The field of infectious diseases (ID) pharmacy is characterized by its dynamic nature, continuously adapting to new pathogens, evolving resistance patterns, and advancements in therapeutic and diagnostic modalities. This report synthesizes the latest research updates, primarily focusing on developments from 2024 and 2025, pertinent to ID pharmacists. It highlights their expanding roles, the impact of their interventions, and the critical challenges and opportunities shaping the specialty. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the indispensable contributions of pharmacists in managing infectious threats , and recent research continues to build on this foundation, emphasizing their roles beyond traditional antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) into broader clinical consultation, public health, and research.

ID pharmacotherapy now impacts pharmacists across all specialties, necessitating a foundational understanding and continuous learning for a wide range of practitioners. The specialty of ID pharmacy, which initially arose from a need for consultancy in complex antimicrobial use cases, is now experiencing further expansion in its scope and responsibilities. This historical context is important for understanding the trajectory of the field. The pandemic experience has likely recalibrated expectations from healthcare systems, other providers, and the public regarding the capabilities and responsibilities of pharmacists in infectious diseases. Rather than a simple return to pre-pandemic duties, there appears to be an integration of pandemic-learned lessons and expanded roles into routine practice, demanding ongoing research, adaptation, and formal recognition and resourcing of these broadened responsibilities. Furthermore, if ID pharmacotherapy influences every pharmacist, generalist pharmacists will increasingly require specialized support. This elevates the ID pharmacist's role not only as a direct care provider but also as an educator, mentor, and consultant to other pharmacy professionals, thereby amplifying their impact across the healthcare system and underscoring the need for ID pharmacists to cultivate strong communication and leadership skills.

The path to understanding GLP-1 and its therapeutic utility was not a direct one, but rather an incremental journey rooted in decades of endocrinological investigation. Initial explorations in the 1960s and 1970s focused on glucagon, a pancreatic hormone known to elevate blood sugar levels. During this period, researchers identified proglucagon, a larger precursor molecule that was hypothesized to yield multiple, then-unidentified, peptide hormones.

This early work on proglucagon processing set the stage for the eventual discovery of GLP-1. The "mystery of proglucagon-derived peptides" began to unfold between 1980 and 1983, when scientists successfully mapped the amino acid sequence and the gene responsible for proglucagon. This research revealed that proglucagon could be processed into different bioactive peptides depending on the enzymatic machinery present in specific tissues, highlighting the complexity of its biological functions.

A critical breakthrough occurred in 1986 when the research group led by Svetlana Mojsov identified GLP-1 within the intestinal L-cells, establishing it not merely as a byproduct of proglucagon processing but as an active hormone with distinct biological functions. This discovery was pivotal, shifting the focus towards GLP-1's own physiological roles.

Subsequently, in 1987, the potent insulin-stimulating effect of GLP-1 was characterized. Significantly, this insulinotropic action was found to be glucose-dependent, meaning GLP-1 primarily stimulates insulin release when blood glucose levels are elevated. This intrinsic safety mechanism, which minimizes the risk of hypoglycemia, distinguished GLP-1 from many existing diabetes treatments of the era and was a revolutionary concept in diabetes therapy.

Further research in the late 1980s and 1990s elucidated the "incretin effect," whereby GLP-1, along with Glucose-dependent Insulinotropic Polypeptide (GIP), significantly amplifies the body's natural insulin response following an oral glucose load (e.g., a meal). This finding explained the long-observed phenomenon that oral glucose administration elicits a much greater insulin response than an equivalent intravenous glucose infusion, underscoring the importance of gut-derived hormones in glucose homeostasis.

Endogenous GLP-1 is a multifaceted hormone primarily secreted by the L-cells of the distal ileum and colon in response to nutrient ingestion. Its physiological actions are diverse and central to metabolic regulation. The key functions of GLP-1 include:

* Stimulation of Insulin Release: GLP-1 potently stimulates the secretion of insulin from pancreatic \beta-cells. This action is glucose-dependent, meaning that insulin release is augmented primarily when blood glucose concentrations are elevated, thereby reducing the risk of hypoglycemia during periods of normal or low blood sugar.

* Inhibition of Glucagon Secretion: GLP-1 suppresses the secretion of glucagon from pancreatic \alpha-cells, particularly in the context of hyperglycemia. By reducing glucagon levels, GLP-1 curtails excessive hepatic glucose production, further contributing to postprandial glucose control.

* Slowing of Gastric Emptying: GLP-1 decelerates the rate at which food transits from the stomach to the small intestine. This action delays nutrient absorption into the bloodstream, leading to a more gradual rise in postprandial glucose levels and contributing to feelings of fullness.

