Insulin Glargine and Cancer Risk: An Opinion Statement of the Endocrine and Metabolism Practice and Research Network of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy

Diabetes mellitus has reached epidemic proportions worldwide, eliciting extensive research on both the disease process and its treatment. Regardless of diabetes type, the progressive nature of the disease makes insulin the long-term mainstay of diabetes management. Recently, the insulin analog glargine was reported in several epidemiologic studies to be associated with an increased risk of cancer. Inconsistent study results and media attention have caused much angst and concern to health care professionals and the general population. A clear understanding of the current evidence is needed to adequately develop a patient-oriented risk:benefit assessment. Members of the Endocrine and Metabolism Practice and Research Network of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy evaluated available evidence to provide guidance and discussion on the risk of cancer with insulin glargine use. We believe the current link between insulin glargine and cancer is tenuous but merits further evaluation. An independent analysis of all available glargine clinical trial data should be performed, and a vigorous postmarketing safety study of glargine should be conducted. Until more substantial data are available, however, neither the choice of initial insulin therapy nor insulin maintenance regimens should be influenced by the current information linking insulin glargine to cancer

Surveying the Current Landscape of Assessment Structures and Resources in US Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy

Introduction: Expectations for assessment in higher education have increased in recent decades, prompting institutions to invest additional resources in this area. This study aimed to determine the resources, structure, and perception of assessment resources in United States schools and colleges of pharmacy (S/COPs). Methods: Assessment personnel in S/COPs were surveyed electronically. Information collected included S/COP demographics, composition of assessment positions, experience and training of assessment personnel, and structure and responsibilities of committees engaged in assessment. Respondents’ perception of their S/COPs having sufficient assessment personnel, recent changes in assessment, and the factors that prompted assessment changes were also surveyed. Results: Respondents included individuals from 113 S/COPs (84% response rate). Most S/COPs had 1–2 assessment positions and 1–2 assessment-related committees. The most common assessment position titles were assistant/associate dean, director, coordinator/specialist, and administrative assistant. Dean-level administrators typically had worked in assessment the longest, whereas directors were more likely to have formal assessment training. Most respondents (75%) agreed they had sufficient assessment personnel to meet the 2007 Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education Standards. Nearly two-thirds of respondents agreed they had sufficient personnel to meet the 2016 Standards and support their current assessment plan/process. Most S/COPs had a formal assessment committee (93%) and an average of two committees overseeing assessment. Conclusion: Most S/COPs reported having sufficient resources to support assessment activities. Although there were some consistent themes, there does not appear to be a single model for structuring assessment resources or committees. Effectiveness of various assessment structures represents an area for future research