UK guideline for the use of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis 2021.

We present the updated British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) guidelines for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to HIV following sexual exposures, occupational exposures and other nonoccupational exposures in the community. This serves as an update to the 2015 BASHH guideline on PEP following sexual exposures and the 2008 Expert Advisory Group on AIDS guidelines on HIV PEP. We aim to provide evidence-based guidance on best clinical practice in the provision, monitoring and support of PEP for the prevention of HIV acquisition following sexual, occupational and other nonoccupational exposures in the community. The guideline covers when to prescribe PEP, what antiretroviral agents to use and how to manage PEP. This includes (i) evidence of PEP efficacy; (ii) evidence relating to individual-level efficacy of antiretroviral therapy to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV; (iii) data on the detectable (transmissible) prevalence of HIV in specific populations; (iv) risk of HIV transmission following different types of sexual and occupational exposure; (v) baseline risk assessment; (vi) drug regimens and dosing schedules; (vii) monitoring PEP; (viii) baseline and follow-up blood-borne virus testing; (ix) the role of PEP within broader HIV prevention strategies, for example, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The guideline also covers special scenarios such as PEP in pregnancy, breastfeeding and chronic hepatitis B virus infection, and when PEP should be considered in people using HIV PrEP. The guidelines are aimed at clinical professionals directly involved in PEP provision and other stakeholders in the field. A proforma to assist PEP consultations is included. A public consultation process was undertaken prior to finalizing the recommendations.

Current research priorities for UK occupational physicians and occupational health researchers: a modified Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: Studies identifying national occupational health (OH) research priorities have been conducted in several countries to establish where OH research should be focused and where funding should be targeted. However, the UK findings are now over 20 years old, and OH practice is continuously evolving. The aim of this study was to identify current research priorities for UK occupational physicians (OPs) and occupational health researchers (OHRs). METHODS: Current research priorities in OH were identified using a modified Delphi technique. This was conducted in two rounds to achieve consensus. Research priorities were rated, and then ranked using questionnaires developed from expert panel discussions, key research topics identified from the medical literature and participant feedback. Overall and intergroup comparisons were completed for the ranking scores. RESULTS: Consensus among OPs and OHRs was high with almost all (9/10) primary domains rated as 'very important' or 'absolutely necessary' by more than 54% of respondents. The research priority areas ranked highest were jointly economic evaluation/cost effectiveness studies and disability management followed by occupational disease/injury/illness. Occupational health policy was ranked lowest after sickness absence management and health promotion. The secondary domain analysis identified priority emphasis on mental health and psychosocial hazards within the workplace and the need to further develop evidence-based guidance for clinical OH practice. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the current research priorities for UK OPs and OHRs. The findings will inform future national OH research strategy and support research that addresses important knowledge gaps within OH and other interdisciplinary specialties.