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.