Cross-sectional examination of commercial milk formula industry funding of international, regional and national healthcare professional associations: protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Commercial milk formula manufacturers often emphasise their role in supporting infant and young child nutrition and breastfeeding, but their commercial goals to increase volume and profit margin of formula sales conflict with these declarations. Healthcare professional associations have an important role in healthcare worker education, shaping clinical practice. When healthcare professional associations enter into financial relationships with formula manufacturers, conflicts of interest arise, which may undermine education and practice that promotes optimal infant and young child feeding. The World Health Assembly calls on all parties to avoid such conflicts of interest, but it is uncertain how often this recommendation is followed. This protocol documents a systematic method to identify funding from the commercial milk formula industry among international, regional and national associations of healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using systematic search strategies in the Gale Directory Library and Google, we will identify international healthcare professional associations relevant to maternal and child health. Data regarding funding relationships with the commercial milk formula industry over the past 24 months will be extracted from the official websites or, in their absence, social media accounts by two independent analysts. The analysis will focus on the presence of conflict of interest or sponsorship policies and type of funding, such as sponsorship or payment for services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval and will use data available in the public domain. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles, at conferences and among the healthcare professional associations.

Antimanic Efficacy, Tolerability, and Acceptability of Clonazepam: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

(1) Background: The use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of acute mania remains prevalent. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an updated assessment of Clonazepam's antimanic efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability. (2) Methods: A systematic search of multiple databases and clinical trial registries was conducted, aiming to identify any controlled studies of Clonazepam vs. placebo or any other pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute mania. Pairwise meta-analytic evaluations were performed. (3) Results: Six studies were included with a total number of 192 participants, all of which were randomized controlled trials. Clonazepam may be superior to a placebo in the acute phase of treatment and no different to Lithium and Haloperidol in terms of efficacy, both acutely and in the medium to long term. Clonazepam may be an acceptable and well-tolerated treatment for acute mania, especially when used as an augmentation strategy. Comparisons were underpowered, with minimal sample sizes and only one study per comparison in many cases, thus limiting the generalizability of our findings and hindering firm clinical conclusions. (4) Conclusions: Given the prevalence of benzodiazepine use in current practice, more and larger studies are urgently needed.