Javier Sánchez-Rubio Ferrández1, José Manuel Martínez Sesmero2, Herminia Navarro Aznárez3, Sergio Fernández Espínola4, Ismael Escobar Rodríguez5, José Manuel Ventura Cerdá6. 1. Pharmacy Unit. Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid.. javier.sanchez@salud.madrid.org. 2. Pharmacy Unit. Complejo Hospitalario de Toledo.. javier.sanchez@salud.madrid.org. 3. Pharmacy Unit. Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza.. javier.sanchez@salud.madrid.org. 4. Pharmacy Unit. Hospital de Antequera, Málaga.. javier.sanchez@salud.madrid.org. 5. Pharmacy Unit. Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid.. javier.sanchez@salud.madrid.org. 6. Deputy Director of Therapeutic Positioning and Pharmacoeconomics. General Administration of Pharmacy and Healthcare Products, Valencia. Spain.. javier.sanchez@salud.madrid.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of support, knowledge and perceptions of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by Infectious Disease Specialists and Hospital Pharmacists in Spain. METHODS: Cross-sectional study through an on-line 31-item survey (sociodemographical data, employment status/experience, knowledge of PrEP, use, identified barriers and economic issues). A univariate analysis was performed to evaluate the variables associated with support for PrEP, and compare the assessments by Specialists and Pharmacists. The questions about support for PrEP and agreement with the indication approval were repeated after showing data from published studies. The significance of the change in the answers was analyzed using the McNemar Test. RESULTS: 211 questionnaires were received (80.1% from Pharmacists). 40.3% had low/no familiarity with PrEP (46.2% Pharmacists vs. 16.7% Physicians; p < 0.01). A 53.6% of them would support the use of PrEP (49.7% Pharmacists vs. 69% Physicians; p = 0.038). The minimum acceptable efficacy in order to support PrEP was 85.0 ± 15.5% (82.6 ± 12.1% by Physicians vs. 85.6 ± 15.0% by Pharmacists; p = 0.02). The variables associated with support were: medical profession (OR = 2.26; 95%CI 1.1-4.6; p = 0.038) and lower demand for efficacy (difference = 10.5%; 95%CI 6.9 to 14.1; p < 0.001). After receiving the information, there was an increase in their support for use and indication approval. Most participants (81.5%) did not support its reimbursement. The main barriers identified were: an increase in risk behaviour (24.1%), increase in sexually transmitted diseases (19.0%), resistance (16.6%) and cost (16.0%). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of participants were familiar with PrEP. The majority of them would support its use and the approval of the indication, but would not reimburse it. The use of PrEP in real practice is currently low. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of support, knowledge and perceptions of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by Infectious Disease Specialists and Hospital Pharmacists in Spain. METHODS: Cross-sectional study through an on-line 31-item survey (sociodemographical data, employment status/experience, knowledge of PrEP, use, identified barriers and economic issues). A univariate analysis was performed to evaluate the variables associated with support for PrEP, and compare the assessments by Specialists and Pharmacists. The questions about support for PrEP and agreement with the indication approval were repeated after showing data from published studies. The significance of the change in the answers was analyzed using the McNemar Test. RESULTS: 211 questionnaires were received (80.1% from Pharmacists). 40.3% had low/no familiarity with PrEP (46.2% Pharmacists vs. 16.7% Physicians; p < 0.01). A 53.6% of them would support the use of PrEP (49.7% Pharmacists vs. 69% Physicians; p = 0.038). The minimum acceptable efficacy in order to support PrEP was 85.0 ± 15.5% (82.6 ± 12.1% by Physicians vs. 85.6 ± 15.0% by Pharmacists; p = 0.02). The variables associated with support were: medical profession (OR = 2.26; 95%CI 1.1-4.6; p = 0.038) and lower demand for efficacy (difference = 10.5%; 95%CI 6.9 to 14.1; p < 0.001). After receiving the information, there was an increase in their support for use and indication approval. Most participants (81.5%) did not support its reimbursement. The main barriers identified were: an increase in risk behaviour (24.1%), increase in sexually transmitted diseases (19.0%), resistance (16.6%) and cost (16.0%). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of participants were familiar with PrEP. The majority of them would support its use and the approval of the indication, but would not reimburse it. The use of PrEP in real practice is currently low. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.
Authors: Guillermo López-Díaz; Almudena Rodríguez-Fernández; Eva María Domínguez-Martís; Diego Gabriel Mosteiro-Miguéns; David López-Ares; Silvia Novío Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 3.390