National Pharmacist Workforce Study (NPWS): Description of 2019 Survey Methods and Assessment of Nonresponse Bias

National Pharmacist Workforce Studies (NPWS) have been conducted in the U.S. every five years since 2000. This article describes the online survey methods used for the latest NPWS conducted in 2019 and provides an assessment for nonresponse bias. Three waves of emails containing a link to the online survey were sent to a random sample of about 96,000 pharmacists licensed in the United States. The survey asked about pharmacist employment, work activities, work–life balance, practice characteristics, pharmacist demographics and training. A total of 5467 usable responses were received, for a usable response rate of 5.8%. To assess for nonresponse bias, respondent characteristics were compared to the population of U.S. pharmacists and a benchmark, while a wave analysis compared early and late respondents. The pharmacist sample–population comparison and the benchmark comparison showed that the NPWS respondents had a higher percentage of female pharmacists and a lower proportion of young pharmacists compared to the population of U.S. pharmacists and the benchmark sample. In some contrast, the wave analysis showed that the early respondents had a higher percentage of males and older pharmacists compared to the late respondents. Both the wave analysis and the benchmark comparison showed that the NPWS respondents (and early respondents) had a lower percent of pharmacists with a PharmD degree than did the late respondents and the benchmark group. These differences should be considered when interpreting the findings from the 2019 NPWS

National Pharmacist Workforce Study (NPWS): Description of 2019 Survey Methods and Assessment of Nonresponse Bias

National Pharmacist Workforce Studies (NPWS) have been conducted in the U.S. every five years since 2000. This article describes the online survey methods used for the latest NPWS conducted in 2019 and provides an assessment for nonresponse bias. Three waves of emails containing a link to the online survey were sent to a random sample of about 96,000 pharmacists licensed in the United States. The survey asked about pharmacist employment, work activities, work–life balance, practice characteristics, pharmacist demographics and training. A total of 5467 usable responses were received, for a usable response rate of 5.8%. To assess for nonresponse bias, respondent characteristics were compared to the population of U.S. pharmacists and a benchmark, while a wave analysis compared early and late respondents. The pharmacist sample–population comparison and the benchmark comparison showed that the NPWS respondents had a higher percentage of female pharmacists and a lower proportion of young pharmacists compared to the population of U.S. pharmacists and the benchmark sample. In some contrast, the wave analysis showed that the early respondents had a higher percentage of males and older pharmacists compared to the late respondents. Both the wave analysis and the benchmark comparison showed that the NPWS respondents (and early respondents) had a lower percent of pharmacists with a PharmD degree than did the late respondents and the benchmark group. These differences should be considered when interpreting the findings from the 2019 NPWS

The Risk of Allergic Reaction to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients

The risk of allergic reaction to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management : a systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment, and international consensus approach

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients

Anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities: A consensus report

BACKGROUND: Despite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility. METHODS: We convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: (1) Population Science, (2) Basic and Translational Sciences, (3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and (4) Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey, and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0 to 100 scale. RESULTS: The panel generated 98 statements across the 4 anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic and Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0 to 95.0 and from 40.0 to 90.0, respectively. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize postanaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis