Consultations for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis before and after health insurance coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis to a university-based emergency department in Germany

Figures & data

Table 1. Epidemiology of clients presenting for PEP counseling.

	Group 1 (n = 154)	Group 2 (n = 155)	p
Age (years), [median (IQR)]	29 (25–36)	29 (25–37)	0,751
Gender
Male, cisgender [n, (%)]	112 (72,7%)	102 (65,8%)	0,1895
Female, cisgender [n, (%)]	42 (27,3%)	52 (33,5%)	0,2370
Female, transgender [n, (%)]	0 (0,0%)	1 (0,6%)	0,3365
HIV status at presentation
Negative [n, (%)]	129 (83,8%)	123 (79,3%)	0,3088
Positive [n, (%)]	2 (1,3%)	0 (0,0%)	0,1551
Not determined [n, (%)]	23 (14,9%)	32 (20,6%)	0,1906
Reasons for presentation
Occupational exposure [n, (%)]	28 (18.2%)	41 (26,5%)	0.081
Sexual exposure [n, (%)]	115 (74.7%)	107 (69.0%)	0.266
Other non-occupational exposure [n, (%)]	11 (7.1%)	7 (4.5%)	0.329

Table 2. Indications of PEP and PEP regimes started following occupational exposure.

PEP indication	Group 1 (n = 28)	Group 2 (n = 41)	p
PEP recommended following incidents with high risk of transmission	19 (67.9%)	21 (51.2%)	0.171
PEP offered to clients following incidents with low risk of transmission	5 (17.9%)	14 (34.1%)	0.142
Not indicated	4 (14.3%)	6 (14.6%)	0.975
Administered PEP	Group 1	Group 2
Administration in accordance with guideline	22 (78.6%)	27 (65.9%)	0.2568
Declined by clients though indicated	2 (7.1 %)	8 (19.5%)	0.3421
Not administered because not indicated	4 (14.3%)	6 (14.6%)	0.5785

PEP: post-exposure prophylaxis.

Table 3. Indications of PEP and numbers of PEP regimes started following sexual exposure.

PEP indication	Group 1 (n = 115)	Group 2 (n = 107)	p
PEP recommended following incidents with high risk of transmission	10 (8.7%)	9 (8.4%)	0.9365
PEP offered to clients following incidents with low risk of transmission	56 (48.7%)	53 (49.5%)	0.9054
Shared decision making after male-on-female sexual assault	19 (16.5%)	19 (17.8%)	0.7977
Not indicated	30 (26.1%)	26 (24.3%)	0.7582
Administered PEP
Administration in accordance with guidelines	78 (67.8%)	77 (72.0%)	0.4967
Declined by clients though indicated	9 (7.8%)	4 (3.7%)	0.1943
Started despite lack of indication due to strong client request	3 (2.6%)	1(0.9%)	0.3396
Not administered because not indicated	25 (21.7%)	25 (23.4%)	0.7624

PEP: post-exposure prophylaxis.

Table 4. Characteristics of partners of sexual exposures.

	Group 1 (n = 115)	Group 2 (n = 107)	p
Gender
Male, cisgender [n, (%)]	82 (71.3%)	75 (70.1%)	0.8447
Female, cisgender [n, (%)]	31 (27%)	28 (26.2%)	0.8930
Male, transgender[n, (%)]	1 (0.9%)	0 (0.0%)	0.3265
Female, transgender[n, (%)]	1 (0.9%)	4 (3.7%)	0.1607
HIV status
Negative [n, (%)]	10 (8.7%)	6 (5.6%)	0.3732
Negative, PrEP use [n, (%)]	1 (0.9%)	1 (0.9%)	1.0
Positive [n, (%)]	11 (9.6%)	9 (8.4%)	0.7557
Positive, virological controlled HIV infection	3 (2.6%)	3 (2.8%)	0.9269
Unknown [n, (%)]	90 (78.3%)	88 (82.24%)	0.4627
Other characteristics, where known
Infection with Hepatitis C [n, (%)]	1 (0.9%)	0 (0.0%)	0.3265
Endemic region origin [n, (%)]	10 (8.7%)	9 (8.4%)	0.9365
Possible intravenous drug use [n, (%)]	2 (1.7%)	1 (0.9%)	0.6018
Bisexual man [n, (%)]	0 (0%)	2 (1.9%)	0.1384
Sex worker [n, (%)]	18 (15.7%)	9 (8.4%)	0.0973
Sex at sauna/sex club or sex party [n, (%)]	5 (4.3%)	2 (1.9%)	0.3101

PrEP: pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Figure 1. Presentations for counseling following sexual assault. PEP: post-exposure prophylaxis.