Background: US News and World Report (USNWR) publishes well-known rankings of graduate health programs. Medicine and nursing are ranked with weighted metrics using multiple criteria, and medical schools are ranked separately according to their focus (research or primary care). USNWR pharmacy school rankings are based on a single-question peer perception survey. Objective: The objective of this study was to develop a simple, transparent framework to rank US colleges and schools of pharmacy in overall quality and separately based on program quality and research quality, using data that are readily available to the academy. Methods: Data for three education quality and four research quality metrics were obtained for 2020. Each metric was standardized and ranked, and then each set was summed to determine separate ranks for education and research. Education and research scores were combined using equal weights to provide a single rank for overall quality. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the effect of assigning higher proportionate value to education, similar to USNWR medical school rankings. Results: Distinct ranks were produced for education, research, overall (education: research) 50:50, and overall 60:40. Sensitivity analysis suggests the more disproportionately the education and research factors are weighted, the more ranks change. Mid-ranked schools were most impacted when weightings changed due to relative strength in one factor and relative weakness in the other. When weighted 60:40, nine (7%) mid-ranked programs improved in rank, while 11 (11%) worsened in rank compared to the 50:50 model. Conclusion: Separately ranking education and research can highlight the diverse strengths of pharmacy schools. The proposed model is based on easily obtainable data and is easily reproducible, allowing for annual rankings. These rankings may be used by PharmD and PhD applicants when selecting schools and by pharmacy schools to benchmark true and aspirational peers.

OBJECTIVES:To review the characteristics, efficacy, safety, pharmacoeconomics, and place in therapy of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).DATA SOURCES:PubMed (January 2003-May 2022) was searched using upadacitinib and ABT-494.STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:Human studies published in peer-reviewed publications in English were the primary sources for efficacy and safety data.DATA SYNTHESIS:In randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical studies, upadacitinib demonstrated statistically significant improvement in RA symptoms as monotherapy and in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) when compared with csDMARD monotherapy or to adalimumab or abatacept in combination with csDMARD therapy in patients with RA. American College of Rheumatology 20% response rates were 68% to 79% for upadacitinib monotherapy and 64% to 84% for upadacitinib plus csDMARD therapy, compared with 28% to 59% for csDMARD-only therapy and 63% to 74% for biologic DMARD (bDMARD) plus csDMARD therapy. Long-term extension studies demonstrated similar findings. Upadacitinib had similar rates of serious infections, herpes zoster, major cardiovascular events, and venous thromboembolic events as other JAK inhibitors. Upadacitinib was similar in cost to tofacitinib and twice as high as baricitinib based on current estimated costs to patients, but actual costs may vary.RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE:Upadacitinib is an alternative therapy to other JAK inhibitors and bDMARDs in patients with moderate to severe RA who have had an inadequate response to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor alone or in combination with a csDMARD.CONCLUSIONS:Upadacitinib is an effective JAK inhibitor for use in RA.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Professional identity formation (PIF) involves internalizing and demonstrating the behavioral norms, standards, and values of a professional community, such that one comes to "think, act and feel" like a member of that community. Professional identity influences how a professional perceives, explains, presents and conducts themselves. This report of the 2020-2021 AACP Student Affairs Standing Committee (SAC) describes the benefits of a strong professional identity, including its importance in advancing practice transformation. Responding to a recommendation from the 2019-2020 SAC, this report presents an illustrative and interpretative schema as an initial step towards describing a pharmacist's identity. However, the profession must further elucidate a universal and distinctive pharmacist identity, in order to better support pharmacists and learners in explaining and presenting the pharmacist's scope of practice and opportunities for practice change. Additionally, the report outlines recommendations for integrating intentional professional identity formation within professional curricula at colleges and schools of pharmacy. Although there is no standardized, single way to facilitate PIF in students, the report explores possibilities for meeting the student support and faculty development needs of an emerging new emphasis on PIF within the Academy.

High-quality experiential education builds on didactic education to enable graduates to meet the full spectrum of entry-level pharmacy-related roles and responsibilities, including lifelong learning and professional development. The 2019 Educational Affairs Committee A, an ACCP standing committee, was charged to review and update the 2008 ACCP white paper and position statement on quality experiential education. The main objective of this white paper is to provide colleges and schools of pharmacy (C/SOPs) and affiliated partners in experiential education with practices expected to assist in achieving excellence in experiential education and fulfilling the goal of developing fully competent practice-and team-ready pharmacy graduates.

Objective: To measure the impact of an electronic health record (EHR) and simulated physician encounters on student knowledge and skills related to the implementation phase of the Pharmacist Patient Care Process (PPCP). Secondary objectives were to measure students' self-perceived abilities. Methods: Students enrolled in a therapeutics course worked-up patient cases within an EHR. Students entered orders/prescriptions into the computerised provider order entry (CPOE) platform. Faculty graded student work using a rubric. Students completed an instructor-developed pre-post attitudes survey and knowledge quiz. Results: Two hundred students participated in this study and worked-up seven cases. Scores ranged from 67.7% to 88.2% on the case work-ups and 78.6% to 91.1% on the order/prescription-entry components. Individual scores on the quiz improved from 15.3/20 to 17.3/20 (p<0.001). Aggregate ratings on the attitudes survey increased from 23.2 to 31.0 (p<0.001). Conclusion: Use of an EHR coupled with simulation was well-received and improved student understanding of the PPCP.

OBJECTIVE:The Hiring Intent Reasoning Examination (HIRE) was designed to (1) explore the relative value of applicant-specific attributes evaluated during the hiring of entry-level pharmacists; (2) examine how each of these attributes influences hiring decisions; and (3) identify which attributes practicing pharmacists perceive as most and least valuable.METHODS:An electronic questionnaire was developed and sent to 36,817 pharmacists; 3723 (11%) responded representing a broad cross-section of practice settings and job roles. Forty-eight attributes were analyzed, 24 character traits and 24 markers of academic success. Respondents identified: 1) the relative importance the possession of each attribute would play in the decision to hire an applicant; 2) the relative importance the lack of possession of the attribute would play on the decision to hire an applicant; 3) the 10 most important attributes used when considering an applicant, and; 4) the 10 least important attributes used when considering an applicant. After investigating the relative importance of the 48 traits, a factor analysis to further group the traits was undertaken.RESULTS:Character traits were consistently ranked higher than academic traits, both in importance and as more likely to effect the hiring decision. Additionally, "the top ten most important attributes" were dominated by character traits and "the top ten least important attributes" used in the hiring of an entry-level pharmacist were dominated by the academic traits. A factor analysis provided further evidence of the distinction of the character traits from the academic success markers.CONCLUSION:When selecting employees from a pool of qualified applicants, the most important attributes used in hiring decision relate to the character of the pharmacist. The results are similar across all practice settings and types of respondents completing the survey.

Objective. To develop, implement and assess a strategic plan and its process within a school of pharmacy. Methods. The process for developing the strategic plan included five phases: designing and scanning by a planning committee; divergent thinking with input from key internal and external stakeholders who shared their vision for the school; convergent planning in which faculty members helped to prioritize the clusters, goals, and metrics that had been identified; refining ideas into strategies; and assessment, during which metrics were aligned with assessment plans and data were collected and analyzed. Results. The completed strategic plan had five broad strategies, 20 specific goals, and 90 associated metrics. The plan was implemented with engagement by all major stakeholders in the program. Reallocation of existing resources and generation of new resources were key in making progress. The assessment, which was conducted three years after implementation of the strategic plan, found that each strategy had affected the school's mission to provide an exemplary educational experience for students and to advance the institution. Conclusion. The strategic plan provided direction and focus to meet the challenges of continuing to advance the school. The keys for success in strategic planning are having a well-defined process, involving all faculty members and other key stakeholders, implementing the plan, and routinely assessing progress in meeting the strategic goals.

