Explore the vast range of titles available.

Disproportionate access to healthcare services among the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning and others (LGBTQ+) population can be partially attributed to the lack of cultural competence among healthcare providers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an interprofessional model in improving cultural competence and clinical preparedness among dental and pharmacy students for providing LGBTQ+ specific care. This study is a retrospective observational study which used a novel interprofessional model of three different LGBTQ+ focused educational interventions within a group of dental and pharmacy students. The study used pre- and post-surveys, Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS-II) and the Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter (TOSCE) evaluations to assess the effectiveness of the interventions. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Welch test, Kruskal-Wallis Test, and pairwise Wilcox Test were employed to analyze quantitative data while qualitative insights were gathered from evaluator comments and student feedback. The study evaluated cultural competence among 154 dental and pharmacy students revealing improved cultural humility post-intervention, particularly for dental students although not statistically significant (p>0.05). Students participating in multiple interventions had higher mean scores, but the differences were not significant (p>0.05). Significant differences were found among interprofessional teams of students in the domains of roles and responsibilities (p = 0.039) and patient centered approach (p = 0.039). No significant differences were found in individual scores participation in the teams (p = 0.018). Students also provided positive feedback on the program's impact on their understanding of LGBTQ+ health issues and inclusive care. This program was a novel intervention aimed at improving cultural competence for health professional students in an interprofessional environment Further research in the direction can be useful in creating replicable programs.

Background Electronic medical records (EMRs) have been used for nearly three decades. Pharmacists use EMRs on a daily basis, but EMRs have only recently been incorporated into pharmacy education. Some pharmacy programs have implemented teaching electronic medical records (tEMRs), but best practices for incorporating tEMRs into pharmacy education remain unknown. The objectives of this study were to 1) assess pharmacy students’ views and experiences with a tEMR; and 2) identify current learning activities and future priorities for tEMR use in pharmacy education. Methods We used a mixed-methods approach, including three, two-hour student focus groups and a 42-item web-based survey to examine student perspectives of the tEMR. All first, second, and third year professional pharmacy students were eligible to participate in the survey and a focus group. Web-based survey items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, and quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics. Two researchers independently coded transcripts using both deductive and inductive approaches to identify emergent themes. These analysts met and resolved any coding discrepancies via consensus. Results Focus groups were conducted with 22 total students, with 6–8 students represented from each year of pharmacy training. The survey was completed by 156 students: 47 first year, 55 second year, and 54 third year. Overall, 48.7% of survey respondents altogether agreed or strongly agreed that using the tEMR enhanced their learning in pharmacy classes and laboratories. Qualitative data were organized into four major themes regarding tEMR adoption: current priorities for use within the pharmacy curriculum; tEMR benefits; tEMR barriers; and future priorities for tEMR use to prepare students for pharmacy practice. Conclusions This study reveals pharmacy students’ perspectives and attitudes towards using a tEMR, the types of classroom activities that incorporate the tEMR, and students’ future suggestions to enhance the design or application of the tEMR for their learning. Our research findings may aid other pharmacy programs and promote more effective use of tEMRs in pharmacy education. In the long-term, this study may strengthen pharmacy education on EMRs and thus increase the efficacy and safety of pharmacists’ EMR use for patients’ medication management.

Some conventional therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) fail to address the progressive nature of the disease, and as a result, they may become ineffective in maintaining normoglycemia. Antihyperglycemic agents have been developed to target incretin hormones, specifically glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1. Incretin analogues and agents that delay GLP-1 degradation, the dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors, offer mechanisms of action that may improve T2DM management. Saxagliptin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2009 and by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency in October 2009 for use as monotherapy or in combination regimens for the treatment of T2DM. The aim of this article was to review the mechanism of action, pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and tolerability associated with the use of saxagliptin in patients with T2DM. MEDLINE, BIOSIS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Google Scholar were searched for English-only clinical trials and therapeutic reviews published between 1966 and June 15, 2011 (search term: saxagliptin). Additional trials and reviews were identified from the reference lists of published articles. Findings on efficacy and tolerability were obtained from 11 completed Phase III clinical trials. In trials in saxagliptin-naive patients, changes from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA 1c) ranged from –0.72% to –0.90% in the saxagliptin treatment arms compared with –0.27% with placebo (all, P < 0.007). When saxagliptin was used in combination with metformin for 24 weeks, the adjusted mean reductions from baseline in HbA 1c and the proportions of patients achieving target HbA 1c (<7.0%) were significantly greater with saxagliptin + metformin compared with monotherapy with either drug (all, P ≤ 0.0001). When saxagliptin was used in combination with a sulfonylurea or a thiazolidinedione, the changes in HbA 1c ranged from –0.54% to –0.64% and –0.66% to –0.94%, respectively, in a dose-dependent manner ( P ≤ 0.0007 vs monotherapies). Based on changes in HbA 1c, saxagliptin + metformin was reported to be noninferior to sitagliptin + metformin (–0.52% and –0.62%, respectively; difference, 0.09% [95% CI, –0.01% to 0.20%]). Saxagliptin was reported to have been well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being upper respiratory infection, urinary tract infection, headache, and nasopharyngitis. A systematic review of cardiovascular events in pooled trial results of saxagliptin use reported no increased cardiovascular risk compared with metformin, glyburide, or placebo (relative risk, 0.24 [0.09–0.63]). Saxagliptin, used as monotherapy and in combination regimens, has been associated with significant reductions in HbA 1c and significant increases in the rate of achieving target HbA 1c in patients with T2DM. It has been reported to be well tolerated compared with other oral antihyperglycemic agents. Based on the findings from the studies in this review, the primary role of saxagliptin is expected to be in combination therapy with other antihyperglycemic agents.

