Search

Background: There is considerable interest in the use of cannabinoids for symptom control in palliative care, but there is little high-quality evidence to guide clinical practice. Objectives: Assess the feasibility of using global symptom burden measures to assess response to medicinal cannabis, to determine median tolerated doses of cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and to document adverse events (AEs). Design: Prospective two-arm open-label pilot trial of escalating doses of CBD and THC oil. Setting/Subjects: Participants had advanced cancer and cancer-related symptoms in a palliative and supportive care service in an Australian cancer center. Measurements: The main outcome measures were the number of participants screened and randomized over the time frame, the number of participants completing days 14 and 28 and providing total symptom distress scores (TSDSs) (measured using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale), and the change from baseline of the TSDS at day 14. Results: Of the 21 participants enrolled (CBD, n = 16; THC, n = 5), 18 (86%) completed the primary outcome measure at day 14 and 8 completed at day 28. The median maximum tolerated doses were CBD, 300 mg/day (range 100–600 mg); THC, 10 mg/day (range 5–30 mg). Nine of 21 patients (43%) met the definition of response (≥6 point reduction in TSDS). Drowsiness was the most common AE. Conclusions: Trials of medicinal cannabis in advanced cancer patients undergoing palliative care are feasible. The doses of THC and CBD used in this study were generally well tolerated and the outcome measure of total symptom distress is promising as a measure of overall symptom benefit. Trial registration: ACTRN12618001205224. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2009, the Institute of Medicine published revised gestational weight gain (GWG) guidelines with changes notable for altered body mass index (BMI) categorization as per World Health Organization criteria and a stated range of recommended gain (11-20 pounds) for obese women. The goal of this study was to evaluate associations between maternal BMI-specific GWG adherence in the context of these new guidelines and risk of small for gestational age (SGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) neonates. Methods: Subjects were a retrospective cohort of 11,203 live birth singletons delivered at 22-44 weeks at a Massachusetts tertiary care center between April 2006 and March 2010. Primary exposure was GWG adherence (inadequate, appropriate, or excessive) based on BMI-specific recommendations. SGA and LGA were defined as <10th and ≥90th percentiles of U.S. population growth curves, respectively. The association between GWG adherence and SGA and LGA was examined in polytomous logistic regression models that estimated adjusted odds ratios (AOR) stratified by prepregnancy weight status, controlling for potential confounders. Results: Before pregnancy, 3.8% of women were underweight, 50.9% were normal weight, 24.6% were overweight, and 20.6% were obese. Seventeen percent had inadequate GWG, and 57.2% had excessive GWG. Neonates were 9.6% SGA and 8.7% LGA. Inadequate GWG was associated with increased odds of SGA (AOR 2.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-4.78 for underweight and AOR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42-2.24 for normal weight women) and decreased odds of LGA (AOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.47-0.73 for normal weight and AOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.90 for obese women). Excessive GWG was associated with decreased odds of SGA (AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.73 for normal weight and AOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.89 for overweight women) and increased odds of LGA (AOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.38-2.24 for normal weight, AOR 2.99, 95% CI 1.92-4.65 for overweight, and AOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.10-2.19 for obese women). Conclusions: Efforts to optimize GWG are essential to reducing the proportion of SGA and LGA neonates, regardless of prepregnancy BMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Our objective was to quantify how the 2009 revisions of the 1990 Institute of Medicine (IOM) gestational weight gain (GWG) guidelines change women's body mass index (BMI) categorization and BMI-specific GWG adherence categories. The goal was to identify how provider counseling practices need to change on a population level. Methods: A retrospective review of automated labor and delivery records from a tertiary care hospital in Central Massachusetts was performed. The study cohort included women who delivered singleton, live birth gestations from from April 1, 2006, to September 30, 2009. Records missing weight, height, GWG, gestational age (GA), and/or GA <22 or >43 weeks were excluded. BMI groups and GWG adherence were categorized according to IOM 1990 and 2009 recommendations. Adherence analyses included full-term gestations only. Results: The cohort consisted of 11,688 women, mean age 28.9 (±6.1) years and mean parity 1.0 (±1.1). By 1990 recommendations, 10.1%, 52.5%, 14.1%, and 23.3% gravidas were low weight, normal weight, high weight, and obese; and 19.8%, 33.3%, and 46.9% were undergainers, appropriate gainers, and overgainers, respectively. By 2009 recommendations, 3.9%, 51.3%, 24.5%, and 20.3% gravidas were underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese, and 16.7%, 30.8%, and 52.6% were undergainers, appropriate gainers, and overgainers, respectively. Differences in categorization by guideline year was significant for BMI category ( p<0.0001) and GWG adherence ( p<0.0001). Compared to 1990 guidelines, 16.7% of women were classified differently using 2009 guidelines, with fewer classified as underweight, normal weight, or obese and more as overweight; 17.1% of 1990 appropriate gainers would be classified as overgainers, given new guidelines. Conclusions: Changes in IOM GWG recommendations alter gravidas' BMI categories and, thus, the recommended GWG. As the amount advised is associated with actual gain, accuracy is paramount. GWG is a modifiable parameter associated with immediate and long-term maternal/neonatal health outcomes, and counseling can have a significant public health impact and should involve BMI determination, followed by BMI-specific GWG recommendations in accordance with current guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]