Search

This systematic review critically evaluates preclinical and clinical data on the antibacterial and wound healing properties of cannabinoids in integument wounds. Comprehensive searches were conducted across multiple databases, including CINAHL, Cochrane library, Medline, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and LILACS, encompassing records up to May 22, 2024. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Eleven were animal studies, predominantly utilizing murine models (n = 10) and one equine model, involving 437 animals. The seven human studies ranged from case reports to randomized controlled trials, encompassing 92 participants aged six months to ninety years, with sample sizes varying from 1 to 69 patients. The studies examined the effects of various cannabinoid formulations, including combinations with other plant extracts, crude extracts, and purified and synthetic cannabis-based medications administered topically, intraperitoneally, orally, or sublingually. Four animal and three human studies reported complete wound closure. Hemp fruit oil extract, cannabidiol (CBD), and GP1a resulted in complete wound closure in twenty-three (range: 5–84) days with a healing rate of 66–86% within ten days in animal studies. One human study documented a wound healing rate of 3.3 cm2 over 30 days, while three studies on chronic, non-healing wounds reported an average healing time of 54 (21–150) days for 17 patients by oral oils with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and CBD and topical gels with THC, CBD, and terpenes. CBD and tetrahydrocannabidiol demonstrated significant potential in reducing bacterial loads in murine models. However, further high-quality research is imperative to fully elucidate the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids in the treatment of bacterial skin infections and wounds. Additionally, it is crucial to delineate the impact of medicinal cannabis on the various phases of wound healing. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021255413). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: To assess the sunprotection practices of undergraduates at the Australian National University. Methods: We sent emails with links to the questionnaire on the use of five sun-protection practices in the last fortnight of the summer to 3341 randomly selected students aged 18-24 years in this cross-sectional study. The response rate was 19% and 507 students met the inclusion criteria. Results: The sample consisted of 338 female and 169 male students with a mean age of 20.5 years (SD ± 1.9). Any method of sun protection was used always or often by 32% of respondents. The commonest method used was shade (58%) while the least common was wearing a hat (8%). Domestic students (44%) used sunglasses more than the international students (23%, P < 0.05) and female students used sunscreen (48%) and sunglasses (37%) more than male students (33% and 23% respectively) (P < 0.05). In the 22-24-year-old age group non-medical students (54%) used sunglasses more than the medical students (36%, P < 0.05). Conclusions: Only a third of the sample practiced any method of sun protection and there were significant differences in the practices between subgroups, suggesting they were at an increased risk of sun damage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]