Search

Objectives Implementing medical cannabis (MC) into a child’s daily routine can be challenging and there is a lack of guidance for its therapeutic use in schools in Canada. Our objective was to learn about the experiences of caregivers of school-aged children who require MC. Methods Qualitative description was used and caregivers were interviewed about MC in schools and in general. The transcripts were entered into Dedoose software for qualitative analysis and content analysis was performed. Sentences and statements were ascribed line by line into meaning units and labelled with codes, and organized according to categories and subcategories. Results Twelve caregivers of school-aged children who take MC participated. The most common reasons for treatment were drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), autism, or other developmental disorders. Approximately half of the participants’ children (n = 6) took MC during the school day and most (5/6) perceived their experiences to be positive or neutral but reported a lack of knowledge about MC. While data saturation was not reached regarding MC in schools, rich dialogues were garnered about MC in general and three categories were identified: challenges (subcategories stigma, finding an authorizer, cost, dosing, and supply); parents as advocates (subcategories required knowledge, attitudes, skills, and sources of information); and caregiver relief for positive outcomes. Conclusions Caregivers demonstrate remarkable tenacity despite the many challenges associated with MC use. Education and practice change are needed to ensure that children using MC can benefit from or continue to experience its positive outcomes within the school environment and beyond.

Objectives Guidance is lacking for medical cannabis use in Canadian schools in both legislation and approach; the impact of ambiguous policy on patient care is unknown. A qualitative study was undertaken to explore the experiences of clinicians who care for school-aged children who take medical cannabis. Methods Semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative content analysis performed using the Dedoose qualitative software ascribed meaning units and codes, which were further consolidated into categories and subcategories. Results Thirteen physicians were interviewed virtually, representing seven provinces in Canada. The physicians provided care for between five and hundreds of school-aged children who took medical cannabis. The most common indications were refractory seizure disorders and autism. The interviews provided rich descriptions on perceptions of medical cannabis in schools, and in general. Five overarching categories were identified across both domains including variability, challenges (subcategories: lack of knowledge, stigma, lack of policy, and pragmatic challenges), potential solutions (subcategories: treat it like other medications, communication, education, and family support), positive experiences and improvements over time. Conclusion In Canada, cannabis-based medicine use in schools still faces important challenges. Effective education, communication, family support and policy refinements that allow cannabis to be treated like other prescription medications are recommended to improve the status quo. These findings will guide the C4T Medical Cannabis in Schools Working Group’s future priorities and initiatives.

Medical cannabis (MC) may offer therapeutic benefits for children with complex neurological conditions and chronic diseases. In Canada, parents, and caregivers frequently report encountering barriers when accessing MC for their children. These include negative preconceived notions about risks and benefits, challenges connecting with a knowledgeable healthcare provider (HCP), the high cost of MC products, and navigating MC product shortages. In this manuscript, we explore several of these barriers and provide recommendations to decision-makers to enable a family-centered and evidence-based approach to MC medicine and research for children.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a chronic neurobehavioral disorder that is highly prevalent in children and adults. An increasing number of patients with ADHD are self-medicating with cannabis, despite a lack of evidence on efficacy and safety. This case report describes 3 males (ages 18, 22, and 23) who have integrated cannabis into their treatment regimen with positive results. Semistructured interviews conducted with the patients describe subjective improvements in symptoms and on quality of life. Improvements on validated rating scales conducted post-cannabis initiation, compared to pre-cannabis initiation obtained from the medical chart, corroborated their personal accounts. Scores on the PHQ-9 (measuring depression) improved by 8–22 points (30–81%), and the SCARED (measuring anxiety) ranged from 0 to 27 points (up to 33%). Improvements on the CEER-9 scale (measuring regulation) ranged from 2 to 7 points (22–78%), and the 9-item SNAP scale (measuring inattention) showed improvements of 2–8 points (7–30%). Mild adverse events including short-term memory problems, dry mouth, and sleepiness were reported. Blood samples were also collected from the patients to determine the plasma concentrations of the cannabinoids and relevant metabolites before and after a cannabis administration. After cannabis use, the plasma levels for CBD and THC ranged from 0 to 15.29 ng/mL and 1.32 to 13.76 ng/mL, respectively. Cannabinoids, however, were not detected prior to dosing, suggesting that cannabis played a complimentary role in the therapeutic regimen of these 3 patients. Clinical trials are recommended to confirm the efficacy of cannabis in the treatment of ADHD.

ImportanceClinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis.ObjectiveTo develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement.Evidence ReviewUsing the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports.FindingsThe scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18).Conclusions and RelevanceThis CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

There are minimal data regarding the safety and efficacy of cannabis used as an anti-cancer agent or for symptom management in pediatric oncology. We aimed to characterize the prevalence and factors associated with the use of cannabis for the treatment of cancer and management of cancer-related symptoms in children during or after cancer treatment. An anonymous 40 question paper survey was offered to patients/caregivers of children with cancer attending a pediatric oncology clinic in a provincially mandated cancer agency between October 2019 and March 2020. There were 64 respondents included in the analysis. Fourteen participants (N=14/64; 22%) reported use of cannabis, of which half used cannabis for either cancer treatment or symptom management, or both. Leukemia (n=9/14; 64%) was the most frequent diagnosis in children whose caregivers reported using cannabis and the majority of them were still receiving active cancer treatment (N= 5/9; 56%). All of the respondents using cannabis (14/14, 100%) experienced symptom improvement. Most of the caregivers procured cannabis from their friends (N=5/14; 36%), and oil was the most commonly used formulation (N=12/14; 86%). Cannabis-related information was received from another parent (N=4/14; 29%) or from a doctor (N=4/14; 29%). The reported monthly expenditure on cannabis varied widely from less than $50 CAD (N=4/14; 29%) to more than $500 CAD (N=3/14; 21%). Our survey shows that cannabis, mostly oil products, was used by one-fifth of children with cancer during or after the completion of cancer treatment. These findings require validation in a larger nationwide survey.

