Objective: This study was undertaken to determine the knowledge, attitude and practice of self-medication among first-year medical students of the Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain. Subjects and Methods: This was an anonymous, questionnaire-based, descriptive study. A prevalidated questionnaire, containing open-ended and close-ended questions, was administered to the subjects. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 12 and the results expressed as counts and percentages. Results: Out of the 134 respondents, 43 (32.1%) were males and 91 (67.9%) were females; their mean age in years ± SD was 18.01 ± 0.78. The respondents’ knowledge about appropriate self-medication was poor, but knowledge of the benefits and risks of self-medication was adequate. The respondents found self-medication to be time-saving, economical, convenient and providing quick relief in common illnesses. Important disadvantages of self-medication mentioned were the risk of making a wrong diagnosis, inappropriate drug use and adverse effects. The majority (76.9%) of the respondents had a positive attitude favoring self-medication. Self-medication was practiced by 44.8% of the subjects. The most common indications for self-medication were to relieve the symptoms of headache (70.9%), cough, cold and sore throat (53.7%), stomachache (32.8%) and fever (29.9%). Analgesics (81.3%) were the most common drugs used for self-medication. The practice of self-medication was appropriate in only 14.2% of cases. Conclusion: Knowledge about appropriate self-medication was poor, attitude towards self-medication was positive, and the practice of self-medication was common and often inappropriate.

No abstract

No abstract

Aims To determine whether a particular anticonvulsant is more effective or safer than another or placebo in patients with status epilepticus, and to summarize the available evidence from randomized controlled trials, and to highlight areas for future research in status epilepticus. Methods Randomized controlled trials of participants with premonitory, early, established or refractory status epilepticus using a truly random or quasi‐random allocation of treatments were included. Results Eleven studies with 2017 participants met the inclusion criteria. Lorazepam was better than diazepam for reducing risk of seizure continuation [relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45, 0.90] and of requirement of a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45, 0.88) with no statistically significant difference in the risk of adverse effects. Lorazepam was better than phenytoin for risk of seizure continuation (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45, 0.86). Diazepam 30 mg intrarectal gel was better than 20 mg in premonitory status epilepticus for the risk of seizure continuation (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18, 0.86). Conclusions Lorazepam is better than diazepam or phenytoin alone for cessation of seizures and carries a lower risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia. Both lorazepam and diazepam are better than placebo for the same outcomes. In the treatment of premonitory seizures, diazepam 30 mg intrarectal gel is better than 20 mg for cessation of seizures without a statistically significant increase in adverse effects. Universally accepted definitions of premonitory, early, established and refractory status epilepticus are required.

The present evidence suggests similar efficacy between nifedipine, hydralazine and labetalol in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. Subtle differences may exist in their safety profile. The evidence is inadequate for other drugs.

Dissemination of misleading drug information through social media can be detrimental to the health of the public. This study, carried out in Bahrain, evaluated the truthfulness of 22 social media claims about drugs (72.7%), dietary supplements (22.7%), and toxic bisphenol-A (4.5%). They circulated on WhatsApp platform, as case studies. We categorized claims as objectively true, false, or potentially misleading. The content analysis revealed that "potentially misleading" claims were the most frequent messages (59.1%). They tend to exaggerate the efficacy or safety without sufficient evidence to substantiate claims. False claims (27.3%) were likely due to unfair competition or deception. Overall, 13.6% of the messages were objectively true claims that could withstand regulatory scrutiny. Majority of the drug-related messages on social media were potentially misleading or false claims that lacked credible evidence to support them. In the public interest, regulatory authorities should monitor such information disseminated via social media platforms.

No abstract

Intravenous lorazepam is better than intravenous diazepam or intravenous phenytoin alone for cessation of seizures. Intravenous lorazepam also carries a lower risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia compared with intravenous diazepam. Both intravenous lorazepam and diazepam are better than placebo for the same outcomes. For pre hospital management, midazolam IM seemed more effective than lorazepam IV for cessation of seizures, frequency of hospitalisation and ICU admissions however,it was unclear whether the risk of recurrence of seizures differed between treatments. The results of other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies versus each other were also uncertain. Universally accepted definitions of premonitory, early, established and refractory status epilepticus are required. Diazepam gel was better than placebo gel in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures. Results for other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies were uncertain due to single studies with few participants.