* Promotion of Satiety and Reduction of Appetite: GLP-1 exerts effects on the central nervous system, particularly in areas of the brain involved in appetite regulation, such as the hypothalamus. By signaling satiety, GLP-1 helps to reduce food intake and can contribute to weight management.

The wide-ranging actions of GLP-1 on glucose control, appetite regulation, and gastric motility highlight its integral role as a coordinator of the body's response to nutrient intake.

The dual-degree clinician-scientist, often termed a physician-scientist, represents a distinct and critical professional in the biomedical ecosystem, uniquely positioned at the confluence of direct patient care and rigorous scientific inquiry. These individuals traditionally earn both a clinical doctorate, such as a Doctor of Medicine (MD) or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO), and a research doctorate, typically a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). While the MD/PhD and DO/PhD are archetypal, the concept and the associated training pathways have broadened to encompass other clinical disciplines. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States, for instance, recognizes and supports dual-degree training for dentists (DDS/PhD), pharmacists (PharmD/PhD), and veterinarians (DVM/PhD) who pursue careers as clinician-scientists.

This global concept of a clinical professional deeply embedded in research manifests with some regional variations in terminology. While "physician-scientist" is common in North America, "clinician-scientist" or "clinician-researcher" are frequently used in British and Australian English. Regardless of the specific term, the defining characteristic is a substantial commitment to scientific research, with professional effort often divided in ratios ranging from 50% research/50% clinical to as high as 80% research/20% clinical. Indeed, for formally trained physician-investigators, the expectation is often that at least 75% of their professional time will be dedicated to research endeavors. This significant investment in research distinguishes them from clinicians who may engage in research more peripherally or episodically. The formalization of dual-degree programs, such as the NIH-supported Medical Scientist Training Programs (MSTPs) in the US or the MD-PhD program at the Institut Pasteur in France , underscores the international recognition of the need for structured pathways to cultivate these specialized professionals. While the fundamental value of this role is universally acknowledged, the specific pipeline structures and support systems may differ across national contexts, suggesting that strategies to bolster this workforce may require adaptation to local conditions, even as the overarching goals remain consistent.

The United States healthcare system stands as a complex, multifaceted entity, distinguished by its mixed-payer structure and exceptionally high levels of expenditure.

Despite this significant financial investment, the system often yields suboptimal and inequitable health outcomes when compared to other high-income nations. This report provides a detailed description of the U.S. healthcare system, encompassing its structure, financing mechanisms, key stakeholders, and major coverage programs. It critically evaluates the system's performance, highlighting pervasive challenges such as persistent barriers to access and affordability, considerable administrative inefficiencies that contribute to waste, and profound health disparities linked to socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and geography.

The analysis reveals that these challenges are deeply interconnected, stemming from structural features including inherent conflicts of interest within a market-driven framework, significant fragmentation, and an ongoing societal debate regarding the government's role in healthcare. The report underscores the unsustainable trajectory of cost growth, the paradox of high out-of-pocket spending despite widespread insurance coverage, and the impact of payment systems that often incentivize service volume over value. Furthermore, the profound influence of social determinants of health (SDOH) is examined as a critical factor shaping health outcomes and exacerbating inequities.

In response to these multifaceted issues, this report outlines pathways toward a higher-performing healthcare system. These pathways are guided by foundational principles of universal coverage, affordability, equity, quality, and efficiency. Key recommendations include strengthening existing coverage mechanisms like the Affordable Care Act (ACA), exploring innovative models such as public insurance options, and implementing robust cost-control measures. These measures involve promoting value-based care, enabling drug price negotiation, and significantly reducing administrative burdens. Crucially, the report emphasizes the necessity of improving care quality through investments in primary and preventive care, optimizing health information technology, and enhancing care coordination. Advancing health equity requires targeted interventions for underserved populations, a concerted effort to address SDOH through cross-sectoral collaboration, and the promotion of culturally competent care and health literacy. Finally, strengthening the public health infrastructure is identified as essential for population health improvement and preparedness. The report concludes with a call for sustained, courageous, and evidence-informed reforms from all stakeholders to transform the U.S. healthcare system into one that is affordable, accessible, equitable, and delivers high-quality care for all Americans.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) persists as the foremost cause of mortality globally, underscoring the critical need for effective prevention and management strategies. The American Heart Association (AHA) has a long-standing commitment to mitigating the burden of CVD, with historical efforts contributing significantly to reducing mortality rates from these conditions. However, the evolving landscape of health and disease necessitates a continuous refinement of public health approaches.