Background: Drastic increases in the rates of maternal depression and anxiety have been reported since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Most programs aim to improve maternal mental health or parenting skills separately, despite it being more effective to target both concurrently. The Building Emotional Awareness and Mental health (BEAM) program was developed to address this gap. BEAM is a mobile health program aiming to mitigate the impacts of pandemic stress on family well-being. Since many family agencies lack infrastructure and personnel to adequately treat maternal mental health concerns, a partnership will occur with Family Dynamics (a local family agency) to address this unmet need. This study aims to examine (1) the influence of BEAM, vs. standard of care, at reducing negative mental health, parenting, and child outcomes and (2) the engagement, feasibility, and acceptability of BEAM, vs. standard of care, while exploring opportunities for program development. Methods: A randomized controlled trial will compare 10 weeks of the BEAM program to standard of care among 160 (80 per group) mothers who have depression and/or anxiety and children 6-18 months old living in Manitoba, Canada. Primary (maternal depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9] and/or anxiety [Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7]), secondary (other maternal mental health, parenting, and child outcomes), and exploratory (e.g., relationship functioning) outcomes will be self-reported at three time-points. Google Analytics and back-end App data will be used to assess the engagement, feasibility, and acceptability of the BEAM program. A longitudinal analysis of covariance, using linear mixed modeling, will test treatment effects on outcomes of interest. Discussion: In partnership with a local family agency, BEAM holds the potential to promote maternal-child health via a cost-effective and easily accessible program designed to scale. Results may inform care and increase access to first line care for families typically waiting 12+ months to access mental health and parenting services. Trial Registration: This trial was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05398107) on May 31st, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05398107

BACKGROUND: No effective oral therapy exists for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 severity in adult outpatients. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 22 March through 20 May 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04308668). SETTING: Internet-based trial across the United States and Canada (40 states and 3 provinces). PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic, nonhospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure within 4 days of symptom onset. INTERVENTION: Oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or masked placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Symptoms and severity at baseline and then at days 3, 5, 10, and 14 using a 10-point visual analogue scale. The primary end point was change in overall symptom severity over 14 days. RESULTS: Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, -0.27 point [95% CI, -0.61 to 0.07 point]; P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non-COVID-19-related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death (P = 0.29). LIMITATION: Only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages. CONCLUSION: Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Private donors.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown.We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days.We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was -2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -7.0 to 2.2; P = 0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668.).

The use of cannabis for medical purposes by pediatric patients is expanding across Canada; however, supporting evidence, federal regulations and treatment guidelines are lacking. To understand factors affecting treatment decisions in this landscape, we sought to delineate clinician perspectives, ethics priorities and values for cannabis authorization.We sampled participants purposefully through Canadian Childhood Cannabinoid Clinical Trials listservs, which include the majority of pediatric oncologists and palliative care physicians practising in Canada, among many other pediatric physicians and clinicians. Inclusion criteria were being a practising clinician in Canada, involvement in the care of children and willingness to be interviewed regardless of stance on medical cannabis. In November and December 2020, we conducted semistructured interviews focusing on principles, values and priorities, including medical, professional, regulatory, evidentiary and social considerations, for authorizing medical cannabis to children. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed by means of deductive and inductive thematic methods.We conducted 18 interviews with a diverse group of clinicians representing a range of specialties within pediatric care, including neurology, palliative care, oncology, family medicine and pharmacology. The interviews yielded 4 themes and 12 subthemes related to a priori (medical, professional, regulatory, evidentiary and social themes) and emergent themes. The 4 themes of access, relationships and relational autonomy (autonomy within relationships), medically appropriate use and research priorities were grounded in principles of harm reduction. Participants described problematic authorization procedures that negatively affect patient use. Principles associated with relational autonomy were highlighted as a feature of open clinical communication. Benefits of appropriate medical uses weighed positively over risks, even in the context of potential effects on neurodevelopment. Participants expressed that more research is essential to align medical cannabis with biomedical standards.Clinicians reported pursuing ethical use of medical cannabis for pediatric patients and prioritizing their safety under principles of harm reduction. There is a need for evidence about neurodevelopmental risks, support for research, treatment guidelines and greater knowledge about stakeholder perspectives to alleviate burdens related to use of medical cannabis for pediatric patients in Canada.

The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems.We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation.Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation.

