GLP-1 receptor agonists offer a reasonable alternative for nondiabetic patients not able to achieve weight-loss goals with lifestyle modifications alone.
The opioid crisis represents one of the largest failures of our current health care system as it continues to claim lives at an unprecedented rate and has caused a devastating range of preventable morbidity. Although the availability of highly potent synthetic opioids has amplified the urgency of the crisis for patients and communities, this problem has evolved over several decades. Pharmacists are in a position to offer many potential solutions due to their widespread accessibility, extensive drug knowledge, and integration into various health care settings. This opinion paper challenges the status quo by calling on all pharmacists to embrace evidence‐based opioid stewardship and harm reduction practices, contribute to the medical management of opioid use disorder, and address the misconceptions and prejudices that serve as barriers to effective, compassionate patient care. Regardless of practice setting or available resources, pharmacists can take deliberate and impactful steps to address the opioid crisis. Some pharmacists may be positioned to implement innovative and far‐reaching pharmacist‐led clinical services, while others may simply begin with careful consideration of the language they use when speaking to and about patients with substance use disorders. To optimize patient outcomes, the ineffective laws, regulations, and policies that negatively impact pain and addiction care must be addressed so that evidence‐based solutions can be widely disseminated. Pharmacists must aggressively advocate for the removal of barriers preventing high‐level clinical practice or policies that perpetuate patient harm and abandonment. Finally, there must be support for continued research on pain and opioid use disorder treatments and services, as well as the impacts of harm reduction practices and pharmacist‐led clinical services, so that resources can be allocated effectively.
Objective. To determine how pharmacy students' perceptions of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) differ from those of other health care students. Methods. A 33-item questionnaire was sent to health professional students at a Midwestern university to assess their tobacco use, insights regarding ENDS, cessation education, and perceptions. Health professions included were pharmacy, nursing, public health, optometry, dental hygiene, and others. Results. The overall response rate to the questionnaire was 41% (1152/2799). The study population reported high ENDS use. Almost half (47%) of the respondents had ever used ENDS and 14% were current users (6% pharmacy students vs 19% other health care students). A lower percentage of pharmacy students than other health care students agreed that using ENDS is healthier than using tobacco (18% vs 26%). Overall, pharmacy students more strongly agreed that they had received enough education to counsel patients regarding tobacco cessation (rated 4.7 by pharmacy students vs 3.6 by other health care students on a seven-point Likert scale) and ENDS cessation (rated 3.3 by pharmacy students vs 2.9 by other health care students). Finally, pharmacy students were less likely than other health care students to recommend the use of ENDS to aid patients in quitting traditional cigarette use (2.9 vs 3.2, respectively). Conclusion. The rapid rise in use of ENDS and the continued use of cigarettes in the United States makes it imperative for health care professionals to be knowledgeable about these products and prepared to counsel patients regarding them. We found that pharmacy students tended to have more negative perceptions about ENDS and a lower percentage of pharmacy students than other health care students agreed that ENDS should be used as a cessation tool for quitting traditional cigarettes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.