This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (7)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Henderson's review of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for occupational exposures to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)¹ is an excellent summary of the scientific basis for providing PEP for HIV. These studies form the basis for the US Public Health Service Guidelines² for PEP and contribute to a safer workplace for health care workers.

However, based on our experience with the National Clinicians' Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Hotline (PEPline), we have found that the interpretation of these guidelines, often by clinicians without extensive experience with antiretroviral therapy, can be less straightforward than suggested by Henderson. The PEPline (1-888-HIV-4911), funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), provides 24-hour-a-day advice regarding the management of occupational exposures to blood-borne pathogens for health care workers and the clinicians caring for them.

In the 4253 consultations we provided in the first year of PEPline operation (from . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Postexposure Chemoprophylaxis for Occupational Exposures to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus
David K. Henderson
JAMA. 1999;281(10):931-936.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT