ABSTRACT
Objective. Currently, there is no set of accreditation standards for integrating the dangers of illegal online pharmacies into Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) curricula. As a result, many pharmacists are unable to recognize the differences between a legal and illegal online pharmacy or educate patients on the dangers of online pharmacies. The objectives of this study were to assess gaps in student pharmacists' knowledge and to assess the impact of adding education regarding online pharmacies into PharmD programs. Methods. A pre- and postsurvey design was developed. Data were collected through an electronic questionnaire distributed to second-year pharmacy (P2) students to evaluate student knowledge gaps at baseline and after education on illegal online pharmacies. Results. A total of 102 students responded to the presurvey, with 93 (91%) consenting to participate. Out of 100 respondents to the postsurvey, 84 (84%) students consented. Approximately 87% (81/93) of respondents indicated some awareness of prescription medications being purchased online. Most students (89%, 77/86) stated that they do not believe the university has provided adequate curriculum on illegal online pharmacies and counterfeit medications. After receiving education on the relevant topics, 64% (55/85) stated they now felt their education was adequate. Conclusion. Although pharmacy students were aware of the existence of illegal online pharmacies, they were not aware of the significance of this patient safety issue or how to accurately identify suspicious websites. It is imperative that PharmD programs incorporate formal education on the risks that illegal online pharmacies pose to patient and medication safety.
ABSTRACT
The relentless surges of global severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections that caused the Covid-19 disease had pressured researchers and regulators to develop effective treatments quickly. While studying these therapies amid the pandemic, threats to patient care were reported, including (1) maintaining adequate safeguards as clinical effectiveness and safety data evolves, (2) risks from online counterfeit medications, and (3) disruption of the global pharmaceutical supply chain. This article discusses these patient safety threats and suggests strategies that promote patient safety, foster medication intelligence, and mitigate drug shortages. As the world continues to develop safe and effective treatments for Covid-19, patient safety is paramount. In response to the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm, leaders must establish effective approaches to improve medication safety during the pandemic. Successfully integrating these leadership strategies with current practices allows pharmacy leaders to implement robust systems to reduce errors, prevent harm, and advocate for patient safety.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This review provides an overview of the proceedings of the symposium "Tackling the Challenges of Nanomedicines: Are We Ready?" organized by the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) Hospital Pharmacy Section and Non-Biological Complex Drugs (NBCDs) Working Group at the 2019 FIP World Congress of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. Debate centered on reasons underlying the current complex regulatory landscape for nanomedicines and their follow-on products (referred to as nanosimilars) and the pivotal role of hospital pharmacists in selecting, handling, and guiding usage of nanomedicines and nanosimilars. SUMMARY: The evaluation and use of nanomedicines are recognized among scientific, pharmaceutical, and regulatory bodies as complex. Interchangeability and substitutability of nanomedicines and nanosimilars are confounded by a lack of pharmaceutical and pharmacological equivalence, reflecting the inherent complex nature of these drug products and manufacturing processes. Consequences include implications for clinical safety and efficacy and, ultimately, comparability. Local regulatory approvals of some nanomedicines have occurred, but there is no standard to ensure streamlined evaluation and use of consistent measures of therapeutic equivalence of reference products and their nanosimilars. Hospital pharmacists are expected to be experts in the selection, handling, and substitution of nanomedicines and familiarize themselves with the limitations of current methods of assessing pharmaceutical and clinical equivalence of nanosimilars in order to ensure informed formulary decision-making and eventual patient benefit. CONCLUSION: Supportive guidance for pharmacists focusing on the substitutability and/or interchangeability of nanomedicines and their nanosimilars is needed. Current FIP guidance for pharmacists on therapeutic interchange and substitution should be extended to include nanomedicines and nanosimilars.