Drug information is a specialty area within the realm of clinical pharmacy that has evolved as technology and clinical practice have changed. Drug information specialists are trained individuals who have clinical knowledge and skills that allow them to provide clear, concise, and accurate recommendations regarding drug use. The constant changing culture of drug information and health care in general has prompted the need for continual growth and refinement of the standards that govern drug information practice. This article outlines specific standards to help ensure that the education and practice of drug information will continue to meet the needs of the health care community. This opinion paper is divided into two sections: Education and Training, and Practice Areas. The Education and Training section is organized to describe the role of drug information and that of the drug information specialist in the training of all pharmacy students and advanced trainees, as well as to describe the role of focused training for those individuals wishing to specialize in drug information. This article also affirms the recommendations for the standards-based approach to drug information education and specialty training. The Practice Areas section is organized to describe the role of the drug information specialist within various practice settings, to identify some of the challenges faced by the drug information specialist within those settings, and to provide recommendations for the different practice areas. The areas found within this section include academia, institutional health systems, managed care, industry, medical writing, and informatics.

Objectives Home-based rapid diagnostic testing can play an integral role in controlling the spread of COVID-19. This review aimed to identify and compare at-home diagnostic tests that have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) and convey details about COVID-19 diagnostic tests, including regulatory information, pertinent to pharmacy practice. Methods Food and Drug Administration (FDA) online resources pertaining to COVID-19 tests, EUAs, and medical devices were consulted, as well as linked resources from the FDA’s webpages. Homepages of the 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs were comprehensively reviewed. PubMed literature searches were performed, most recently in May 2021, to locate literature about the identified home tests, as were searches of Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv. Literature Selection Studies were included if they were performed at home or were self-collected (or collected by a parent or guardian for patients under 18 years of age), and evaluated the positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) for the clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Results Limited data has been published for these home tests given that they are available through EUAs that do not require clinical trials. Fifteen studies were located from searching the literature, but only 2 met the inclusion criteria. Review of the home-tests' websites yielded a single study for each test with the 3 BinaxNow platforms using the same study for their EUAs. The 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs as of May 7, 2021 include 3 molecular tests and 6 antigen tests. These tests had similar performance based on positive percent agreement ranging from 83.5% to 97.4% and negative percent agreement ranging from 97% to 100%. Conclusions The 9 SARS-CoV-2 home tests demonstrated satisfactory performance in comparison to laboratory real time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests. The convenience and ease of use of these tests make them well-suited for home-based rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Medical misinformation is more pervasive today because of widespread and near instantaneous dissemination of information via the internet and social media platforms. Consequences of medical misinformation may include decreased uptake of needed health care resources, delays in seeking care, vaccine hesitancy, medication non‐compliance, increased disease outbreaks and/or burden, and increased hospitalization and mortality. It disproportionately impacts underserved populations, including Black patients, those who identify as LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and more), and patients with reduced health literacy skills or who are digitally disadvantaged. Medical misinformation challenges health care professionals not only to provide the best care possible, but to assist patients in finding accurate information. Preprint publications, although potentially beneficial in rapidly disseminating new scientific discoveries, often have not undergone peer review and may contribute to the widespread propagation of inaccurate or overstated results, thereby perpetuating the spread of medical misinformation when it exists. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic highlighted the importance of practicing evidence‐based medicine and the need for cautious review of preprint publications and articles from predatory publishers in addition to usual and customary literature evaluation techniques. Everyone plays a role in preventing the spread of medical misinformation, with pharmacists uniquely positioned as trusted and highly accessible professionals who may help combat its spread. The goal of this article is to define medical misinformation and related terms, outline mechanisms by which it is spread, describe its clinical impact, highlight how it disproportionately impacts underserved populations, provide actionable strategies to prevent its spread, and give examples of practical tactics to help identify, correct, and alert individuals about the possible presence of medical misinformation.