Background Children with cancer are increasingly using cannabis therapeutically. Aim The purpose of this study was to determine the perspectives and practices of pediatric oncologists and palliative care physicians regarding the use of cannabis for medical purposes among children with cancer. Methods A self-administered, voluntary, cross-sectional, deidentified online survey was sent to all pediatric oncologists and palliative care physicians in Canada between June and August 2020. Survey domains included education, knowledge, and concerns about cannabis, views on its effectiveness, and the importance of cannabis-related research. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results In total, 122/259 (47.1%) physicians completed the survey. Although 62.2% of the physicians completed some form of training about medical cannabis, nearly all (95.8%) desired to know more about the dosing, side effects, and safety of cannabis. Physicians identified a potential role of cannabis in the management of nausea and vomiting (85.7%), chronic pain (72.3%), cachexia/poor appetite (67.2%), and anxiety or depression (42.9%). Only four (0.3%) physicians recognized cannabis to be potentially useful as an anticancer agent. Nearly all physicians reported that cannabis-related research for symptom relief is essential (91.5%) in pediatric oncology, whereas 51.7% expressed that future studies are necessary to determine the anticancer effects of cannabis. Conclusions Our findings indicate that most pediatric oncologists and palliative care physicians recognize a potential role for cannabis in symptom control in children with cancer. Well-conducted studies are required to create evidence for cannabis use and promote shared decision making with pediatric oncology patients and their caregivers.

Key points Children with chronic debilitating illness and pain are increasingly using cannabis for medical purposes, particularly when conventional treatment options have limited benefit or substantial adverse effects. Caregivers are becoming aware of evidence that suggests medical cannabis provides

Background The promise of real-world evidence (RWE) is especially relevant to pediatrics, where medicines prescribed for children are often used without evidence derived from randomized clinical trials. Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to describe the state of RWE in pediatrics by identifying observational studies published during 2016 that used RWE to assess medication safety or effectiveness in children. Methods An electronic search of PubMed was combined with an extended search of references within systematic reviews and expert suggestions. Studies were included if they reported on an infant or child under 18 years with exposure to medications; assessed safety or effectiveness; specified a comparison or control group, and were published in English in 2016. Data extraction was conducted by one team member using a standardized form and reviewed by a second team member. Study quality was assessed using the GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies. Results After removing duplicates, 915 citations were screened and 29 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most of the eligible studies relied on primary data collection or chart review at a single institution and did not use the growing number of administrative or electronic health record databases available. One-quarter of the studies did not use well-established statistical methods to control for confounders. No single disease group or medication predominated, and age groups ranged from infants to adolescents. Conclusions A small body of observational studies published in 2016 were categorized by the study team as using real-world data to assess medication safety or effectiveness in children. Studies varied in age groups, diseases or conditions, and methods, and may not have fully met the FDA definition of RWE. Our review indicates that the use of RWE is not fully developed in pediatrics, and suggests an opportunity to further develop capabilities and more fully leverage administrative and electronic health record databases to study medication safety and effectiveness in children. Our systematic review appears generalizable to pediatrics broadly, and documents that the high level of activity in RWE in general has had less of an impact on pediatrics. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40801-020-00182-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Inadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines. Methods The InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities. Discussion InsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3248-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., IMPORTANCE: Even with its proclivity for older age, coronavirus disease 2019 has been shown to affect all age groups. However, there remains a lack of research focused primarily on the young adult population. OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiology and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and identify the risk factors associated with critical illness and mortality in hospitalized young adults. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study registry. Patients 18–40 years old, hospitalized from coronavirus disease 2019 from March 2020 to April 2021, were included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Critical illness was defined as a composite of mortality and 21 predefined interventions and complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations with critical illness and mortality. RESULTS: Data from 4,005 patients (152 centers, 19 countries, 18.6% non-U.S. patients) were analyzed. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 27–37 yr); 51% were female, 29.4% Hispanic, and 42.9% had obesity. Most patients (63.2%) had comorbidities, the most common being hypertension (14.5%) and diabetes (13.7%). Hospital and ICU mortality were 3.2% (129/4,005) and 8.3% (109/1,313), respectively. Critical illness occurred in 25% (n = 996), and 34.3% (n = 1,376) were admitted to the ICU. Older age (p = 0.03), male sex (adjusted odds ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.2–2.6]), and obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1–2.4]) were associated with hospital mortality. In addition to the above factors, the presence of any comorbidity was associated with critical illness from coronavirus disease 2019. Multiple sensitivity analyses, including analysis with U.S. patients only and patients admitted to high-volume sites, showed similar risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized young adults, obese males with comorbidities are at higher risk of developing critical illness or dying from coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND Despite the lack of evidence on the use of cannabis for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the growing perception that cannabis is safe has led more patients and caregivers to self-medicate. Some psychiatrists now authorize medicinal cannabis for patients with ADHD with features of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) to curtail the unregulated (ie, self-medicated) use of recreational cannabis or to offer a therapeutic option to those who continue to experience symptoms after exhausting all other treatment options. OBJECTIVE This protocol aims to explore the perceived effectiveness and pharmacokinetics of cannabis in youth and young adults, who are currently taking it as part of their treatment plan for ADHD with features of ODD, under the supervision of a psychiatrist. METHODS Patients between the ages of 12 and 25 years with a diagnosis of ADHD and features of ODD, who are currently taking cannabis herbal extract (at a Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]:cannabidiol [CBD] ratio of 1:20) as a treatment adjunct to stimulant pharmacotherapy will be recruited. A sample size of 10-20 individuals is estimated. The study interview will consist of (1) validated symptom rating scales (Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham-IV Questionnaire [SNAP-IV], 90-item; Patient Health Questionnaire, 9-item [PHQ-9]; and Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders [SCARED] tool to measure symptoms of ADHD and ODD, depression, and anxiety, respectively); (2) a semistructured interview to probe the experiences of using cannabis; and (3) a cannabis side effects survey. A cannabis product sample as well as 2 blood samples (a trough level and 2-hour postdose level) will be collected to measure plasma concentrations of cannabinoids and relevant metabolites (THC, CBD, 11-hydroxy-THC, 7-hydroxy-CBD, cannabichromene, and 11-nor-9-carboxy-THB) using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Self-report rating scales (SNAP-IV, SCARED, and PHQ-9) will be scored in accordance with standard protocols and compared to retrospective scores obtained from the participant’s chart. Demographic variables (age, weight, and race), symptom scores, and blood levels (peaks and troughs) of THC, CBD, cannabichromene (CBC), and metabolites will be summarized using descriptive statistics. Relationships between plasma concentrations and symptom scores will be determined using analysis of variance, and multiple regression analysis will be performed to determine associations between plasma concentrations and demographic variables (age, weight, and ethnicity). The qualitative data will be audio-recorded and transcribed and organized into themes. RESULTS The protocol was approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Board at the University of Saskatchewan (protocol #1726), and recruitment began in May 2021. CONCLUSIONS This proof-of-concept study will explore the potential treatment effectiveness of medical cannabis in participants with ADHD and ODD through a mixed methods approach to inform future research in this area. CLINICALTRIAL INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/31281