Objective: To review the efficacy, safety, and economics of abaloparatide in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Data Sources: PubMed (1966 to October 2017), Clinicaltrials.gov (October 2017), and Scopus (1970 to October 2017) were searched using abaloparatide, Tymlos, BA058, PTHrP 1-34 analog, and parathyroid hormone-related peptide 1-34 analog. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Human studies published in peer-reviewed publications in English were the primary sources for efficacy, safety, and economic data. Data Synthesis: In the 2 randomized, published clinical studies of 24 weeks and 18 months duration, bone mineral density changes were higher for abaloparatide (lumbar spine, 6.7%-11.2%; femoral head, 3.1%-3.2%; total hip, 2.6%-4.2%) compared with placebo (lumbar spine, 0.6%-1.6%; femoral head, -0.4% to 0.8%; total hip, -0.1% to 0.4%; P < 0.05) and compared with teriparatide in the 24-week study (total hip 2.6% vs +0.5%, P < 0.05). New vertebral and nonvertebral fractures occurred in 0.6% and 2.7% of patients on abaloparatide compared with 4.2% and 4.7% on placebo in the 18-month study (P < 0.05). Abaloparatide appears to have a somewhat higher risk for adverse effects, discontinuation as a result of adverse effects, and serious or severe adverse effects than teriparatide, but teriparatide has a higher risk for hypercalcemia. Pharmacoeconomic modeling appears to favor abaloparatide if differences in efficacy and cost are maintained. Conclusion: Abaloparatide, which has less effect on osteoclasts, is an alternative to teriparatide in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis who are at high risk for fractures or who have failed antiresorptive therapy based on initial clinical studies and economic modeling.

Major Objectives: To review the efficacy, safety, and economics of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Data Sources: PubMed (1966 to January 2018), Clinicaltrials.gov (January 2018), and Scopus (1970 to January 2018) were searched using sarilumab, Kevzara, REGN88, and SAR153191. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Human studies published in peer-reviewed publications in English were the primary sources for efficacy and safety. Data Synthesis: Data from randomized, double-blind, controlled, published clinical studies weeks demonstrated statistically significantly higher American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, and Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) remission response rates and improvements in DAS28 and Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index scores for sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy (P < 0.05) and for sarilumab versus placebo in patients receiving methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs); P < 0.05. The ACR20 and ACR50 response rates were, respectively, 56-72% and 35-46% for sarilumab, 58% and 30% for adalimumab, and 33-34% and 15-18% for placebo. DAS28 remission rates were 20-34% for sarilumab, 7% for adalimumab, and 7-10% for placebo. Sarilumab has a higher risk for neutropenia than tocilizumab, the other IL-6 inhibitor, but a lower risk for dyslipidemia, injection site reactions, and gastrointestinal perforation. The acquisition costs of sarilumab are expected to be similar to those of most other biologic DMARDs. Conclusion: Sarilumab is an alternative to biologic DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs in patients with moderate to severely active RA who have not responded adequately to prior conventional synthetic DMARDs or tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors.

Objective. To characterize use of the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA) in terms of timing, manner of delivery, and application of the results by accredited colleges of pharmacy. Methods. Accredited pharmacy programs were surveyed regarding PCOA administration, perceived benefits, and practical application of score reports. Survey items were comprised of new items developed from a literature review and items from prior studies. The survey addressed five domains: program demographics, administration, student preparation, use of results, and recommendations to improve the utility of the PCOA. Results. Responses were received from 126 of 139 (91%) surveyed programs. The majority of respondent programs administered PCOA in one session on a single campus. Most indicated PCOA results had limited use for individual student assessment. Almost half reported that results were or could be useful in curriculum review and benchmarking. Considerable variability existed in the preparation and incentives for PCOA performance. Differences in some results were found based on prior PCOA experience and between new vs older programs. Open-ended responses provided suggestions to enhance the application and utility of PCOA. Conclusion. The intended uses of PCOA results, such as for student assessment, curricular review, and programmatic benchmarking, are not being implemented across the academy. Streamlining examination logistics, providing additional examination-related data, and clarifying the purpose of the examination to faculty members and students may increase the utility of PCOA results.

Objective. To determine the impact of a vaccine hesitancy learning unit on student knowledge, attitudes, and ability to address vaccine hesitancy and/or refusal. Methods. The learning unit consisted of two standardized patient simulation encounters performed one week apart. A 13-item attitudes survey was administered prior to the simulations to determine student confidence and knowledge regarding vaccine hesitancy. Students then participated in an encounter with a simulated patient who assessed the students' abilities using a 16-item grading rubric related to the art of the rhetoric, communication skills, and social, emotional competence. Post-simulation, students received feedback, completed a self-reflection exercise, and received formal coursework on addressing vaccine hesitancy. The following week, students participated in a second simulated patient encounter and thereafter completed the same attitudes and satisfaction surveys. Results. There were 203 students who went through the learning unit, with 180 (88.6% response rate) completing all the survey tools. The results showed significant improvements in all 16 items of the assessment rubric. On the pre/post attitudes questions, 9 out of 13 items showed significant improvement. Gains were largest for knowledge on the use of thimerosal as a preservative, speaking about how vaccines will not overwhelm a child's immune system, and knowledge about vaccinations not overwhelming a child's immune system. Overall, 94% of students were satisfied with the learning unit. Conclusion. This learning unit was effective in improving student confidence and ability to address vaccine hesitancy.