Recognizing this, there has been a significant evolution in strategy, moving beyond a primary focus on treating established disease towards a more encompassing model of positive health promotion and preservation throughout an individual's life. This represents a paradigm shift towards "primordial prevention"—the prevention of risk factors themselves—aiming to foster a foundation of cardiovascular health (CVH) from an early age and maintain it across the lifespan. This proactive stance acknowledges that optimal CVH is not merely the absence of disease but a positive state that can be actively cultivated and maintained. The low prevalence of ideal CVH, even among adolescents, highlights the urgency of instilling healthy habits early.

The AHA's "Healthy for Good" platform serves as a public-facing initiative designed to make healthy living accessible, understandable, and sustainable for all individuals, supporting this broader vision of lifelong well-being.

In 2010, the AHA introduced "Life's Simple 7" (LS7), a set of seven key modifiable lifestyle factors and health metrics aimed at improving cardiovascular health and reducing CVD mortality. This framework provided a clear, actionable guide for both individuals and healthcare providers. Building upon a decade of research and practical application, the AHA unveiled "Life's Essential 8" (LE8) in 2022. This update was not merely an addition but a comprehensive enhancement, driven by extensive evidence gathered since 2010, which offered new insights into the strengths and limitations of the original LS7 construct and identified emerging areas critical to cardiovascular health.

Genome editing, the purposeful alteration of an organism's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequence, has been a long-standing aspiration for scientists. The capacity to make precise, targeted changes to the genome has not only revolutionized biological research but has also unlocked unprecedented avenues for therapeutic interventions and biotechnological advancements. Historically, methods for genetic modification were often imprecise and inefficient. However, the last few decades have witnessed a remarkable progression towards programmable nucleases capable of targeting specific DNA sequences with increasing accuracy and ease. Among the earliest tools enabling site-specific double-strand breaks (DSBs) were restriction enzymes, which laid the groundwork for in vitro recombinant DNA technology. This foundational work paved the way for the development of more sophisticated engineered nucleases.

The creation of a new pharmaceutical agent is a monumental undertaking, characterized by its profound complexity, extended duration, substantial financial investment, and inherently high risk. This journey, from an initial concept to a marketable therapeutic, is a multidisciplinary endeavor, demanding the integrated expertise of professionals from diverse fields including biology, chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, clinical science, and regulatory affairs. It is not merely a scientific pursuit but a highly regulated process designed to ensure that new medicines are both safe and effective for patient use.

The intricate relationship between a protein's linear sequence of amino acids and its resultant three-dimensional structure is a cornerstone of molecular biology, as this conformation dictates the protein's specific biological function. The challenge of accurately predicting this folded structure from the amino acid sequence alone, often referred to as the protein folding problem, has occupied researchers for over half a century, a point emphasized by Nobel Laureate Venki Ramakrishnan. The sheer complexity of this task is highlighted by the staggering number of theoretically possible conformations a protein can adopt. For instance, a relatively small protein consisting of just 100 amino acids has been estimated to possess on the order of 10^47 potential three-dimensional arrangements, a concept known as Levinthal's paradox. This immense conformational space underscores why traditional experimental methods for structure determination, such as X-ray crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM), have historically been laborious, time-consuming, and often faced limitations in their applicability.

The emergence of AlphaFold, an innovative artificial intelligence (AI) program developed by DeepMind, a subsidiary of Alphabet, has ushered in a new era in the field of protein structure prediction. Its unprecedented accuracy in tackling this fundamental biological problem has been recognized with the prestigious 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. This report aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of AlphaFold, delving into its origins, the underlying mechanisms that drive its predictive power, its profound impact across a spectrum of scientific disciplines, the inherent limitations of the technology, and the exciting trajectory of future developments in this rapidly evolving domain.

The 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry celebrated the groundbreaking advancements in understanding and manipulating the fundamental building blocks of life, proteins. One half of the prize was awarded to David Baker for his pioneering work in computational protein design, enabling the creation of entirely new proteins tailored for specific functions. The other half of this prestigious recognition was jointly bestowed upon Demis Hassabis and John Jumper of Google DeepMind for their development of AlphaFold, an AI system that has revolutionized the prediction of protein structures. This acknowledgment by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences underscores the profound impact of artificial intelligence in addressing a biological challenge that has perplexed scientists for over half a century. The discoveries were lauded for opening up vast new possibilities in comprehending the intricate chemical tools that underpin all life – proteins.