Many drugs used in paediatric medicine are off-label. There is a rising call for the use of adaptive clinical trial designs (ADs) in responding to the need for safe and effective drugs given their potential to offer efficiency and cost-effective benefits compared with traditional clinical trials. ADs have a strong appeal in paediatric clinical trials given the small number of available participants, limited understanding of age-related variability and the desire to limit exposure to futile or unsafe interventions. Although the ethical value of adaptive trials has increasingly come under scrutiny, there is a paucity of literature on the ethical dilemmas that may be associated with paediatric adaptive designs (PADs). This paper highlights some of these ethical concerns around safety, scientific/social value and caregiver/guardian comprehension of the trial design. Against this background, the paper develops a non-static conceptual lens for understanding PADs. It shows that ADs are epistemically open and reduce some of the knowledge-associated uncertainties inherent in clinical trials as well as fast-track the time to draw conclusions about the value of evaluated drugs/treatments. On this note, the authors argue that PADs are ethically justifiable given they (1) have multiple layers of safety, exposing enrolled children to lesser potential risks, (2) create social/scientific value generally and for paediatric populations in particular, (3) specifically foster the flourishing of paediatric populations and (4) can significantly improve paediatric trial efficiency when properly designed and implemented. However, because PADs are relatively new and their regulatory, ethical and logistical characteristics are yet to be clarified in some jurisdictions, the cooperation of various public and private stakeholders is required to ensure that the interests of children, their caregivers and parents/guardians are best served while exposing paediatric research subjects to the most minimal of risks when they are enrolled in paediatric trials that use ADs.

Children frequently respond differently to therapies compared to adults. Differences also exist between paediatric age groups for pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in both efficacy and safety. Paediatric pharmacovigilance requires an understanding of the unique aspects of children with regards to, for example, drug response, growth and development, clinical presentation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), how they can be detected and population specific factors (e.g. more frequent use of off-label/unlicensed drugs). In recognition of these challenges a group of experts has been formed in the context of the conect4children (c4c) project to support paediatric drug development. This expert group collaborated to develop methodological considerations for paediatric drug safety and pharmacovigilance throughout the life-cycle of medicinal products which is described in this article. These considerations include practical points to consider for the development of the paediatric section of the risk management plan (RMP), safety in paediatric protocol development and safety data collection and analysis. Furthermore, they describe the specific details of post-marketing pharmacovigilance in children using, for example, spontaneous reports, electronic health care records, registries and record-linkage, as well as the use of paediatric pharmacoepidemiology studies for risk characterisation. Next the details of the assessment of benefit-risk and challenges related to medicinal product formulation in the context of a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) are presented. Finally, practical issues in paediatric signal detection and evaluation are included. This paper provides practical points to consider for paediatric pharmacovigilance throughout the life-cycle of medicinal products for RMPs, protocol development, safety data collection and analysis and PIPs.

There are minimal data regarding the safety and efficacy of cannabis used as an anti-cancer agent or for symptom management in pediatric oncology. We aimed to characterize the prevalence and factors associated with the use of cannabis for the treatment of cancer and management of cancer-related symptoms in children during or after cancer treatment.An anonymous 40 question paper survey was offered to patients/caregivers of children with cancer attending a pediatric oncology clinic in a provincially mandated cancer agency between October 2019 and March 2020.There were 64 respondents included in the analysis. Fourteen participants (N=14/64; 22%) reported use of cannabis, of which half used cannabis for either cancer treatment or symptom management, or both. Leukemia (n=9/14; 64%) was the most frequent diagnosis in children whose caregivers reported using cannabis and the majority of them were still receiving active cancer treatment (N= 5/9; 56%). All of the respondents using cannabis (14/14, 100%) experienced symptom improvement. Most of the caregivers procured cannabis from their friends (N=5/14; 36%), and oil was the most commonly used formulation (N=12/14; 86%). Cannabis-related information was received from another parent (N=4/14; 29%) or from a doctor (N=4/14; 29%). The reported monthly expenditure on cannabis varied widely from less than $50 CAD (N=4/14; 29%) to more than $500 CAD (N=3/14; 21%).Our survey shows that cannabis, mostly oil products, was used by one-fifth of children with cancer during or after the completion of cancer treatment. These findings require validation in a larger nationwide survey.

