PEDIATRICS Vol. 108 No. 2 August 2001, p. e38
Received Jan 25, 2001; accepted Apr 10, 2001.
From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai School
of Medicine, New York, New York.
Children and adolescents are at risk for human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Transmission occurs through
perinatal exposures, injecting drug use, consensual and nonconsensual
sex, needle-stick and sharp injuries, and possibly some unusual
contacts. Youth engaging in high-risk sexual activities are especially
endangered. Half of the estimated worldwide 5.3 million new HIV
infections occur in adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 24. Of
20 000 known new adult and adolescent cases in the United States, 25% involve 13- to 21-year-olds. More than 1.4 million children worldwide (aged 15 and younger) are believed to be infected, and >1640 new cases
are diagnosed daily. Of the 432 000 people reported to be living with
HIV or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in the United States,
5575 are children under 13.
HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is a form of secondary HIV
prevention that may reduce the incidence of HIV infections. HIV PEP is
commonly conceived of as 2 types: occupational and nonoccupational.
Occupational HIV PEP is an accepted form of therapy for health care
workers exposed to HIV through their jobs. A landmark study of
healthcare workers concluded that occupational HIV PEP may be
efficacious. Well-established US national guidelines for occupational
HIV PEP exist for this at-risk population.
Nonoccupational HIV PEP includes all other forms of HIV PEP, such as
that given after sexual assault and consensual sex, injecting drug use,
and needle-stick and sharp injuries in non-health care persons.
Pediatric HIV PEP is typically the nonoccupational type. The efficacy
of nonoccupational HIV PEP is unknown. The presumed efficacy is based
on a collection of animal and human data concerning occupational,
perinatal, and nonoccupational exposures to HIV. In contrast to
occupational HIV PEP, there are no national US guidelines for
nonoccupational HIV PEP, and few recommendations are available for its
use for adolescents and children. Regardless of this absence, there is
encouraging evidence supporting the value of HIV PEP in its various
forms in pediatrics.
Although unproven, the presumed mechanism for HIV PEP comes from animal
and human work suggesting that shortly after an exposure to HIV, a
window period exists during which the viral load is small enough to be
controlled by the body's immune system. Antiretroviral medications
given during this period may help to diminish or end viral replication,
thereby reducing the viral inoculum to a more potentially manageable
target for the host's defenses.
HIV PEP is accepted practice in the perinatal setting and for health
care workers with occupational injuries. The medical literature
supports prescribing HIV PEP after community needle-stick and sharp
injuries and after sexual assault from sources known or
likely to be HIV-infected. HIV PEP after consensual
unprotected intercourse between HIV sero-opposite partners
has had growing use in the adult population, and can probably
be utilized for children and adolescents. There is less documented
experience and support for HIV PEP after consensual unprotected
intercourse between partners of unknown HIV status, after prolonged or
multiple episodes of sexual abuse from an assailant of unknown
HIV status, after bites, and after the sharing of personal
hygiene items or exposure to wounds of HIV-infected
individuals.
There are no formal guidelines for HIV PEP in adolescents and children.
A few groups have commented on its provision in pediatrics, and some
preliminary studies have been released. Our article provides a
discussion of the data available on HIV transmission and HIV PEP in
pediatrics.
In our article, we propose an HIV PEP approach for adolescents and
children. We recommend a stratified regimen, based on the work of
Gerberding and Katz and other authors, that attempts to match
seroconversion risk with an appropriate number of medications, while
taking into account adverse side-effects and the amount of information
that is typically available upon initial presentation. Twice daily
regimens should be used when possible, and may improve compliance. HIV
PEP should be administered within 1 hour of exposure. We strongly
recommend that physicians trained in this form of therapy review the
indications for HIV PEP within 72 hours of its provision. We advocate
that due diligence in determining level of risk and appropriateness of
drug selection be conducted as soon as possible after an exposure has
occurred. When such information is not immediately available, we
recommend the rapid treatment using the maximum level of care followed
by careful investigation and reconsideration in follow-up or whenever
possible. HIV PEP may be initiated provisionally after an exposure and
then discontinued if the exposure source is confirmed to not be
HIV-infected. In most cases, consultations with the experts in HIV care
can occur after the rapid start of therapy. We also concur with other
authors that HIV PEP be given in a therapeutic milieu that encourages compliance with the regimen, support for the psychological or physical
trauma that is sometimes associated with the exposure, and/or intensive
means to reduce additional HIV exposures.
Our article is an attempt to review the collected experience and
scientific underpinnings of HIV PEP in pediatrics, as well as to offer
some guidance so that health care providers can make better informed
choices regarding its use. We strongly encourage the continued
monitoring and research of HIV PEP provision in all of its forms
so that its appropriate usage can be determined.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
L. O'Keefe Guidance issued on prophylaxis for kids exposed to HIV AAP News, December 1, 2003; 23(6): 297 - 297. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||