Pharmacists Are Not Mid-Level Providers

Pharmacists should not be classified as “mid-level” providers. This classification implies that there are different levels or a hierarchy of providers when in fact each health care provider brings unique and essential knowledge and contributions to the health care team and to the care of patients. Pharmacists are no exception. Timely issues germane to pharmacists, including dependent and independent practice, provider status, and professional identity, contribute to the rationale that pharmacists, just like all other health care providers, should be classified by their professional identity. While use of the term mid-level provider to identify various practitioners may not seem consequential, in today’s health care environment, words do matter when it comes to attributing value, and the contributions of all health care providers should be recognized as equally important to the patient care team

Report of the 2020-2021 Professional Affairs Standing Committee: Pharmacists Unique Role and Integration in Healthcare Settings

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2020-21 Professional Affairs Committee was charged to (1) Read all six reports from the 2019-20 AACP standing committees to identify elements of these reports that are relevant to the committee’s work this year; (2) Identify opportunities and models of integration of pharmacist care services in physician and other health provider practices beyond primary care; (3) Differentiate and make the case for the integration of pharmacist care services from that of other mid-level providers; and (4) From the work on the aforementioned charges, identify salient activities for the Center To Accelerate Pharmacy Practice Transformation and Academic Innovation (CTAP) for consideration by the AACP Strategic Planning Committee and AACP staff. This report provides information on the committee’s process to address the committee charges, describes the rationale for and the results from a call to colleges and schools of pharmacy to provide information on their integrating pharmacist care services in physician and other health provider practices beyond primary care practice, and discusses how pharmacist-provided patient care services differ from those provided by other healthcare providers. The committee offers a revision to a current association policy statement, a proposed policy statement as well as recommendations to CTAP and AACP and suggestions to colleges and schools of pharmacy pertaining to the committee charges

Differences in career paths and attributes of pharmacists completing a community pharmacy residency program (CPRP)

Objective: To determine any differences in career paths and career attributes of pharmacists who have completed a PGY1 community pharmacy residency program (CPRP) as compared to those that have not completed a PGY1 CPRP. Methods: A web-based survey evaluating various aspects of community pharmacists’ careers was distributed to 274 CPRP graduates in addition to a random sample of 7,376 community pharmacists. The survey contained 32 questions evaluating various career attributes. Questions that assessed level of agreement were on a 6-point Likert-type Scale (1=strongly disagree; 6=strongly agree). Results: A total of 353 participants completed the survey, with 224 indicating that they had not completed a CPRP. Pharmacists who completed a CPRP responded that they spend significantly more time on patient care services, teaching, and research, and spend less time dispensing medications compared to those that have not completed a CPRP. Compared to those that did not complete a CPRP, CPRP graduates were less likely to agree that current level of workload negatively impacts job performance, motivation to work, job satisfaction, mental/emotional health, and physical health. Conclusion: Pharmacists completing a CPRP noted significant differences in their current employment and job responsibilities. Additional expansion and education regarding the importance of CPRPs should be considered

Disruption of FDPS/Rac1 Axis Radiosensitizes Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma by Attenuating DNA Damage Response and Immunosuppressive Signalling

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) has a suboptimal effect in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) due to intrinsic and acquired radioresistance (RR). Comprehensive bioinformatics and microarray analysis revealed that cholesterol biosynthesis (CBS) is involved in the RR of PDAC. We now tested the inhibition of the CBS pathway enzyme, farnesyl diphosphate synthase (FDPS), by zoledronic acid (Zol) to enhance radiation and activate immune cells. METHODS: We investigated the role of FDPS in PDAC RR using the following methods: in vitro cell-based assay, immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence, immunoblot, cell-based cholesterol assay, RNA sequencing, tumouroids (KPC-murine and PDAC patient-derived), orthotopic models, and PDAC patient\u27s clinical study. FINDINGS: FDPS overexpression in PDAC tissues and cells (P \u3c 0.01 and P \u3c 0.05) is associated with poor RT response and survival (P = 0.024). CRISPR/Cas9 and pharmacological inhibition (Zol) of FDPS in human and mouse syngeneic PDAC cells in conjunction with RT conferred higher PDAC radiosensitivity in vitro (P \u3c 0.05, P \u3c 0.01, and P \u3c 0.001) and in vivo (P \u3c 0.05). Interestingly, murine (P = 0.01) and human (P = 0.0159) tumouroids treated with Zol+RT showed a significant growth reduction. Mechanistically, RNA-Seq analysis of the PDAC xenografts and patients-PBMCs revealed that Zol exerts radiosensitization by affecting Rac1 and Rho prenylation, thereby modulating DNA damage and radiation response signalling along with improved systemic immune cells activation. An ongoing phase I/II trial (NCT03073785) showed improved failure-free survival (FFS), enhanced immune cell activation, and decreased microenvironment-related genes upon Zol+RT treatment. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that FDPS is a novel radiosensitization target for PDAC therapy. This study also provides a rationale to utilize Zol as a potential radiosensitizer and as an immunomodulator in PDAC and other cancers. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health (P50, P01, and R01)