Talk:Post-exposure prophylaxis

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

AIDS Top‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sugister, Jguan93, Trungky127, Cbadgley. Peer reviewers: Amymyu, Raneltroy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes

The section on Herpes seems to be mixing up post-exposure prophylaxis (preventing getting infected with the virus) with suppression of the infection (already having it but reducing outbreaks). I've made a minimal edit for the moment, but this section needs to be revised more and the presentation of the issue needs to be more clear. MartinezMD (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How deeply should we look into this? My first thought is that you are exactly right and that this information should not be on this page at all. Should the entire section just be moved elsewhere, like to a herpes treatment page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we have needs to be accurate. I'll cut it out of there and paste it here for now. We can repair it and paste back after revision. I'm sure the the Herpes treatment article (haven't looked really but this is rudimentary stuff) already has itself covered. We need to address the topic even if the sources simply say there is no current prophylaxis (or perhaps there is - we need to look).MartinezMD (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section below has been removed from the article and needs corrective revision. See above discussion:

Herpes

Several studies in humans and mice provide evidence that treatment with the antiviral drug famciclovir soon after the first infection with herpes can significantly lower the chance of future symptomatic outbreaks of herpes. Use of famciclovir in this manner has been shown to reduce the amount of latent herpes virus in the neural ganglia.^[1]^[2]^[3] A review of human subjects treated for five days with famciclovir 250 mg three times daily during their first herpes episode found that only 4.2 percent experienced a recurrence within six months after the first outbreak, a fivefold decrease compared to the 19 percent recurrence in acyclovir-treated patients.^[4]

Prophylaxis for herpes in this or similar dosage regimes has yet to find mainstream adoption. Some doctors and patients have opted for off-label use. One suggested regime is famciclovir at 10–20 mg/kg per day for 5–14 days, with treatment to commence as soon as possible after the first herpes infection(not the first symptoms or outbreak), and the most effective time for initiating treatment to be five days or less after the initial herpes infection.^[5]

^ The effects of antiviral therapy on the distribution of herpes simplex virus type 1 to ganglionic neurons and its consequences during, immediately following and several months after treatment"[1]"
^ Famciclovir and Valaciclovir Differ in the Prevention of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Latency in Mice: a Quantitative Study"[2]"
^ Persistence of Infectious Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 in the Nervous System in Mice after Antiviral Chemotherapy"[3]"
^ Observation May Indicate A Possible Clinical Effect On Latency"[4]"
^ Thackray AM, Field HJ. (1996). "Differential effects of famciclovir and valaciclovir on the pathogenesis of herpes simplex virus in a murine infection model including reactivation from latency". J. Infect. Dis. 173 (2): 291–299. PMID 8568288.

Request: A mention of rabies PEP will be greatly useful.

71.92.208.8 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what is it?

This page is a little confusing, it lists a series of treatments which are clearly related or grouped by the name "Post-exposure prophylaxis" but it does not explain what Post-exposure prophylaxis actually is, why it is names Post-exposure prophylaxis, how it came about, what defines something as being Post-exposure prophylaxis, not when it may be used or when it would not. A good example is the tetanus shot, in the UK if you get injured they give you ONE shot if you have not had one recently, however, they don't give you Post-exposure prophylaxis it seems... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.83.140 (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's described in the first paragraph. It's treatment a person receives to prevent an infection. The one tetanus shot you mentioned is the prophylaxis, but specifically only in people previously vaccinated. There is a different regimen for people who never were.MartinezMD (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HIV

New updates by the CDC include a comprehensive Guideline for antiretroviral prophylaxis after sexual, injection drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV—United States, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugister (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. This source is already cited in the "risk evaluation" section under HIV but as you suggest, this article could better summarize that source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to article

Hi! Thank you for the improvements made in this page. The article shows a neutral point of view giving important information about both the risks and benefits as well as proper steps needed to take to ensure proper "post-exposure prophylaxis". (Monique.payne (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for updating and improving this page. I would like to note that references #6 and #7 are from primary research articles. I understand that this section describes early data regarding use of AZT, but would it be possible to find the same information cited from an early review article? Also, references #10, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 are redundant (all are the same guidelines). Would it be possible to consolidate these references throughout this page? Amymyu (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input on duplicate references. These have been consolidated to one throughout the page. Cbadgley (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The style of the edits from the Wiki-education group are in line with baseline Wiki standards for the most part. Some things I would look at - being consistent with "patients vs. people" when referring to a population using post-exposure prophylaxis. I think "patients" is the more commonly used term vs. people. I'd also echo the points that primary literature is avoided in Wikipedia articles so finding secondary sources that cite this literature might be an avenue the group may want to explore. (Raneltroy (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

You have to read WP:MEDMOS. People is preferred as WP is not a manual for medical providers. Also, from a technical standpoint, a person is not a patient unless they are receiving medical care - i.e. simply being exposed to an illness does not make a person a patient.MartinezMD (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I reorganized and condensed the Testing and Treatment sections to make it more friendly to a broader range of people (e.g. instead of "Patient Management Guidelines").Sugister (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were no signs of plagiarism or copyright infringement from your group's edits. However, there are still citations needed for the Hepatitis sections which may not be your problem. (Ndinhsum (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

[1] The effects of antiviral therapy on the distribution of herpes simplex virus type 1 to ganglionic neurons and its consequences during, immediately following and several months after treatment"[1]"

[2] Famciclovir and Valaciclovir Differ in the Prevention of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Latency in Mice: a Quantitative Study"[2]"

[3] Persistence of Infectious Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 in the Nervous System in Mice after Antiviral Chemotherapy"[3]"

[4] Observation May Indicate A Possible Clinical Effect On Latency"[4]"

[Thackray-5] Thackray AM, Field HJ. (1996). "Differential effects of famciclovir and valaciclovir on the pathogenesis of herpes simplex virus in a murine infection model including reactivation from latency". J. Infect. Dis. 173 (2): 291–299. PMID 8568288.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]