Published in:
Open Access 01-12-2019 | Tenofovir | Case report
Are current guidelines adapted for patient eligibility to PrEP? A case report
Published in: BMC Infectious Diseases | Issue 1/2019
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Despite effective antiretroviral therapy developed over the last decade, HIV infection remains a major worldwide public health problem. Recently, a promising preventive treatment has been made available for HIV prophylaxis, PrEP for pre-ExPosure Prophylaxis. Indeed, it was shown to significantly reduce the risk of HIV infection in patients exposed to high risk of infection such as men having sex with men (MSM), heterosexuals and people who inject drugs. Several issues pertaining to PrEP remain uncertain including short and long-term adverse events, drug resistance, risk compensation and resurgence of other sexually transmitted infections.
Case presentation
We report a case of a 52-year-old MSM eligible for PrEP as he was exposed to a high risk of HIV infection, presented no clinical symptoms of HIV primary infection and was seronegative for HIV. PrEP therapy was then initiated with fixed association of emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil. One month later, HIV tests using two different assays were positive, despite perfect compliance reported by the patient and confirmed by plasma drug level. A retrospective search for plasma viral RNA in the blood sample before PrEP initiation turned out positive. Genotyping and treatment sensitivity performed on sample after one month of PrEP showed a virus resistance to lamivudine and emtricitabine.
Similar cases in the literature and pivotal studies have reported HIV infections in patients initiating or undergoing PrEP. These patients where either infected but still seronegative, displaying no clinical symptoms upon enrollment, or became infected during PrEP. Reasons are mainly poor compliance to treatment, resistance to PrEP, and lack of diagnosis before PrEP. Guidelines advocate safe sex behavior before initiation, search for clinical signs of HIV primary infection and two different serologic tests performed with one-month interval.
Discussion and conclusions
Our patient newly HIV infected received PrEP as he was still seronegative. Current recommendations fail to screen recently HIV infected, but still seronegative patients who are initiating PrEP. This issue raises strong concerns regarding the lack of adequate selection for eligibility to PrEP and may contribute to exposing partners to HIV infection and select viral mutations. Infection risk could be minimized by search for plasma viral HIV RNA at pre-inclusion, at least for patients suspected of unsafe behaviors such as non-respect of the non-exposure period before PrEP initiation.