Test-negative-design COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies use symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals as cases and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals as controls to evaluate COVID-19 VE. To evaluate the potential bias introduced by the correlation of COVID-19 and influenza vaccination behaviors, we assessed changes in estimates of VE of bivalent vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters when considering influenza vaccination status or including or excluding influenza-positive controls using data from the multi-state VISION vaccine effectiveness network. Analyses included encounters during October 2022 – February 2023, a period of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza cocirculation. When considering influenza vaccination status or including or excluding influenza-positive controls, COVID-19 VE estimates were robust, with most VE estimates against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and ED/UC encounters changing less than 5 percentage points. Higher proportions of influenza-positive patients among controls, influenza vaccination coverage, or VE could impact these findings; the potential bias should continue to be assessed.

Influenza vaccination is particularly important for pregnant women. Using a test-negative, case-control design, we estimated the effectiveness of 2023–2024 seasonal influenza vaccination against influenza-associated emergency department and urgent care (ED/UC) encounters among pregnant and non-pregnant women of reproductive age using data from seven healthcare systems. Eligible encounters were among individuals aged 18–49 years with documented female sex. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated by comparing the odds of vaccination among influenza-positive cases versus influenza-negative controls, adjusting for site, age, race/ethnicity, calendar time, and gestational age at encounter (in pregnant women). Among pregnant women (N = 3539), VE against influenza-associated ED/UC encounters was 46 % (95 % CI: 36–55) and did not differ by gestational age at vaccination. Among non-pregnant women (N = 57,709), VE against influenza-associated ED/UC encounters was 54 % (95 % CI: 51–56). Influenza vaccination during the 2023–2024 season was similarly effective in both pregnant and non-pregnant women and by timing of vaccine receipt during pregnancy.

•During Delta variant predominance, immunocompromised adults received moderate protection against COVID-19-associated medical events from three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.•Immunocompromised patients, especially organ or stem cell transplant recipients, were less protected than immunocompetent patients.•This study underscores the benefit of COVID-19 vaccination and the need for additional protection beyond the primary vaccine series among immunocompromised adults. Immunocompromised (IC) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and are less protected by 1–2 COVID-19 vaccine doses than are immunocompetent (non-IC) persons. We compared vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended COVID-19 of 2–3 mRNA and 1–2 viral-vector vaccine doses between IC and non-IC adults. Using a test-negative design among eight VISION Network sites, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) events and hospitalizations from 26 August-25 December 2021 was estimated separately among IC and non-IC adults and among specific IC condition subgroups. Vaccination status was defined using number and timing of doses. VE for each status (versus unvaccinated) was adjusted for age, geography, time, prior positive test result, and local SARS-CoV-2 circulation. We analyzed 8,848 ED/UC events and 18,843 hospitalizations among IC patients and 200,071 ED/UC events and 70,882 hospitalizations among non-IC patients. Among IC patients, 3-dose mRNA VE against ED/UC (73% [95% CI: 64–80]) and hospitalization (81% [95% CI: 76–86]) was lower than that among non-IC patients (ED/UC: 94% [95% CI: 93–94]; hospitalization: 96% [95% CI: 95–97]). Similar patterns were observed for viral-vector vaccines. Transplant recipients had lower VE than other IC subgroups. During B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, IC adults received moderate protection against COVID-19–associated medical events from three mRNA doses, or one viral-vector dose plus a second dose of any product. However, protection was lower in IC versus non-IC patients, especially among transplant recipients, underscoring the need for additional protection among IC adults.

