Background Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions are early symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Between 20–80% of infected individuals report subjective altered sense of smell and/or taste during infection. Up to 2/3 of previously infected experience persistent olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction after 6 months. The aim of this study was to examine subjective and psychophysical olfactory and gustatory function in non-hospitalized individuals with acute COVID-19 up to 6 months after infection. Methods Individuals aged 18-80-years with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test no older than 10 days, were eligible. Only individuals able to visit the outpatient examination facilities were included. Gustatory function was tested with the Burgharts Taste Strips and olfactory function was examined with the Brief Smell Identifications test (Danish version). Subjective symptoms were examined through an online questionnaire at inclusion, day 30, 90 and 180 after inclusion. Results Fifty-eight SARS-CoV-2 positive and 56 negative controls were included. 58.6% (34/58) of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals vs. 8.9% (5/56) of negative controls reported subjective olfactory dysfunction at inclusion. For gustatory dysfunction, 46.5% (27/58) of positive individuals reported impairment compared to 8.9% (5/56) of negative controls. In psychophysical tests, 75.9% (46/58) had olfactory dysfunction and 43.1% (25/58) had gustatory dysfunction among the SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals at inclusion. Compared to negative controls, SARS-CoV-2 infected had significantly reduced olfaction and gustation. Previously infected individuals continued to report lower subjective sense of smell 30 days after inclusion, whereafter the difference between the groups diminished. However, after 180 days, 20.7% (12/58) positive individuals still reported reduced sense of smell and taste. Conclusion Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions are prevalent symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but there is inconsistency between subjective reporting and psychophysical test assessment of especially olfaction. Most individuals regain normal function after 30 days, but approximately 20% report persistent olfactory and gustatory dysfunction 6 months after infection.

Our results showed substantial and lasting effects on sexual behaviour in rats after exposure to an SSRI early in life on important sexual outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Few studies have reported on long-term harms caused by ADHD drugs but they are known to impair growth.OBJECTIVE:To assess whether ADHD drugs impair reproduction in mammals.METHODS:Systematic review of reproduction in studies of animals treated with ADHD drugs.DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Biosis and EMBASE.RESULTS:We included 17 studies. The studies were generally of poor quality or poorly reported. Two studies reported the use of one of three advised randomisation methods. Fifteen studies used placebo which suggested blinding. On clonidine, the ability to produce offspring was reduced for male rats, which approached two females each. In one study, 10 treated rats produced no offspring while all four controls did. In another study, 10 treated rats impregnated nine females while 10 controls impregnated 16. On methylphenidate, vaginal opening was delayed in two studies (in one, the mean difference was 4.0 days, 95% CI 2.5 to 5.6, and number of estrous cycles was halved; in the other, the minimum delay was 6 days), while in two other studies no difference occurred. Generally, the impairments improved after a drug-free period and were less pronounced when treatment started later in life.CONCLUSION:ADHD drugs impair the reproduction in animals.

Background Healthcare professionals are exposed to advertisements for prescription drugs in medical journals. Such advertisements may increase prescriptions of new drugs at the expense of older treatments even when they have no added benefits, are more harmful, and are more expensive. The publication of medical advertisements therefore raises ethical questions related to editorial integrity. Methods We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study of all medical advertisements published in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association in 2015. Drugs advertised 6 times or more were compared with older comparators: (1) comparative evidence of added benefit; (2) Defined Daily Dose cost; (3) regulatory safety announcements; and (4) completed and ongoing post-marketing studies 3 years after advertising. Results We found 158 medical advertisements for 35 prescription drugs published in 24 issues during 2015, with a median of 7 advertisements per issue (range 0 to 11). Four drug groups and 5 single drugs were advertised 6 times or more, for a total of 10 indications, and we made 14 comparisons with older treatments. We found: (1) ‘no added benefit’ in 4 (29%) of 14 comparisons, ‘uncertain benefits’ in 7 (50%), and ‘no evidence’ in 3 (21%) comparisons. In no comparison did we find evidence of ‘substantial added benefit’ for the new drug; (2) advertised drugs were 2 to 196 times (median 6) more expensive per Defined Daily Dose; (3) 11 safety announcements for five advertised drugs were issued compared to one announcement for one comparator drug; (4) 20 post-marketing studies (7 completed, 13 ongoing) were requested for the advertised drugs versus 10 studies (4 completed, 6 ongoing) for the comparator drugs, and 7 studies (2 completed, 5 ongoing) assessed both an advertised and a comparator drug at 3 year follow-up. Conclusions and relevance In this cross-sectional study of medical advertisements published in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association during 2015, the most advertised drugs did not have documented substantial added benefits over older treatments, whereas they were substantially more expensive. From January 2021, the Journal of the Danish Medical Association no longer publishes medical advertisements.