized for follow-up HIV testing of exposed HCP, HIV testing may be concluded 4 months after exposure ( Box 2 ); if a newer testing platform is not available, follow-up HIV testing is typically concluded 6 months after an HIV exposure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/672271

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Severe adverse effects are rare from PEP.

    “Providers should emphasize that severe adverse effects are rare from PEP (1431–1435).”

    From Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [1431]

    The sections on PEP toxicity say that side effects are often manageable and recommend monitoring for serious adverse effects, but they do not state how often severe effects occur. A search for the frequency of severe or serious PEP adverse effects found no passage establishing that they are rare. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [16]16. Transmission of HIV by human bite. Lancet 1987;2(8557):522.
  2. [20]20. Andreo SM, Barra LA, Costa LJ, Sucupira MC, Souza IE, Diaz RS. HIV type 1 transmission by human bite. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2004;20(4):349-350.
  3. [15]15. Italian multicenter study. Arch Intern Med 1993;153(12):14511458.
  4. [40]40. Puro V, DeCarli G, Soldani F, et al. Adverse drug reactions associated with PEP. Presented at: 10th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, 2003, Boston. Poster 711.
  5. [45]45. Perdue B, Wolfe Rufael D, Mellors J, Quinn T, Margolick J. HIV-1 transmission by a needle-stick injury despite rapid initiation of four-drug postexposure prophylaxis. Presented at: 6th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, 1999, Chicago.
  6. [68]68. Kim D, Wheeler W, Ziebell R, et al. Prevalence of transmitted antiretroviral drug resistance among newly-diagnosed HIV-1infected persons, US, 2007. Presented at: CROI 2010: 17th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, 2010, San Francisco.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kuhar, D. T., Henderson, D. K., Struble, K. A., Heneine, W., Thomas, V., Cheever, L. W., Gomaa, A., Panlilio, A. L., & US Public Health Service Working Group
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • Health Resources and Services Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Kuhar, David T.
Venue
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
Published
2013-09
Volume
34
Issue
9
Pages
875-892
ISSN
  • 0899-823X (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-6834
OpenAlex
W2121551893
Cited by
377
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 9
FWCI
36.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Gilead Sciences
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Keywords
occupational HIV exposure, healthcare workers, post-exposure prophylaxis, HIV prevention, antiretroviral therapy, exposure reporting, drug toxicity monitoring, primary prevention
MeSH terms
Emergency Medicine, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Occupational Diseases, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, HIV Infections, Occupational Exposure, Anti-HIV Agents, Post-Exposure Prophylaxis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review