No abstract

Background. Additional studies are required to identify risk factors for hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission to health care workers after occupational exposure to HCV.Methods. We conducted a matched case-control study in 5 European countries from 1 January 1991 through 31 December 2002. Case patients were health care workers who experienced seroconversion after percutaneous or mucocutaneous exposure to HCV. Control subjects were HCV-exposed health care workers who did not experience seroconversion and were matched with case patients for center and period of exposure.Results. Sixty case patients and 204 control subjects were included in the study. All case patients were exposed to HCV-infected fluids through percutaneous injuries. The 37 case patients for whom information was available were exposed to viremic source patients. As risk factors for HCV infection, multivariate analysis identified needle placement in a source patient's vein or artery (odds ratio [OR], 100.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3-1365.7), deep injury (OR, 155.2; 95% CI, 7.1-3417.2), and sex of the health care worker (OR for male vs. female, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.0-10.0). Source patient HCV load was not introduced in the multivariate model. In unmatched univariate analysis, the risk of HCV transmission increased 11-fold for health care workers exposed to source patients with a viral load 16 log 10 copies/mL (95% CI, 1.1-114.1), compared with exposures to source patients with a viral load р4 log 10 copies/mL.Conclusion. In this study, HCV occupational transmission was found to occur after percutaneous exposures. The risk of HCV transmission after percutaneous exposure increased with deep injuries and procedures involving hollow-bore needle placement in the source patient's vein or artery. These results highlight the need for widespread adoption of needlestick-prevention devices in health care settings, together with other preventive measures.Infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is an important occupational hazard for health care workers. In longitudinal studies, attempts have been made to assess

OBJECTIVETo provide an overview of the economic aspects of needlestick and sharps injury (NSI) management among healthcare personnel (HCP) within a Health Technology Assessment project to evaluate the impact of safety-engineered devices on health careMETHODSA systematic review of economic analyses related to NSIs was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement and by searching PubMed and Scopus databases (January 1997–February 2015). Mean costs were stratified by study approach (modeling or data driven) and type of cost (direct or indirect). Costs were evaluated using the CDC operative definition and converted to 2015 International US dollars (Int$).RESULTSA total of 14 studies were retrieved: 8 data-driven studies and 6 modeling studies. Among them, 11 studies provided direct and indirect costs and 3 studies provided only direct costs. The median of the means for aggregate (direct + indirect) costs was Int$747 (range, Int$199–Int$1,691). The medians of the means for disaggregated costs were Int$425 (range, Int$48–Int$1,516) for direct costs (9 studies) and Int$322 (range, Int$152–Int$413) for indirect costs (6 studies). When compared with data-driven studies, modeling studies had higher disaggregated and aggregated costs, but data-driven studies showed greater variability. Indirect costs were consistent between studies, mostly referring to lost productivity, while direct costs varied widely within and between studies according to source infectivity, HCP susceptibility, and post-exposure diagnostic and prophylactic protocols. Costs of treating infections were not included, and intangible costs could equal those associated with NSI medical evaluations.CONCLUSIONSNSIs generate significant direct, indirect, potential, and intangible costs, possibly increasing over time. Economic efforts directed at preventing occupational exposures and infections, including provision of safety-engineered devices, may be offset by the savings from a lower incidence of NSIs.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:635–646

BackgroundTo investigate perceptions and attitude to prescribe Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) among HIV specialists.MethodsA questionnaire developed through a Focus Group and literature review was administered to a convenience sample of HIV specialists during educational courses in two Regions and an online survey in February-May 2012. Participants were classified as having a positive or negative attitude according to their willingness to prescribe PrEP. Demographic and working information, experience with HIV-infected patients, information and provision of antiretrovirals to uninfected persons, self-reported knowledge, perceptions and concerns regarding PrEP were assessed. The association between a different attitude towards PrEP prescription and selected characteristics was assessed through univariate and multivariate regression analysis.ResultsOf 311 specialists, 70% would prescribe PrEP, mainly to serodiscordant partners (64%) but also to people at ongoing, high risk of HIV infection (56%); 66% advocated public support of costs. A negative attitude towards PrEP was significantly associated with lack of provision of information on, and prescription of, antiretroviral post-exposure prophylaxis; specialists with a negative attitude believed behavioural interventions to be more effective than PrEP and were more concerned about toxicity. Overall, 90% of specialists disagreed regarding a lack of time for engaging in prevention counselling and PrEP monitoring; 79% would welcome formal guidelines, while those with a negative attitude did not consider this advisable.ConclusionsAlthough conflicting attitudes appear evident, most specialists seem to be willing, with guidance from normative bodies, to promote PrEP within multiple prevention strategies among vulnerable populations. More scientific evidence regarding effectiveness could overcome resistance.