| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2013 | Volume
: 27
| Issue : 2 | Page : 131-134 |
|
|
Post-exposure prophylaxis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection - A RIMS experience
Ksh Mamta Devi, H Rebachandra Singh, Kh Sulochana Devi, Ng Brajachand Singh
Department of Microbiology, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India
Correspondence Address:
Ksh Mamta Devi
Department of Microbiology, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal - 795 004, Manipur
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0972-4958.121588
|
|
|
Objective: Health care workers (HCW) are at risk of occupational exposure to HIV. The purpose of this study is to carry out post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) after exposure among self reported personals and analyze them. Materials and Methods: Two hundred and twenty five (225) cases of accidental exposure were self reported in the Department of Microbiology from January 2001 till December 2011. Relevant data were recorded and analyzed. HIV antibody testing was done for the status of the source person. A baseline testing for HIV antibody was done before giving PEP. Post exposure testing was done at 3 months and at 6 months. PEP was given as per NACO guidelines. Results: Out of the 225 cases, maximum exposure (109 cases) happened in the age group of 25-34 years. Males were more exposed than females. Majority of the cases (38.6%) reported were doctors followed by nurses (23.1%), laboratory technicians (5.3%) and grade 4 workers (3.1%). 29.7% were outsiders. 39.1% cases reported in less than 2 hours after exposure, 57.7% reported between 2 to 72 hours and 3.1% took more than 72 hours. 59.5% of exposed population were vaccinated against Hepatitis B. Needle stick injury was the commonest form of exposure (65%), followed by spillage and splash (15%), sexual exposure ( 17%), human bite (2.6%) and sharp cut (2.2%). All post exposure testing were found to be non reactive. Conclusion: Needle prick injury is the most common cause of occupational exposure to HIV infection. PEP is protective against transmission of HIV among the exposed HCWs. There is a need for sensitising the HCWs regarding the importance of PEP. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
