The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic is currently the most acute healthcare challenge in the world. Despite growing knowledge of the nature of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), treatment options are still poorly defined. The safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), specifically ibuprofen, has been openly questioned without any supporting evidence or clarity over dose, duration, or temporality of administration. This has been further conflicted by the initiation of studies to assess the efficacy of ibuprofen in improving outcomes in severe COVID-19 patients. To clarify the scientific reality, a literature search was conducted alongside considerations of the pharmacological properties of ibuprofen in order to construct this narrative review. The literature suggests that double-blind, placebo-controlled study results must be reported and carefully analysed for safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19 before any recommendations can be made regarding the use of ibuprofen in such patients. Limited studies have suggested: (i) no direct interactions between ibuprofen and SARS-CoV-2 and (ii) there is no evidence to suggest ibuprofen affects the regulation of angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2 (ACE2), the receptor for COVID-19, in human studies. Furthermore, in vitro studies suggest ibuprofen may facilitate cleavage of ACE2 from the membrane, preventing membrane-dependent viral entry into the cell, the clinical significance of which is uncertain. Additionally, in vitro evidence suggests that inhibition of the transcription factor nuclear factor-κB (NF-kB) by ibuprofen may have a role in reducing excess inflammation or cytokine release in COVID-19 patients. Finally, there is no evidence that ibuprofen will aggravate or increase the chance of infection of COVID-19.

No abstract

OBE2109 promptly lowered E2 levels. Add-back therapy may be required to prevent adverse effects on bone in women treated with the 200-mg dose (at 100 mg in some women). These results provide a basis for OBE2109 regimen selection to treat sex-hormone-dependent diseases.

Background: Skin sensitivity characteristics and triggers have been identified in populations in previous studies. However, few have compared these characteristics among selfreported sensitive skin. Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare specific intrinsic and extrinsic triggers of skin sensitivity between individuals with self-reported sensitive skin and nonsensitive skin. Methods: A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify intrinsic and extrinsic factors associated with sensitive skin. A 167-item survey was developed on the basis of the literature review. The survey was completed online by a sample of adult participants drawn from the general United Kingdom population. Participants also completed sociodemographic and self-reported health questions. Results: A total of 3050 surveys were completed: 1526 participants with self-reported skin sensitivity and 1524 participants not reporting skin sensitivity. There was a decrease in selfreported skin sensitivity with increasing age (p<0.05), and proportionally more women reported sensitive skin. Smoking also led to a higher frequency of sensitive skin. All signs and symptoms of sensitive skin, such as itch, dryness/flakiness, roughness and flushing/ blushing were more commonly reported by those with self-reported sensitive skin. These were frequently reported in association with external factors (cold/windy weather, clothes and fabrics), as well as internal factors such as pre-existing skin conditions and atopy. Conclusion:The study evaluated self-reported sensitive skin against a non-sensitive skin in order to identify common inherent and external triggers to distinguish between these groups in a large general population study in the United Kingdom. The key symptoms and signs of this syndrome identified in the literature were confirmed to be reported significantly more when compared with those without sensitive skin. However, no correlation or pattern of symptomology could be identified, reinforcing the complexity of this condition. Given the strong differentiation from the non-sensitive group, the results of this research could be utilised for the development of a clinically meaningful screening tool.

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is a common condition affecting 30% of infants aged 0-23 months. The Infant Gastroesophageal Questionnaire Revised version (I-GERQ-R) is an observer-reported outcome measures (ObsRO) developed to evaluate the impact of GORD on young infants. However, evidence regarding the clinically important difference (CID) for the I-GERQ-R is limited. The aim of this study was to determine a CID for the I-GERQ-R. Methods: A literature review was undertaken (PsycInfo, Embase, MedLine and EconLit databases) for longitudinal studies involving the I-GERQ-R. Articles were not limited by language or publication date. A random effects model was applied to calculate an overall CID, along with I 2 and Q statistics. Publication bias was also assessed. Results: The search identified 42 articles; 11 were selected for full-text review and 7 articles were identified for full data extraction. The studies included a total of 661 infants (range: 30 to 313); 424 infants had been diagnosed with GORD (64%). The age range of the infants across the studies was from birth to 7 months. The overall CID was −6.54 (95% confidence interval: −4.35 to −8.74), Q = 17.96, p=0.08 and I 2 =22.04. Conclusion: This study derived a CID for the I-GERQ-R and indicated a threshold around 6 could signify a clinically important difference for this instrument. The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval suggested a threshold of 3 to 4 could represent a minimally important difference. These results may help inform clinical decisions in evaluating meaningful change in symptom severity in children affected by GORD.

No abstract

Improving nutritional status during pregnancy is a global interest. Frequently, women either fail to meet or exceed nutrient recommendations. Current strategies to improve maternal nutrition focuses on a “one-size-fits-all” approach and fail to consider individual factors that affect the mother's overall nutritional status. The objectives of this review were to determine the importance of key nutrients for optimal maternal and fetal health, to explore to what extent current recommendations consider individual factors, and to explore novel strategies to close the gap between current guidelines and real-world challenges through more personalized approaches. This review intercalated different nutritional guidelines and recent scientific publications and research initiatives related to maternal nutrition. Based on that, an overview of current recommendations, challenges related to present approaches, and perspectives for future directions are described. Current guidelines are not optimally supporting adequate nutrient intake and health of expectant mothers and their offspring. Existing recommendations are not consistent and do not sufficiently take into account how interindividual variation leads to differences in nutrient status. Personalized nutrition offers women the opportunity to improve their health by using strategies that are tailored to their unique nutritional needs. Such strategies can include personalized supplementation, holistic lifestyle interventions, digital and application-based technologies, and dietary assessment through blood biomarker and genetic analysis. However, these approaches warrant further investigation and optimization. More personalized approaches have the potential to optimize mothers’ and their offspring's health outcomes more appropriate to their nutritional needs before, during, and after pregnancy. Moving away from a generalized “one-size-fits-all” approach can be achieved through a variety of means. Future aims should be to provide supporting evidence to create customized subpopulation-based or individualized recommendations, improve nutrition education, and develop novel approaches to improve adherence to dietary and lifestyle interventions.

No abstract