Objective. The Hiring Intent Reasoning Examination (HIRE) was designed to explore the utility of the CAPE 2013 outcomes attributes from the perspective of practicing pharmacists, examine how each attribute influences hiring decisions, and identify which of the attributes are perceived as most and least valuable by practicing pharmacists. Methods. An electronic questionnaire was developed and distributed to licensed pharmacists in four states to collect their opinions about 15 CAPE subdomains plus five additional business related attributes. The attributes that respondents identified were: necessary to be a good pharmacist, would impact hiring decisions, most important to them, and in short supply in the applicant pool. Data were analyzed using statistical analysis software to determine the relative importance of each to practicing pharmacists and various subsets of pharmacists. Results. The CAPE subdomains were considered necessary for most jobs by 51% or more of the 3723 respondents (range, 51% to 99%). The necessity for business-related attributes ranged from 21% to 92%. The percentage who would not hire an applicant who did not possess the attribute ranged from 2% to 71.5%; the percentage who considered the attribute most valuable ranged from 0.3% to 35%; and the percentage who felt the attribute was in short supply ranged from 5% to 36%. Opinions varied depending upon gender, practice setting and whether the pharmacist was an employee or employer. Conclusion. The results of this study can be used by faculty and administrators to inform curricular design and emphasis on CAPE domains and business-related education in pharmacy programs.

Objective: To review the efficacy, safety, and economics of abaloparatide in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Data Sources: PubMed (1966 to October 2017), Clinicaltrials.gov (October 2017), and Scopus (1970 to October 2017) were searched using abaloparatide, Tymlos, BA058, PTHrP 1-34 analog, and parathyroid hormone–related peptide 1-34 analog. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Human studies published in peer-reviewed publications in English were the primary sources for efficacy, safety, and economic data. Data Synthesis: In the 2 randomized, published clinical studies of 24 weeks and 18 months duration, bone mineral density changes were higher for abaloparatide (lumbar spine, 6.7%-11.2%; femoral head, 3.1%-3.2%; total hip, 2.6%-4.2%) compared with placebo (lumbar spine, 0.6%-1.6%; femoral head, −0.4% to 0.8%; total hip, −0.1% to 0.4%; P < 0.05) and compared with teriparatide in the 24-week study (total hip 2.6% vs +0.5%, P < 0.05). New vertebral and nonvertebral fractures occurred in 0.6% and 2.7% of patients on abaloparatide compared with 4.2% and 4.7% on placebo in the 18-month study (P < 0.05). Abaloparatide appears to have a somewhat higher risk for adverse effects, discontinuation as a result of adverse effects, and serious or severe adverse effects than teriparatide, but teriparatide has a higher risk for hypercalcemia. Pharmacoeconomic modeling appears to favor abaloparatide if differences in efficacy and cost are maintained. Conclusion: Abaloparatide, which has less effect on osteoclasts, is an alternative to teriparatide in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis who are at high risk for fractures or who have failed antiresorptive therapy based on initial clinical studies and economic modeling.

The development and approval of the Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process (“the Process”) by the Joint Commission of Pharmacy Practitioners and incorporation of the Process into the 2016 Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education Standards has the potential to lead to important changes in the