Background Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from 3 outpatient randomized clinical trials. Methods We conducted 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis, postexposure prophylaxis, and early treatment for COVID-19 using an internet-based design. We excluded individuals with contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. We collected side effects and serious adverse events. We report descriptive analyses of our findings. Results We enrolled 2795 participants. The median age of research participants (interquartile range) was 40 (34–49) years, and 59% (1633/2767) reported no chronic medical conditions. Overall 2544 (91%) participants reported side effect data, and 748 (29%) reported at least 1 medication side effect. Side effects were reported in 40% with once-daily, 36% with twice-weekly, 31% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, compared with 19% with placebo. The most common side effects were upset stomach or nausea (25% with once-daily, 19% with twice-weekly, and 18% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 11% for placebo), followed by diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal pain (23% for once-daily, 17% twice-weekly, and 13% once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 7% for placebo). Two individuals were hospitalized for atrial arrhythmias, 1 on placebo and 1 on twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine. No sudden deaths occurred. Conclusions Data from 3 outpatient COVID-19 trials demonstrated that gastrointestinal side effects were common but mild with the use of hydroxychloroquine, while serious side effects were rare. No deaths occurred related to hydroxychloroquine. Randomized clinical trials, in cohorts of healthy outpatients, can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04308668 for postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment trials; NCT04328467 for pre-exposure prophylaxis trial.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 causing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based therapies to prevent COVID-19 following exposure to the virus, or to prevent worsening of symptoms following confirmed infection. We describe the design of a clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and pre-emptive therapy (PET) for COVID-19.We will conduct two nested multicentre international double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for: 1) PEP of asymptomatic household contacts or healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 within the past four days, and 2) PET for symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 showing symptoms for less than four days. We will recruit 1,500 patients each for the PEP and PET trials. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive five days of hydroxychloroquine or placebo. The primary PEP trial outcome will be the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19. The primary PET trial outcome will be an ordinal scale of disease severity (not hospitalized, hospitalized without intensive care, hospitalization with intensive care, or death). Participant screening, informed consent, and follow-up will be exclusively internet-based with appropriate regulatory and research ethics board approvals in Canada and the United States.These complementary randomized-controlled trials are innovatively designed and adequately powered to rapidly answer urgent questions regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine to reduce virus transmission and disease severity of COVID-19 during a pandemic. In-person participant follow-up will not be conducted to facilitate social distancing strategies and reduce risks of exposure to study personnel. Innovative trial approaches are needed to urgently assess therapeutic options to mitigate the global impact of this pandemic.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04308668); registered 16 March, 2020.RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Le syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère du coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) est apparu en décembre 2019, provoquant la pandémie de la COVID-19. À l’heure actuelle, il n’existe aucun traitement fondé sur des données probantes permettant de prévenir la COVID-19 suite à une exposition au virus ou de prévenir l’aggravation des symptômes suite à une infection confirmée. Nous décrivons la conception d’une étude clinique examinant l’utilisation d’hydroxychloroquine en tant que prophylaxie post-exposition (PPE) et de traitement préventif (TP) pour la COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous réaliserons deux études cliniques imbriquées contrôlées par placebo, randomisées, à double insu, internationales et multicentriques examinant l’utilisation d’hydroxychloroquine pour : 1) la prophylaxie post-exposition des contacts asymptomatiques dans un même foyer ou les travailleurs de la santé exposés à la COVID-19 au cours des quatre derniers jours, et 2) le traitement préventif des patients symptomatiques en ambulatoire atteints de COVID-19 et présentant des symptômes pour une durée totale de moins de quatre jours. Nous recruterons 1500 patients pour chaque bras de l’étude (PPE et TP). Les participants seront randomisés à un ratio de 1 : 1 pour recevoir cinq jours d’hydroxychloroquine ou de placebo. Le critère d’évaluation principal de l’étude PPE sera l’incidence de COVID-19 symptomatique. Le critère d’évaluation principal de l’étude TP consistera en une échelle ordinale de la gravité de la maladie (pas d’hospitalisation, hospitalisation sans soins intensifs, hospitalisation avec soins intensifs, ou décès). La sélection des participants, le consentement éclairé et le suivi se feront exclusivement en ligne après avoir obtenu les consentements réglementaires et des comités d’éthique de la recherche appropriés au Canada et aux États-Unis. DISCUSSION: Ces études randomisées contrôlées complémentaires sont conçues de façon innovatrice et disposent de la puissance nécessaire pour répondre rapidement aux questions urgentes quant à l’efficacité de l’hydroxychloroquine pour réduire la transmission et la gravité de la maladie de la COVID-19 pendant une pandémie. Le suivi des participants ne sera pas réalisé en personne afin de faciliter les stratégies de distanciation sociale et de réduire le risque d’exposition du personnel de l’étude. Des approches innovatrices d’études sont nécessaires afin d’évaluer rapidement les options thérapeutiques pour mitiger l’impact global de cette pandémie. ENREGISTREMENT DE L’éTUDE: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04308668); enregistrées le 16 mars 2020.

