HIV post-exposure therapy for drug users in treatment.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the attitudes of drug treatment program providers concerning human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) post-exposure therapy (PET) for drug users enrolled in drug treatment. This was a cross-sectional evaluation of drug treatment program providers in four methadone maintenance programs (MMPs) in New Haven, Connecticut. Thirty-five MMP providers including: 29 MMP treatment staff (physicians, nurses, counselors) and 6 primary care provider staff (physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses) participated in the study. The providers were presented with four case vignettes of individuals exposed to HIV through a needle stick ("stick"): a phlebotomist with occupational exposure (Case A) and three drug users with nonoccupational exposure to HIV (Cases B, C, and D). Case B had the same estimated future risk as Case A (three sticks/4 years) and the other cases had increased risk: Case C (four to six sticks/year) and Case D (monthly "sticks"). For each vignette, providers were asked whether they would offer HIV PET ("yes" or "no"). In addition, focus groups were held within each group of providers who were asked: "What role should drug treatment programs play in the implementation of PET?" All MMP staff (29/29) and primary care providers (6/6) felt that the phlebotomist with occupational exposure should be offered PET. The percent of MMP and Primary care provider staff recommending PET for the other cases were: Case B (MMP staff: 86% [25/29], PCPs: 100% [6/6]), Case C (MMP staff: 69% [20/29], PCPs: 33% [2/6]), and Case D (MMP staff: 59% [17/29], PCPs: 17% [1/6]). The "common themes" that were identified in the focus groups included: concern that MMPs lack resources to provide PET, the ethics of withholding PET, the "limit" on the number of times PET should be offered, and the role of PET in the overall HIV prevention message. Both MMP staff and PCPs felt that MMPs should have an "indirect" role in providing HIV PET by providing education and referral only. MMP staff and PCPs differed in their likelihood of offering HIV PET to drug users enrolled in MMPs. The possibility of HIV PET for drug users in treatment raises significant implementation issues for MMPs that will require further study if HIV PET becomes widely used in drug users.