Reid Amanda, Rogers Meighan E, Arya Vibhuti, Edelstein Zoe R, Schillinger Julia A
From the *Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University; †Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control; ‡Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau of STD Prevention and Control; §Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau of Policy, Community Resilience & Response, New York, NY; and ¶Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Sex Transm Dis. 2016 Nov;43(11):679-684. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000520.
Health care providers in New York City can prescribe treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) for a patient's partner without the partner having a medical evaluation ("prescription-expedited partner therapy" [EPT]), and use of prescription-EPT is common. However, there is little known about pharmacists' knowledge and practices surrounding EPT.
Two cross-sectional surveys, in 2012 and 2014, were conducted with representative samples of supervising pharmacists in NYC neighborhoods with high rates of Ct infection.
In both survey years, the majority of pharmacists who agreed to participate returned a survey (2012: 81% [83/103], 2014: 61% [106/173]), and pharmacist and pharmacy characteristics were similar across the 2 surveys. Pharmacists' EPT-related knowledge and practice was generally low, with little change between 2012 and 2014. In both years, fewer than half of pharmacists knew EPT was legal (2012, 46%; 2014, 42%). There were even decreases in specific content knowledge; in 2014, significantly fewer of the pharmacists who knew EPT was legal, knew that the initials "EPT" must be written in the body of the prescription (2012: 58%; 2014: 36%, P < 0.05). Most pharmacists in both survey years reported they had never received an EPT prescription, and those who had reported only infrequent receipt.
NYC pharmacists had low levels of knowledge and familiarity with EPT law and reported infrequent receipt of EPT prescriptions. Pharmacists and providers should be further educated about EPT laws and regulations so that prescription-EPT use can be accurately monitored, and to assure the success of this partner treatment strategy.
纽约市的医疗服务提供者可以在患者伴侣未接受医学评估的情况下为其开具沙眼衣原体（Ct）治疗药物（“处方加速伴侣治疗”[EPT]），且处方EPT的使用很常见。然而，对于药剂师关于EPT的知识和实践了解甚少。
在2012年和2014年，对纽约市Ct感染率高的社区的主管药剂师进行了代表性抽样的两项横断面调查。
在这两个调查年份中，同意参与的大多数药剂师都返回了调查问卷（2012年：81%[83/103]，2014年：61%[106/173]），并且两次调查的药剂师和药房特征相似。药剂师与EPT相关的知识和实践普遍较低，2012年至2014年之间变化不大。在这两年中，不到一半的药剂师知道EPT是合法的（2012年，46%；2014年，42%）。特定内容知识甚至有所下降；2014年，知道EPT合法的药剂师中，知道必须在处方正文中标明首字母“EPT”的人数明显减少（2012年：58%；2014年：36%，P<0.05）。在这两个调查年份中，大多数药剂师报告他们从未收到过EPT处方，而那些收到过的药剂师也只是偶尔收到。
纽约市的药剂师对EPT法律的了解程度和熟悉程度较低，并且报告称很少收到EPT处方。应进一步对药剂师和医疗服务提供者进行EPT法律法规教育，以便能够准确监测处方EPT的使用，并确保这种伴侣治疗策略的成功。