In pediatric medicine, the usual treatment received by children (“standard of care”) varies across centers. Evaluations of new treatments often compare to the existing “standard of care” to determine if a treatment is more effective, has a better safety profile, or costs less. The objective of our study was to evaluate intervention and “standard of care” control arms reported in published pediatric clinical trials. Pediatric clinical trials, published in 2014, reporting the use of a “standard of care” control arm were included. Duplicate assessment of reporting completeness was done using the 12-item TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist for both the “standard of care” control arms and intervention arms within the same published study. Following screening, 214 pediatric trials in diverse therapeutic areas were included. Several different terms were used to describe “standard of care.” There was a significant difference between the mean reported TIDieR checklist items of “standard of care” control arms (5.81 (SD 2.13) and intervention arms (8.45 (SD 1.39, p

Pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoints are essential for establishing the benefit-to-risk ratio for therapeutic interventions in children and neonates. This article discusses the selection of an appropriate measure of response, the PD endpoint, which is a critical methodological step in designing pediatric efficacy and safety studies. We provide an overview of existing guidance on the choice of PD endpoints in pediatric clinical research. We identified several considerations relevant to the selection and measurement of PD endpoints in pediatric clinical trials, including the use of biomarkers, modeling, compliance, scoring systems, and validated measurement tools. To be useful, PD endpoints in children need to be clinically relevant, responsive to both treatment and/or disease progression, reproducible, and reliable. In most pediatric disease areas, this requires significant validation efforts. We propose a minimal set of criteria for useful PD endpoint selection and measurement. We conclude that, given the current heterogeneity of pediatric PD endpoint definitions and measurements, both across and within defined disease areas, there is an acute need for internationally agreed, validated, and condition-specific pediatric PD endpoints that consider the needs of all stakeholders, including healthcare providers, policy makers, patients, and families.Pediatric Research advance online publication, 11 April 2018; doi:10.1038/pr.2018.38.

Contains fulltext : 193438.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Optimising the dosing of medicines for neonates and children remains a challenge. The importance of pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) research is recognised both in medicines regulation and paediatric clinical pharmacology, yet there remain barriers to undertaking high-quality PK and PD studies. While these studies are essential in understanding the dose-concentration-effect relationship and should underpin dosing recommendations, this review examines how challenges affecting the design and conduct of paediatric pharmacological studies can be overcome using targeted pharmacometric strategies. Model-based approaches confer benefits at all stages of the drug life-cycle, from identifying the first dose to be used in children, to clinical trial design, and optimising the dosing regimens of older, off-patent medications. To benefit patients, strategies to ensure that new PK, PD and trial data are incorporated into evidence-based dosing recommendations are needed. This review summarises practical strategies to address current challenges, particularly the use of model-based (pharmacometric) approaches in study design and analysis. Recommendations for practice and directions for future paediatric pharmacological research are given, based on current literature and our joint international experience. Success of PK research in children requires a robust infrastructure, with sustainable funding mechanisms at its core, supported by political and regulatory initiatives, and international collaborations. There is a unique opportunity to advance paediatric medicines research at an unprecedented pace, bringing the age of evidence-based paediatric pharmacotherapy into sight.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., IMPORTANCE: At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, medications repurposed for management of coronavirus disease 2019 were used in the absence of clinical trial evidence. OBJECTIVES: To describe the variation and evolution in use of repurposed medications for coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 76 United States and international hospitals within the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital variation was quantified using multivariable adjusted random effects logistic regression models and unsupervised clustering. Repurposed medications included antivirals, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, immunomodulators, and therapeutic dose anticoagulants. RESULTS: Among 7,069 adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019, 1,979 (28%) received antivirals, 2,876 (41%) received corticosteroids, 1,779 (25%) received hydroxychloroquine, 620 (9%) received immunomodulators, and 2,154 (31%) received therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Contribution of hospital site to risk-adjusted variation was 46% for antivirals, 30% for corticosteroids, 48% for hydroxychloroquine, 46% for immunomodulators, and 52% for therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Compared with the early pandemic, the later pandemic practice phenotypes converged with increased use of antivirals (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.40–4.10) and corticosteroids (odds ratio, 5.43; 95% CI, 4.23–6.97), with decreased use of hydroxychloroquine (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01–0.04) and immunomodulators (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34–0.70). There was no clinically significant change in the use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01–1.02). There were no differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals with high rates of repurposed medication use compared with hospitals with low rates of use. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospital variation in the use of repurposed medications varied widely across hospitals early in the pandemic and later converged with the emergence of randomized clinical trials. Platforms developed for rapid activation and enrollment in clinical trials of repurposed medications are needed prior to the next pandemic to expedite effective, evidence-based practice.

BackgroundUp to 90% of all drugs used in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have not been clinically tested for safety and efficacy. To promote drug development for neonates, the pharmaceutical industry is moving toward rigorous testing, necessitating the need to development, and validating biomarkers in neonates to predict their response. The objective of this review is to evaluate the quality of the response biomarker reporting in neonatal clinical trials.MethodsA validated literature search strategy was applied. Prospective neonatal intervention studies reporting response biomarkers published in 2014 were included. The data were extracted independently and in duplicate using a data-extraction form.ResultsFollowing the full-text review, 167 published prospective neonatal trials were included; 35% (59/167) reported the use of response biomarkers. In these 59 trials, we identified 275 biomarkers used to measure the response (pharmacodynamics and safety) reported as primary or secondary outcomes. Heart rate and oxygen saturation were the most commonly reported. Measurement and instrumentation data were often not provided.ConclusionWe identified a huge variability in the selection, measurement, and reporting of neonatal response biomarkers in prospective intervention studies. Reporting initiatives are needed to reduce research waste and improve the reproducibility of biomarker use in neonatal intervention studies.