The 2016 American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Educational Affairs Committee was charged with updating and contemporizing ACCP's 2009 Pharmacotherapy Didactic Curriculum Toolkit. The toolkit has been designed to guide schools and colleges of pharmacy in developing, maintaining, and modifying their curricula. The 2016 committee reviewed the recent medical literature and other documents to identify disease states that are responsive to drug therapy. Diseases and content topics were organized by organ system, when feasible, and grouped into tiers as defined by practice competency. Tier 1 topics should be taught in a manner that prepares all students to provide collaborative, patient-centered care upon graduation and licensure. Tier 2 topics are generally taught in the professional curriculum, but students may require additional knowledge or skills after graduation (e.g., residency training) to achieve competency in providing direct patient care. Tier 3 topics may not be taught in the professional curriculum; thus, graduates will be required to obtain the necessary knowledge and skills on their own to provide direct patient care, if required in their practice. The 2016 toolkit contains 276 diseases and content topics, of which 87 (32%) are categorized as tier 1, 133 (48%) as tier 2, and 56 (20%) as tier 3. The large number of tier 1 topics will require schools and colleges to use creative pedagogical strategies to achieve the necessary practice competencies. Almost half of the topics (48%) are tier 2, highlighting the importance of postgraduate residency training or equivalent practice experience to competently care for patients with these disorders. The Pharmacotherapy Didactic Curriculum Toolkit will continue to be updated to provide guidance to faculty at schools and colleges of pharmacy as these academic pharmacy institutions regularly evaluate and modify their curricula to keep abreast of scientific advances and associated practice changes. Access the current Pharmacotherapy Didactic Curriculum Toolkit at http://www.accp.com/docs/positions/misc/Toolkit_final.pdf.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic, progressive autoimmune disease associated with inflammation and destruction of joints and systemic effects, which result in significant impact on patient's quality of life and function. Tofacitinib was approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the USA in 2012 and subsequently in other countries, but not by the European Medicines Agency. The goal of this review was to evaluate the impact of tofacitinib on patient-reported and patient-specific outcomes from prior clinical studies, focusing on quality of life, functionality, pain, global disease assessment, major adverse consequences, and withdrawals. A total of 13 reports representing 11 clinical studies on tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis were identified through PubMed and reference lists in meta-analyses and other reviews. Data on improvements in patient-driven composite tools to measure disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis, such as the Health Assessment Questionnaire, served as a major outcome evaluated in this review and were extracted from each study. Additional data extracted from those clinical studies included patient assessment of pain (using a 0-100 mm visual analog scale), patient global assessment of disease (using a 0-100 mm visual analog scale), patient withdrawals, withdrawals due to adverse effects or lack of effect, and risk of serious adverse effects, serious infections, and deaths. Tofacitinib 5 mg bid appears to have a favorable impact on patient outcomes related to efficacy and safety when compared with baseline values and with comparator disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and placebo. Improvements were seen in the composite and individual measures of disease activity. Serious adverse effects, other adverse consequences, overall withdrawals, and withdrawals due to adverse effects and lack of efficacy are similar or more favorable for tofacitinib versus comparator disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and placebo. At this point, tofacitinib appears to have an important role in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis through improvement in these patient outcomes. However, it may require years of additional clinical studies and postmarketing surveillance to fully characterize the benefit-to-risk ratio of tofacitinib in a larger and diverse patient population.

Collaborations between dentists and pharmacists have the potential to improve patient care; however, there are limited examples in practice of interprofessional models between these disciplines. The purpose of this article is to explore the current relationship between dentists and pharmacists and to propose new models of interprofessional collaboration that target improvements in patient care.

Although the application of a consistent process of care serves as a foundational principle for most health care professions, this is not true for the discipline of clinical pharmacy. Without an explicit, reproducible process of care, it is not possible to demonstrate to patients, caregivers, or health professionals the ways in which the clinical pharmacist can reliably contribute to improved medication‐related outcomes. A consistent patient care process should describe the key steps that all clinical pharmacists will follow when they encounter a patient, regardless of the type of practice, the clinical setting, or the medical conditions or medications involved. Four essential elements serve as the cornerstones of the clinical pharmacist's patient care process: assess the patient and his or her medication therapy, develop a plan of care, i mplement the plan, and evaluate the outcomes of the plan. Despite the fact that several processes of care have been advocated for clinical pharmacists, none has been adopted by the clinical pharmacy discipline. In addition, numerous publications evaluate outcomes related to clinical pharmacy services, but it is difficult to determine what process of patient care was used in most of these studies. In our view, a consistent process of direct patient care that includes the four essential elements should be adopted by the clinical pharmacy discipline. This process should be clear, straightforward and intuitive, readily documentable, and applicable to all practice settings. Once adopted, the process should be implemented across practice settings, taught in professional degree programs, integrated into students’ clinical rotations, refined during residency training, and used as a foundation for future large‐scale studies to rigorously study the effects of the clinical pharmacist on patients’ medication‐related outcomes.