The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in COVID-19.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, anecdotal reports emerged suggesting non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase susceptibility to infection and adversely impact clinical outcomes. This narrative literature review (March 2020-July 2021) attempted to clarify the relationship between NSAID use and COVID-19 outcomes related to disease susceptibility or severity. Twenty-four relevant publications (covering 25 studies) reporting original research data were identified; all were observational cohort studies, and eight were described as retrospective. Overall, these studies are consistent in showing that NSAIDs neither increase the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection nor worsen outcomes in patients with COVID-19. This is reflected in current recommendations from major public health authorities across the world, which support NSAID use for analgesic or antipyretic treatment during COVID-19. Thus, there is no basis on which to restrict or prohibit use of these drugs by consumers or patients to manage their health conditions and symptoms during the pandemic.

Maternal paracetamol intake and fetal ductus arteriosus constriction/closure: comprehensive signal evaluation using the Austin Bradford Hill criteria.

PURPOSE: Acetaminophen (APAP) is available over-the-counter and widely regarded as safe for use in pregnancy. APAP has been used to close a persistently patent ductus arteriosus. Fetal constriction/closure of the ductus arteriosus (FCCDA), of public health interest given the drug's widespread use during pregnancy, is being monitored globally, including by the European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee. Our objective was to share a comprehensive signal evaluation of FCCDA with in utero APAP exposure to determine if the totality of evidence is sufficiently more consistent with one of the following two possibilities: (1) APAP never contributes to FCCDA (null hypothesis or HO) versus (2) APAP may in some cases be at least a contributory cause of in utero DA narrowing (alternative hypothesis or HA) to justify risk communication. METHODS: To assess the relative support for HO versus HA, we synthesize and interpret within an Austin Bradford Hill criteria framework a comprehensive, cross-disciplinary set of published information and de novo analysis, including toxicology, epidemiology, clinical pharmacology, and clinical and quantitative pharmacovigilance analysis of spontaneous reports. RESULTS: While residual uncertainty remains, the totality of information is more compatible with HA than H0, to the extent that it is reasonably possible that APAP may sometimes be at least a contributory cause of FCCDA. CONCLUSION: It is reasonably possible that APAP may sometimes be at least a contributory cause of FCCDA, and this should therefore be communicated to stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRATION: NOT APPLICABLE.