Data sources The authors of this rapid review did not disclose which electronic databases were included in their literature search. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the data sources are not reported in the manuscript. Study selection The authors included six studies on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in humans. Studies comprised of two randomised controlled trials, two non-randomised trials both of which were non-blinded and open-label and one that was uncontrolled, a prospective cohort study and an interim report. The authors did not report details of any studies that were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis The data extraction methodology was not reported and it is unclear if the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Treatment regimens and the study outcomes were extracted where available and overall findings were presented in a table. There were no comparable outcome measures; therefore, results were deemed unsuitable to combine and no statistical analyses were carried out. A narrative synthesis of each study is presented. Results The results of the studies in this rapid review are difficult to quantify as each study had different outcome parameters. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, results were not combined, and no statistical analysis was carried out. Narrative synthesis of each of the included studies identified important and significant limitations, precluding the studies from demonstrating a statistically significant difference in outcomes. Conclusions This review highlights the urgent need for more high quality evidence on the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. The results of the studies included should be interpreted with caution due to the weak supporting data and numerous methodological limitations. The authors suggested that the studies be viewed as hypothesis-generating and should not be used in decision making around the recommendations and guidelines in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. There are currently several ongoing randomised controlled trials looking at the effectiveness and efficacy of these drugs on COVID-19. It is hoped the outcome of these studies can help guide future recommendations and national guidelines.

BACKGROUND: As rates of neonatal opioid withdrawal are increasing, the need for research to evaluate new treatments is growing. Large heterogeneity exists in health outcomes reported in current literature. Our objective is to develop an evidence-informed and consensus-based core outcome set in neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS-COS) for use in studies and clinical practice. METHODS: An international multidisciplinary steering committee was established. A systematic review and a 3-round Delphi was performed with open-ended and score-based assessments of the importance of each outcome to inform clinical management of neonatal opioid withdrawal. Interviews were conducted with parents and/or caregivers on outcome importance. Finally, a consensus meeting with diverse stakeholders was held to review all data from all sources and establish a core set of outcomes with definitions. RESULTS: The NOWS-COS was informed by 47 published studies, 41 Delphi participants, and 6 parent interviews. There were 63 outcomes evaluated. Final core outcomes include (1) pharmacologic treatment, (2) total dose of opioid treatment, (3) duration of treatment, (4) adjuvant therapy, (5) feeding difficulties, (6) consolability, (7) time to adequate symptom control, (8) parent-infant bonding, (9) duration of time the neonate spent in the hospital, (10) breastfeeding, (11) weight gain at hospital discharge, (12) readmission to hospital for withdrawal, and (13) neurodevelopment. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an evidence-informed and consensus-based core outcome set. Implementation of this core outcome set will reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate evidence-based decision-making. Future research will disseminate all the findings and pilot test the validity of the NOWS-COS in additional countries and populations to increase generalizability and impact.

OBJECTIVE: To explore population characteristics, organization of health services and comparability of available information for very low birth weight or very preterm neonates born before 32 weeks' gestation in 11 high-income countries contributing data to the International Network for Evaluating Outcomes of Neonates (iNeo). STUDY DESIGN: We obtained population characteristics from public domain sources, conducted a survey of organization of maternal and neonatal health services and evaluated the comparability of data contributed to the iNeo collaboration from Australia, Canada, Finland, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and UK. RESULTS: All countries have nationally funded maternal/neonatal health care with >90% of women receiving prenatal care. Preterm birth rate, maternal age, and neonatal and infant mortality rates were relatively similar across countries. Most (50 to >95%) between-hospital transports of neonates born at non-tertiary units were conducted by designated transport teams; 72% (8/11 countries) had designated transfer and 63% (7/11 countries) mandate the presence of a physician. The capacity of 'step-down' units varied between countries, with capacity for respiratory care available in < 10% to >75% of units. Heterogeneity in data collection processes for benchmarking and quality improvement activities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Comparability of healthcare outcomes for very preterm low birth weight neonates between countries requires an evaluation of differences in population coverage, healthcare services and meta-data.

Experimental non-human primate models of obesity are induced through the introduction of atypically calorically rich diets. Studies in captive-bred macaques show the development of obesity and diabetes with similar complications to humans including eye and kidney diseases, nerve damage associated with pain and blood vessel damage. Diets differ in outcomes and here we document inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract that can be exacerbated through these dietary interventions. Following baseline physiological evaluation of body composition, Southern pigtail macaques were given a high-fat diet (HFD) for three months. This HFD consisted of lard, grains (including gluten), dairy and fructose that was otherwise omitted from a standard macaque diet (Chow). Physiological parameters were then reassessed before animals were reverted back to standard Chow for a further three months (remission). Consumption of the HFD resulted in food-mediated hypersensitivity marked by chronic weight loss, alopecia, malabsorption, protein-losing enteropathy and gross diffuse intestinal villi atrophy and lamina propria hypertrophy. Physiological changes were more highly pronounced in female macaques suggesting sex-specific differences but could be fully reversed through change of diet. Care should be taken in choosing non-human primate HFD diets for creating experimental models of obesity because they can induce severe food-driven chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract that can eventuate to diet-induced chronic wasting and mortality.

Liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and phentermine, a psychostimulant structurally related to amphetamine, are drugs approved for the treatment of obesity and hyperphagia. There is significant interest in combination use of liraglutide and phentermine for weight loss; however, both drugs have been reported to induce systemic hemodynamic changes, and as such the therapeutic window for this drug combination needs to be determined. To understand their impact on metabolic and cardiovascular physiology, we tested the effects of these drugs alone and in combination for 21 days in lean and obese male mice. The combination of liraglutide and phentermine, at 100 μg/kg/day and 10 mg/kg/day, respectively, produced the largest reduction in body weight in both lean and diet-induced obese (DIO) mice, when compared with both vehicle and monotherapy-treated mice. In lean mice, combination treatment at the aforementioned doses significantly increased heart rate and reduced blood pressure, whereas in DIO mice, combination therapy induced a transient increase in heart rate and decreased blood pressure. These studies demonstrate that in obese mice, the combination of liraglutide and phentermine may reduce body weight but only induce modest improvements in cardiovascular functions. Conversely, in lean mice, the additional weight loss from combination therapy does not improve cardiovascular parameters.

