Pharmacists’ immunization experiences, beliefs, and attitudes in New Brunswick, Canada

Background: The expansion of pharmacist scope of practice to include provision of immunizations has occurred or is being considered in various countries. There are limited data evaluating the experiences of Canadian pharmacists in their role as immunizers. Objective: To describe the experiences of pharmacists in the Canadian province of New Brunswick as immunizers, including vaccines administered and perceived barriers and facilitators to providing immunizations. Methods: An anonymous, self-administered, web-based questionnaire was offered via email by the New Brunswick Pharmacists’ Association to all its members. The survey tool was adapted, with permission, from a tool previously used by the American Pharmacists Association and validated using content validity and test-retest reproducibility. Pharmacist reported immunization activities and perceived facilitators and barriers to providing immunization services were assessed. Results: Responses from 168 (response rate of 26%) were evaluable. Approximately 90% of respondents worked in community practice full time, 65% were female and 44% were practicing for 20 or more years. Greater than 75% reported administering: hepatitis A and B, influenza, and zoster vaccines. The majority of respondents felt fully accepted (agreed or strongly agreed) as immunization providers by patients, local physicians, and the provincial health department (97%, 70%, and 78%, respectively). Most commonly reported barriers were: lack of a universally funded influenza immunization program, insufficient staffing and space, and concerns around reimbursement for services. Conclusions: Pharmacists in New Brunswick, Canada are actively participating in the provision of a variety of immunizations and felt fully supported by patients and other healthcare providers. Barriers identified may provide insight to other jurisdictions considering expanding the role of pharmacists as immunizers

Steroids in kidney transplant patients

Any evaluation of steroids in kidney transplantation is hampered by individual variability in metabolism, the lack of clinically available steroid blood levels, and overall little attention to steroid exposure. Many feel that steroids were an essential part of chronic immunosuppression in past decades but may no longer be necessary in low-risk populations when our newer and more potent drugs are used. Potential differences in long-term outcome will be unapparent in short-term antibody induction studies in low-risk patients, particularly with low on steroid doses, as may have happened in the recent, well-done Astellas trial. In many studies, the evidence for the superiority of mycophenolate (MMF) and tacrolimus (TAC) was not as strong as the evidence for the benefit of steroids in the Canadian cyclosporine study. As the practice of steroid withdrawal has increased, we have not seen the improvement in long-term graft survival that many expected with our newer agents. Steroids have immunosuppressive effects even in doses that are low by historic standards, and side effects may not justify their abandonment