Over the past 2 decades, e-learning has evolved as a new pedagogy within pharmacy education. As learners and teachers increasingly seek e-learning opportunities for an array of educational and individual benefits, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. This systematic review of the literature examines the quality of e-learning effectiveness studies in pharmacy, describes effectiveness measures, and synthesizes the evidence for each measure. E-learning in pharmacy education effectively increases knowledge and is a highly acceptable instructional format for pharmacists and pharmacy students. However, there is limited evidence that e-learning effectively improves skills or professional practice. There is also no evidence that e-learning is effective at increasing knowledge long term; thus, long-term follow-up studies are required. Translational research is also needed to evaluate the benefits of e-learning at patient and organizational levels.

Food allergy is a significant issue worldwide, particularly in Westernised countries. There is no clear explanation why food allergy appears to have increased so rapidly in recent years, particularly in young children, hence ongoing research to identify effective primary prevention strategies. Food allergy prevention guidelines for health professionals have been developed based on existing clinical trial evidence for effective translation and implementation. As these guidelines underpin clinical practice, it is important to ensure robust processes of development. We conducted a systematic review to identify food allergy prevention guidelines for health professional use; to compare the recommendations made by the identified guideline documents; and to assess the quality of the identified guideline documents.

Four COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in Australia: Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (Comirnaty), AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (Vaxzevria), Moderna mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) and Novavax NVX-CoV2373 (Nuvaxovid). We sought to examine adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) at days 3 and 42 after primary doses 1, 2, 3 and booster. We conducted active vaccine safety surveillance from 130 community pharmacies in Australia integrated with AusVaxSafety, between August 2021–April 2022. Main outcomes: AEFI at 0–3 days post-vaccination; medical review/advice at 3 days and 42 days post-vaccination; SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection by day 42. Of 110,024 completed day 3 surveys (43.6% response rate), 50,367 (45.8%) reported any AEFI (highest proportions: Pfizer 42%, primary dose 3; AstraZeneca 58.3%, primary dose 1; Moderna 65.4% and Novavax 58.8%, both primary dose 2). The most common AEFI reported across all doses/vaccines were local reactions, systemic aches and fatigue/tiredness. Overall, 2172/110,024 (2.0%) and 1182/55,329 (2.1%) respondents sought medical review at days 3 and 42, respectively, and 931/42,318 (2.2%) reported breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection at day 42. We identified similar AEFI profiles but at lower proportions than previously reported for Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines. Moderna vaccine was the most reactogenic and associated with higher AEFI proportions across primary doses 2, 3, and booster.

To evaluate the long-term effectiveness of an Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) anaphylaxis e-learning program compared to lectures or no training. A controlled interrupted-time-series study of Australian pharmacists and pharmacy students who completed ASCIA anaphylaxis e-learning or lecture programs was conducted during 2011-2013. Effectiveness was measured using a validated test administered pretraining, posttraining, and 3 and 7 months after training. All learning groups performed significantly better on all posttests compared to the pretest, and compared to a control group (p<0.001). The proportion of e-learners achieving the minimum standard for anaphylaxis knowledge improved from 45% at pretest to 87% at 7 months. The ASCIA e-learning program significantly increased anaphylaxis knowledge. The high proportion of participants achieving the minimum standard at 7 months indicates long-term knowledge change.

Successful treatment of anaphylaxis in the community relies on early and correct use of epinephrine autoinjectors. Community pharmacists supply these devices and have a crucial role teaching patients how to use them. Supply of epinephrine autoinjectors in Australia increased 70-fold in the past decade. New EpiPen and Anapen autoinjectors were launched in Australia in 2011 and 2012, with the potential to cause confusion. However there is no information about how pharmacists demonstrate epinephrine autoinjectors to patients. Therefore the aim of this study was to assess real-world community pharmacist demonstrations of EpiPen and Anapen. We also sought to identify consultation-based predictors of accurate demonstration. Demonstration accuracy was assessed in simulated patient visits to 300 randomly selected pharmacies. Pharmacists were asked by the simulated patient how to use original EpiPen, new-look EpiPen or Anapen, and assessed against the relevant Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) Action Plan for Anaphylaxis. Other anaphylaxis advice provided by the pharmacist was also recorded. Accuracy was analysed descriptively. Binary logistic regression was used to identify predictors of accurate demonstration. All 300 pharmacies were visited. Of 250 pharmacist demonstrations, 46 (18.4%) accurately demonstrated all four steps on ASCIA Action Plan. Failure to state ‘do not touch the needle’ (74.8%) or ‘massage injection site’ (68.8%) reduced accuracy. However 163 (65.2%) accurately demonstrated the three steps required to inject epinephrine (no difference by device, p = 0.15). Associations with accurate demonstration were: checking if the patient had an anaphylaxis action plan (odds ratio, OR = 16.1; 95% CI: 3.86-67.3); stating to call an ambulance after use (OR = 4.0; 95% CI: 1.44-11.1); or explaining side effects of epinephrine (OR = 4.5; 95% CI: 1.48-13.4). It is critical that anaphylaxis patients know how to use their prescribed epinephrine autoinjector correctly. Pharmacists have acceptable rates of EpiPen and Anapen demonstration accuracy, although more is needed to improve this. Those who pay attention to the need for action plans, emergency care after epinephrine use, and informing patients about the side effects of epinephrine may have better knowledge about anaphylaxis, and in turn significantly improve demonstration accuracy.

Objectives We integrated an established participant-centred active vaccine safety surveillance system with a cloud-based pharmacy immunisation-recording program in order to measure adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) reported via the new surveillance system in pharmacies, compared with AEFI reported via an existing surveillance system in non-pharmacy sites (general practice and other clinics). Design A prospective cohort study. Participants and setting Individuals >10 years receiving influenza immunisations from 22 pharmacies and 90 non-pharmacy (general practice and other clinic) sites between March and October 2020 in Western Australia. Active vaccine safety surveillance was conducted using short message service and smartphone technology, via an opt-out system. Outcome measures Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the primary outcome: differences in proportions of AEFI between participants immunised in pharmacies compared with non-pharmacy sites, adjusting for confounders of age, sex and influenza vaccine brand. A subgroup analysis of participants over 65 years was also performed. Results Of 101 440 participants (6992 from pharmacies; 94 448 from non-pharmacy sites), 77 498 (76.4%) responded; 96.1% (n=74 448) within 24 hours. Overall, 4.8% (n=247) pharmacy participants reported any AEFI, compared with 6% (n=4356) non-pharmacy participants (adjusted OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.99; p=0.039). Similar proportions of AEFIs were reported in pharmacy (5.8%; n=31) and non-pharmacy participants (6; n=1617) aged over 65 years (adjusted OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.35; p=0.725). The most common AEFIs in pharmacy were: pain (2%; n=104), tiredness (1.9%; n=95) and headache (1.7%; n=88); and in non-pharmacy sites: pain (2.3%; n=1660), tiredness (1.9%; n=1362) and swelling (1.5%; n=1121). Conclusions High and rapid response rates demonstrate good participant engagement with active surveillance in both pharmacy and non-pharmacy participants. Significantly fewer AEFIs reported after pharmacist immunisations compared with non-pharmacy immunisations, with no difference in older adults, may suggest different cohorts attend pharmacy versus non-pharmacy immunisers. The integrated pharmacy system is rapidly scalable across Australia with global potential.