KEY POINTS Canadian parents are increasingly turning to cannabinoids to treat children with neurologic disorders.[1][1] The evidence base to support this choice consists of little more than a small series of case reports, but many parents are guided by anecdotal online reviews in parenting

Neonates have been shown to have a heightened sensitivity to the central depressive effects of opioids compared to older infants and adults. The limited development of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) may limit the ability of the neonate to efflux morphine from the brain back to the systemic circulation. The objective of the study was to determine the ontogeny of P-gp in the human brain. Postmortem cortex samples from gestational age (GA) 20–26 wk, GA 36–40 wk, postnatal age (PNA) 0–3 mo, PNA 3–6 mo, and adults were immunostained for P-gp. The intensity of P-gp staining in adults was significantly higher compared to at GA 20–26 wk (P < 0.05), GA 36–40 wk (P < 0.05), and PNA 0–3 mo (P < 0.05). P-gp intensity at GA 20–26 wk (P < 0.05), GA 36–40 wk (P < 0.05), and PNA 0–3 mo (P < 0.05) was significantly lower compared to at PNA 3–6 mo. P-gp expression in the brain is limited at birth, increases with postnatal maturation, and reaches adult levels at ~3–6 mo of age. Given the immaturity of blood–brain barrier (BBB) P-gp after birth, morphine may concentrate in the brain. This provides mechanistic support to life threatening opioid toxicity seen with maternal codeine use during breastfeeding.

The objective of this study was to examine interindividual variability in codeine requirements and pain management by examining select genetic polymorphisms in the codeine pharmacological pathway. The study included a nested cohort of 98 women who were prescribed codeine following cesarean section. Participants were genotyped for select polymorphisms of the COMT, ABCB1, CYP2D6, UGT2B7 and OPRM1 genes and instructed to describe their level of pain using the visual analog scale (mm) 1 h following each dose of codeine. Analysis revealed that reported pain increases with maternal age (P=0.041). Asians required more codeine than Caucasians (P=0.048). Significant differences in mean dose consumption were seen among the genotypic groups of the OPRM1 A118G (P=0.001) and UGT2B7 C802T (P=0.015) variants. These variants were found to predict codeine consumption in the cohort overall (P=0.000) and among Caucasians (P=0.001). These findings will assist in customizing therapy to effectively manage postpartum pain.

Background Approximately 1 in 10 pregnancies is affected by meconium passage at delivery, which can result in meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). MAS can cause respiratory complications and, very rarely, death. Antibiotics have been prescribed for neonates exposed to meconium in amniotic fluid, with the intention of preventing infection due to potential bacterial contaminants. Objectives We conducted this review to assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics for: 1. prevention of infection, morbidity, and mortality among infants born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) who are asymptomatic at birth; and 2. prevention of infection, morbidity, and mortality among infants born through MSAF who have signs and symptoms compatible with meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Search methods We performed a literature search using the following databases: MEDLINE (1966 to July 2016); Embase (1980 to July 2016); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to July 2016); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7) in the Cochrane Library. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles. Selection criteria We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared antibiotics administered via any route versus placebo or no treatment for prevention of infection among neonates exposed to MSAF, or who developed MAS. We excluded cohort, case control, and any other non-randomised studies and applied no language restrictions. We included studies of term and preterm infants, and we included studies examining use of any antibacterial antibiotics. We included studies that reported on any outcomes of interest. Data collection and analysis We assessed the methodological quality of included trials by reviewing information provided in study reports and obtained by personal communication with study authors. We extracted data on relevant outcomes, estimated effect size, and reported values as risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences (MDs), as appropriate. We conducted subgroup analyses for treatment of MAS and for prophylaxis (asymptomatic neonates exposed to meconium). Main results Four randomised controlled studies including a total of 695 participants were eligible for inclusion. Three studies evaluated neonates with MAS, and one study assessed asymptomatic neonates exposed to meconium in amniotic fluid. These studies exhibited varying degrees of methodological rigour: Two studies were at low risk of bias, and two were at unclear risk. We graded evidence derived from these studies as low quality. We downgraded overall evidence owing to the large number of participants lost to follow-up in one trial, the small sample sizes of all trials, and unclear methodological details provided for two trials. The primary outcome was risk of early- and late-onset neonatal sepsis. Antibiotics did not decrease the risk of sepsis in neonates with a diagnosis of MAS (RR 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 8.96; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 445 participants, three studies; I² = 0%) nor in asymptomatic neonates exposed to meconium in amniotic fluid (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.34; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.04; 250 participants, one study; I² = 0%). Results show no significant differences in mortality or duration of stay in hospital between groups given antibiotics and control groups of symptomatic and asymptomatic neonates. One study in asymptomatic neonates reported a significant reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation for the control group compared with the antibiotic group (MD 0.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; 250 participants, one study; I² = 0%). Authors' conclusions Upon review of available evidence, we found no differences in infection rates following antibiotic treatment among neonates born through meconium-stained fluid and those with meconium aspiration syndrome. The overall quality of evidence is low owing to the small number of included studies. Well-controlled studies of adequate power are needed.