Aim and design: This systematic review aimed to estimate the prevalence of online natural health products (NHPs) purchases among consumers. Data Sources: Four databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Sciences) were searched for articles published up to July 1, 2021. Review Method: Studies included were those reporting the prevalence of online NHPs purchases, those excluded were case reports, commentaries, letters, editorials, review articles, theses and non-English studies. The risk of bias of selected studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s checklist, and the pooled prevalence of online NHPs purchases was generated using the random-effect model. Results: A total of 30 studies were included in the meta-analysis, representing a total of 40,535 respondents. The pooled prevalence of online NHPs purchases was estimated at 7.60% (95% CI: 5.49, 10.01). Prevalence was higher in studies conducted in recent years, among physically active populations and when sports nutrition was included within the scope of NHPs. More than half of the selected studies have a moderate risk of bias, and considerable heterogeneity was observed across the selected studies. Conclusion and Impact: Online purchases of NHPs are not common among consumers, but they have become more common in recent years. A wide range of NHPs were investigated across studies, which may have contributed to the considerable heterogeneity reported in this review. It is suggested that future studies investigating online NHPs purchases consider reporting individual prevalence statistics specific to each NHP type, to facilitate meaningful comparisons between studies.

Aim: This study is conducted to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of two fixed dose combination of metformin/glibenclamide tablets (500mg/5 mg per tablet). Materials and Methods: This is a single-center, single-dose, open-label, randomized, 2-treatment, 2-sequence and 2- period crossover study with a washout period of 7 days. All 28 adult male subjects were required to fast for at least 10 hours prior to drug administration and they were given access to water ad libitum during this period. Thirty minutes prior to dosing, all subjects were served with a standardized high-fat and high-calorie breakfast with a total calorie of 1000 kcal which was in accordance to the EMA Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. Subsequently, subjects were administered either the test or reference preparation with 240mL of plain water in the first trial period. During the second trial period, they received the alternate preparation. Plasma levels of glibenclamide and metformin were analysed separately using two different high performance liquid chromatography methods. Results: The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax of the test preparation over those of the reference preparation were 0.9693–1.0739, 0.9598– 1.0561 and 0.9220 – 1.0642 respectively. Throughout the study period, no serious drug reaction was observed. However, a total of 26 adverse events (AE)/side effects were reported, including 24 that were definitely related to the study drugs, namely giddiness (n=17), while diarrheoa (n=3), headache (n=2) and excessive hunger (n=2) were less commonly reported by the subjects. Conclusion: It can be concluded that the test preparation is bioequivalent to the reference preparation.

Introduction: During the early phase of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), there were various uncertainties, which had a detrimental impact on the prevalence of burnout among critical care personnel worldwide. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of burnout and its associated factors in critical care personnel involved in the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This is a single-center, cross-sectional study with 81 critical care personnel for a survey using Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with personal burnout. Results: More than half of the respondents were female (60.5%) over the age of 30 (61.7%), and 54.3% were medical doctors. A large number (72.8%) of the respondents experienced personal burnout, with twothirds of them experiencing work-related (65.4%) and client-related burnout (59.3%). Personal burnout was found to be associated with those who had children [OR: 11.31 (1.90, 67.37), p = 0.008], stayed with family, relatives, or friends [OR: 9.40 (1.27, 69.46), p = 0.028], were medical doctors [OR: 26.52 (2.79, 252.22), p = 0.004], worked more than 45 hours per week [OR: 8.68 (1.45, 58.09), p = 0.018], and previously never had COVID-19 viral test [OR: 6.93 (1.17, 40.89), p = 0.033]. Conclusion: Overall, more than half of the critical care personnel experienced burnout. There were possible associations between personal burnout with social characteristics such as having children and living with family, relatives, or friends, and occupational characteristics such as being a medical doctor, long working hours, and previously never had COVID-19 viral test.