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

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

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

The James Webb Space Telescope Mission

Twenty-six years ago a small committee report, building on earlier studies, expounded a compelling and poetic vision for the future of astronomy, calling for an infrared-optimized space telescope with an aperture of at least $4m$. With the support of their governments in the US, Europe, and Canada, 20,000 people realized that vision as the $6.5m$ James Webb Space Telescope. A generation of astronomers will celebrate their accomplishments for the life of the mission, potentially as long as 20 years, and beyond. This report and the scientific discoveries that follow are extended thank-you notes to the 20,000 team members. The telescope is working perfectly, with much better image quality than expected. In this and accompanying papers, we give a brief history, describe the observatory, outline its objectives and current observing program, and discuss the inventions and people who made it possible. We cite detailed reports on the design and the measured performance on orbit.Comment: Accepted by PASP for the special issue on The James Webb Space Telescope Overview, 29 pages, 4 figure

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Report of the 2013-2014 Professional Affairs Standing Committee: Advancing the Pharmacy Profession Together through Pharmacy Technician and Pharmacy Education Partnerships

According to the Bylaws of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the Professional Affairs Committee is to study issues associated with the professional practice as they relate to pharmaceutical education, and to establish and improve working relationships with all other organizations in the field of health affairs. The Committee is also encouraged to address related agenda items relevant to its Bylaws charge and to identify issues for consideration by subsequent committees, task forces, commissions, or other groups

Priming the Preceptor Pipeline: Collaboration, Resources, and Recognition: The Report of the 2015-2016 Professional Affairs Standing Committee

The article presents the report of the 2015-2016 Professional Affairs Standing Committee of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) on collaboration, resources and recognition. The Professional Affairs Committee is charged with examining professional practice as they relate to pharmaceutical education, It also aims to set and improve working relationships with all other organizations in the field of health affairs

The Report of the 2016-2017 Professional Affairs Standing Committee: Formally Embracing and Engaging Preceptors in the Academy - The Time Has Come.

The 2016-2017 AACP Professional Affairs Committee (PAC) was charged to examine strategies to include adjunct/affiliate preceptors as AACP members and to determine the value proposition of AACP membership for this group of educators. The PAC defined adjunct/affiliate preceptors as preceptors who are neither full-time employees nor have a primary employment commitment (≥50% of the preceptor\u27s work salary) at a school/college of pharmacy. Specific charges to the PAC included: recommend an approach to increase the number of adjunct/affiliate preceptors as AACP members, examine AACP membership from an adjunct/affiliate preceptor value perspective, and prepare a concise summary of available literature describing value-added contributions of student pharmacists and pharmacy preceptors to pharmacy practice models, interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional practice (IPP). The summary of the plan developed by the PAC to address the charges is presented in the following report, which includes three sections: the value proposition of AACP membership for adjunct/affiliate preceptors, expansion of the presence of adjunct/affiliate preceptors in AACP, and the value of student pharmacists in experiential education settings. The value proposition of AACP membership for adjunct/affiliate preceptors section describes results of surveys and focus groups conducted by the PAC. The PAC surveyed experiential education directors at schools/colleges of pharmacy, adjunct/affiliate preceptors (from a request via the experiential education directors), and new pharmacy practice faculty members in order to determine current resources available for adjunct/affiliate preceptor development, as well as explore potential resources AACP could provide for adjunct/affiliate preceptor development. Focus groups were held with adjunct/affiliate preceptors and experiential education faculty/staff to explore some of the results and concepts generated from the surveys. The PAC developed three recommendations for AACP as a result of the surveys and focus groups. The report also describes various factors that should be considered by AACP in developing a membership category for adjunct/affiliate preceptors, including potential membership models, establishment of an advisory board, and collaboration with other stakeholder groups. The final section of the report provides an executive summary and detailed table, which summarizes available literature on the value of student pharmacists in experiential education. The brief literature review reinforces that there are many different practice settings where student pharmacists add value to patient care and the practice site. This information is significant for experiential education faculty/staff, as well as adjunct/affiliate preceptors, and serves as an example of best practices which document the value experiential education provides to patient care and practice sites. The final section of the report provides a policy statement that was adopted by the 2017 AACP House of Delegates and one suggestion to schools/colleges of pharmacy. The report concludes with a call to action regarding the formal involvement of adjunct/affiliate preceptors by AACP and the academy