Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are attractive options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) because they effectively lower A1C and weight while having a low risk of hypoglycemia. Some also have documented cardiovascular benefit. The GLP-1 RA class has grown in the last decade, with several agents available for use in the United States and Europe. Since the efficacy and tolerability, dosing frequency, administration requirements, and cost may vary between agents within the class, each agent may offer unique advantages and disadvantages. Through a review of phase III clinical trials studying dulaglutide, exenatide twice daily, exenatide once weekly, liraglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and oral semaglutide, 14 head-to-head trials were identified that evaluated the safety and efficacy of GLP-1 RA active comparators. The purpose of this review is to provide an analysis of these trials. The GLP-1 RA head-to-head clinical studies have demonstrated that all GLP-1 RA agents are effective therapeutic options at reducing A1C. However, differences exist in terms of magnitude of effect on A1C and weight as well as frequency of adverse effects.

This white paper evaluates the current and future state of clinical pharmacist‐led precision medicine initiatives, focusing on an overview of pharmacogenomics (PGx) in three key areas: clinical practice, education, and research. These key facets are described in detail, followed by a review of potential and perceived barriers concerning PGx and recommendations for the clinical pharmacist's role in overcoming these barriers. This paper reviews the current state of clinical pharmacist‐led precision medicine and presents a vision for the future of pharmacy practice in this quickly evolving field.

This commentary addresses key differences between remote and on-site experiential education, including necessary resources and rotation structure. Health care education during the COVID-19 pandemic was primarily delivered electronically. Studentbased resources such as computers/laptops, stable internet connections, and privacy (physical space and electronic security) became essential for student learning, testing, and provision of patient care. When student resources were limited, educational programs had to adapt to help students in need. Preceptors were required to restructure experiential rotations to provide learning experiences while keeping up with increased clinical-related workloads. Students had increased projects and papers and decreased face-to-face time with patients and professionals. Many community pharmacies were able to educate students on-site, whereas ambulatory care-based sites generally pivoted to telehealth-based interactions. Although telehealth appeared useful, rollout was difficult because of differences in technology, accessibility, and capability. Inpatient-based training proved most difficult and often had to be halted for patient and student safety. Many schools also used unique non-patient care electives to fill experiential gaps and keep students on target for graduation. Delivery of experiential education had a different set of challenges from didactic education. Creative examples to address these challenges included roving tablets with Zoom sessions during rounds, artificial or de-identified cases, and hybrid clinical/dispensing rotations, though most experiences were canceled or restricted by exclusion of patients with COVID-19 patients. Overall, pharmacy education continued. However, many of the methods for training with partly or entirely remote approaches were novel and may become integrated into the "new normal." The face of the world has changed, and pharmacy education must change with it.

No abstract