During June-October 2022, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 sublineage accounted for most of the sequenced viral genomes in the United States, with further Omicron sublineage diversification through November 2022.* Bivalent mRNA vaccines contain an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain component plus an updated component of the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages. On September 1, 2022, a single bivalent booster dose was recommended for adults who had completed a primary vaccination series (with or without subsequent booster doses), with the last dose administered ≥2 months earlier (1). During September 13-November 18, the VISION Network evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a bivalent mRNA booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) compared with 1) no previous vaccination and 2) previous receipt of 2, 3, or 4 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years with an emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounter or hospitalization for a COVID-19-like illness. VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 56% compared with no vaccination, 31% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 2-4 months earlier, and 50% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was 57% compared with no vaccination, 38% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 5-7 months earlier, and 45% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. Bivalent vaccines administered after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses were effective in preventing medically attended COVID-19 compared with no vaccination and provided additional protection compared with past monovalent vaccination only, with relative protection increasing with time since receipt of the last monovalent dose. All eligible persons should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, including receiving a bivalent booster dose. Persons should also consider taking additional precautions to avoid respiratory illness this winter season, such as masking in public indoor spaces, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high.

Objective. To determine pharmacy students’ preferences for and perceptions of in-person and video evaluations. Methods. A mixed methods survey was administered to 447 first-, second-, and third-year students enrolled in a public US Doctor of Pharmacy program. A survey instrument with 14 quantitative items and four qualitative items was used to measure student perceptions. Eight response choice items measured preferences. Paired t tests were used to compare students’ perceptions. Independent t tests were used to compare perceptions between students who experienced and had not experienced video evaluations. Two researchers performed thematic content analysis of the qualitative responses. Results. Students (n=444, 99.3% response rate) perceived in-person evaluations more positively for all items except nervousness. Students who experienced video technology felt significantly more positive about video evaluations than students who had little or no experience using video technology on nine items. The students who experienced video technology felt significantly less positive toward video evaluations in terms of quality (1.24 vs. 0.83) and amount (1.14 vs 0.77) of written feedback. Although students valued the interaction with a larger, more diverse pool of evaluators that was made possible by video evaluations, they did not view video technology as applicable to their future practice. Conclusion. Students viewed in-person evaluations significantly more positively than video evaluations. This effect was mitigated by greater exposure to video technology, suggesting that concerns regarding video evaluations are based on conjecture rather than experience. This study highlights the need to reduce the technological issues associated with video evaluations and improve the written feedback provided to students.

On September 1, 2022, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended a single bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster dose for persons aged ≥12 years who had completed at least a monovalent primary series. Early vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates among adults aged ≥18 years showed receipt of a bivalent booster dose provided additional protection against COVID-19-associated emergency department and urgent care visits and hospitalizations compared with that in persons who had received only monovalent vaccine doses (1); however, insufficient time had elapsed since bivalent vaccine authorization to assess the durability of this protection. The VISION Network* assessed VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations by time since bivalent vaccine receipt during September 13, 2022-April 21, 2023, among adults aged ≥18 years with and without immunocompromising conditions. During the first 7-59 days after vaccination, compared with no vaccination, VE for receipt of a bivalent vaccine dose among adults aged ≥18 years was 62% (95% CI = 57%-67%) among adults without immunocompromising conditions and 28% (95% CI = 10%-42%) among adults with immunocompromising conditions. Among adults without immunocompromising conditions, VE declined to 24% (95% CI = 12%-33%) among those aged ≥18 years by 120-179 days after vaccination. VE was generally lower for adults with immunocompromising conditions. A bivalent booster dose provided the highest protection, and protection was sustained through at least 179 days against critical outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission or in-hospital death. These data support updated recommendations allowing additional optional bivalent COVID-19 vaccine doses for certain high-risk populations. All eligible persons should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccines.

Background Although psychiatric disorders have been associated with reduced immune responses to other vaccines, it remains unknown whether they influence COVID‐19 vaccine effectiveness (VE). This study evaluated risk of COVID‐19 hospitalization and estimated mRNA VE stratified by psychiatric disorder status. Methods In a retrospective cohort analysis of the VISION Network in four US states, the rate of laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19‐associated hospitalization between December 2021 and August 2022 was compared across psychiatric diagnoses and by monovalent mRNA COVID‐19 vaccination status using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results Among 2,436,999 adults, 22.1% had ≥1 psychiatric disorder. The incidence of COVID‐19‐associated hospitalization was higher among patients with any versus no psychiatric disorder (394 vs. 156 per 100,000 person‐years, p < 0.001). Any psychiatric disorder (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18–1.37) and mood (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15–1.36), anxiety (aHR, 1.33, 95% CI, 1.22–1.45), and psychotic (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14–1.74) disorders were each significant independent predictors of hospitalization. Among patients with any psychiatric disorder, aHRs for the association between vaccination and hospitalization were 0.35 (95% CI, 0.25–0.49) after a recent second dose, 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06–0.11) after a recent third dose, and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.17–0.66) after a recent fourth dose, compared to unvaccinated patients. Corresponding VE estimates were 65%, 92%, and 67%, respectively, and were similar among patients with no psychiatric disorder (68%, 92%, and 79%). Conclusion Psychiatric disorders were associated with increased risk of COVID‐19‐associated hospitalization. However, mRNA vaccination provided similar protection regardless of psychiatric disorder status, highlighting its benefit for individuals with psychiatric disorders.