A narrative review of the potential pharmacological influence and safety of ibuprofen on coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), ACE2, and the immune system: a dichotomy of expectation and reality.

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.

The pharmacist's role in improving the treatment of erectile dysfunction and its underlying causes.

Erectile dysfunction (ED), which worldwide is likely to affect in excess of 300 million men by 2025, is often either untreated or insufficiently treated. It can be a prelude to other serious illnesses and may be a cause or consequence of depression in affected individuals. Among men younger than 60 years of age, ED can be a robust early-stage indicator of vascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Untreated or inadequately treated ED can also be a sign of poor communication between health professionals and service users of all ages. Improved treatment of ED could cost-effectively prevent premature deaths and avoidable morbidity. The extension of community pharmacy‒based health care would enable more men living with ED to safely access effective medications, along with appropriate diagnostic services and support for beneficial lifestyle changes such as smoking cessation in conveniently accessible settings. The task of introducing improved methods of affordably addressing problems linked to ED exemplifies the strategic challenges now facing health care systems globally. Promoting professionally supported self-care in pharmacies has the potential to meet the needs of aging populations in progressively more effective ways.

A New Perspective on the Nitrate-Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitor Interaction.

BACKGROUND: Nitrates and nitrate-containing compounds are vasodilators used for the treatment of angina and heart failure. Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction are also vasodilators, and when taken together with nitrates, synergistic effects that enhance hypotensive effects may occur. Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors are therefore contraindicated in patients taking organic nitrates. METHODS AND RESULTS: A literature review was performed to provide a historical overview of different phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and nitrates and their interaction. The pharmacologic characteristics of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and nitrates are reviewed, and clinical recommendations for treating cardiovascular disease in men taking phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors are discussed. Pharmacologic and adverse drug reactions between nitrates and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors are dependent on many variables. Organic nitrates remain an absolute contraindication in men treated with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. In general, nitrates may be taken 24 hours after the last dose of short-acting phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and 48 hours after the last dose of long-acting phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: This literature review determined that the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors with nitrates is a contraindication, with the duration between the last dose of phosphodiesterase inhibitor and nitrate use generally varying between short- and long-acting phosphodiesterase type 5 formulations. Patients receiving nitrates who wish to use phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors should be educated regarding the interaction and should be evaluated to determine whether nitrate treatment can be discontinued. Further research is needed to determine how soon phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors can be restarted after a patient has taken a nitrate and the effect of high and low phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor doses on the interaction effect.

The place of dosage form innovation and the OTC market: the price to pay.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aims and objectives of this article are to provide a background to the innovations that are made in over the counter market and to outline the time and costs involved in these activities.