Comparing non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis drug regimens for HIV: insights from a linked HIV surveillance system

Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis After Sexual, Injection Drug Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV - CDC Recommendations, United States, 2025

Nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) for HIV is recommended when a nonoccupational (e.g., sexual, needle, or other) exposure to nonintact skin or mucous membranes that presents a substantial risk for HIV transmission has occurred, and the source has HIV without sustained viral suppression or their viral suppression information is not known. A rapid HIV test (also referred to as point-of-care) or laboratory-based antigen/antibody combination HIV test is recommended before nPEP initiation. Health care professionals should ensure the first dose of nPEP is provided as soon as possible, and ideally within 24 hours, but no later than 72 hours after exposure. The initial nPEP dose should not be delayed due to pending results of any laboratory-based testing, and the recommended length of nPEP course is 28 days. The recommendations in these guidelines update the 2016 nPEP guidelines (CDC. Updated guidelines for antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, injection drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV - United States, 2016. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2017). These 2025 nPEP guidelines update recommendations and considerations for use of HIV nPEP in the United States to include newer antiretroviral (ARV) agents, updated nPEP indication considerations, and emerging nPEP implementation strategies. The guidelines also include considerations for testing and nPEP regimens for persons exposed who have received long-acting injectable ARVs in the past. Lastly, testing recommendations for persons who experienced sexual assault were updated to align with the most recent CDC sexually transmitted infection treatment guidelines. These guidelines are divided into two sections: Recommendations and CDC Guidance. The preferred regimens for most adults and adolescents are now bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide or dolutegravir plus (tenofovir alafenamide or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) plus (emtricitabine or lamivudine). However, the regimen can be tailored to the clinical circumstances. Medical follow-up for persons prescribed nPEP also should be tailored to the clinical situation; recommended follow-up includes a visit at 24 hours (remote or in person) with a medical provider, and clinical follow-up 4-6 weeks and 12 weeks after exposure for laboratory testing. Persons initiating nPEP should be informed that pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV (PrEP) can reduce their risk for acquiring HIV if they will have repeat or continuing exposure to HIV after the end of the nPEP course. Health care professionals should offer PrEP options to persons with ongoing indications for PrEP and create an nPEP-to-PrEP transition plan for persons who accept PrEP.

Data linkage to evaluate the long-term risk of HIV infection in individuals seeking post-exposure prophylaxis

Evidence on the long-term risk of HIV infection in individuals taking HIV post-exposure prophylaxis remains limited. In this retrospective data linkage study, we evaluate the occurrence of HIV infection in 975 individuals who sought post-exposure prophylaxis in a tertiary hospital between 2007 and 2013. Using privacy preserving probabilistic linkage, we link these 975 records with two observational databases providing data on HIV events (Zurich Primary HIV Infection study and the Swiss HIV Cohort Study). This enables us to identify 22 HIV infections and to obtain long-term follow-up data, which reveal a median of 4.1 years between consultation for post-exposure prophylaxis and HIV diagnosis. Even though men who have sex with men constitute only 35.8% of those seeking post-exposure prophylaxis, all 22 events occur in this subgroup. These findings should strongly encourage early consideration of pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men after a first episode of post-exposure prophylaxis.

Individuals seeking post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for HIV may represent an important risk group for future HIV infection. Here the authors find HIV infections at long-term follow-up in 22 of 348 men who have sex with men, and 0 of 623 other PEP seekers.

HIV Nonoccupational Postexposure Prophylaxis Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Global Data

HIV nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) has been prescribed to men who have sex with men (MSM) for decades, but the global situation of nPEP implementation among this population remains unclear. To understand nPEP awareness, uptake, and factors associated with uptake among MSM, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies reporting nPEP implementation among MSM published before May 19, 2019. We estimated pooled rates and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of awareness, uptake using a random-effects model. We identified 74 studies: 3 studies (4.1%) from upper-middle-income regions and 71 (95.9%) from high-income regions. The pooled rate of nPEP awareness and uptake was 51.6% (95% CI 40.6-62.5%) and 6.0% (5.0-7.1%), respectively. Pooled uptake rate was higher in upper-middle-income regions [8.9% (7.8-10.0%)] than in high-income regions [5.8% (4.8-6.9%)]. Unprotected anal sex was the most common exposure (range: 55.0-98.6%, median: 62.9%). Pooled completion of nPEP was 86.9% (79.5-92.8%). Of 19,546 MSM prescribed nPEP, 500 HIV seroconversions (2.6%) were observed. Having risky sexual behaviors and history of sexually transmitted infections were associated with higher nPEP uptake, whereas insufficient knowledge, underestimated risk of exposure to HIV, lack of accessibility, and social stigma might hinder nPEP uptake. Awareness and uptake of nPEP among MSM worldwide are low. Further efforts are needed to combat barriers to access nPEP, including improving accessibility and reducing stigma. Seroconversions post-nPEP uptake suggest that joint prevention precautions aside from nPEP are needed for high-risk MSM. More evidence from low-income and middle-income regions is needed.

Condomless sex and HIV transmission among serodifferent couples: current evidence and recommendations

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection remains a global pandemic. The primary driver of HIV incidence is sexual transmission between serodifferent individuals. Condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are effective at preventing sexually transmitted HIV infections and are considered an integral component of a comprehensive approach to HIV prevention. However, the demonstrated effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy (ART) to prevent HIV transmission, known as treatment as prevention and of pre-exposure prophylaxis, have raised an intriguing dilemma on the necessity and additive preventive benefit of condom use among individuals in serodifferent relationships utilizing these prevention strategies. Recent published evidence, although of limited follow-up duration, has shown no linked HIV transmissions with condomless sex among serodifferent couples where the infected partner was on ART and virologically suppressed. This paper will review the evidence surrounding HIV transmission risk among serodifferent couples with and without the use of condoms and will highlight factors that increase or attenuate this risk. It will also address the important benefits that condomless sex offers couples. This paper aims to provide a template for providers to have personalized discussions with their patients, particularly those with an HIV-positive sexual partner, around their individual risk of HIV transmission and the role of condom use.