Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the surgical techniques, indications outcomes and complications for pediatric patients (≤ 19 years old) undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures for anterior shoulder instability. Methods The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from data inception to March 14, 2019 for articles addressing surgery for pediatric patients with anterior shoulder instability. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. Results Overall 24 studies, with a total of 688 patients (696 shoulders) and a mean age of 16.6 ± 2.5 years met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 49 ± 26 months. The majority (59%) of studies only ofered shoulder stabilization procedures to patients with more than one shoulder dislocation, however, three studies reported operating on pediatric patients after irst time dislocations. Of the included patients 525 had arthroscopic Bankart repair (78%), 75 had open Bankart repair (11%), 34 had modiied Bristow (5%), and 26 had Latarjet (4%) procedures. The overall complication rate was 26%. Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair experienced the highest recurrence rate of 24%. There were no signiicant diferences in recurrent instability (n.s.) or loss of external rotation (n.s.) in pediatric patients treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to open Latarjet. Patients had a 95% rate of return to sport at any level (i.e. preinjury level or any level of play) postoperatively (95%). Conclusions Pediatric patients are at high risk of recurrent instability after surgical stabilization. The majority of pediatric patients with anterior shoulder instability were treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair. Most studies recommend surgical stabilization only after more than one dislocation. However, given the high rates of recurrence with non-operative management, it may be reasonable to perform surgery at a irst-time dislocation, particularly in those with other risk factors for recurrence. With the current evidence and limited sample sizes, it is diicult to directly compare the surgical interventions and their post-operative eicacy (i.e. re-dislocation rates or range of motion). There was an overall high rate of return to sport after surgical stabilization at inal follow-up. Level of evidence IV.

Background With the ongoing opioid crisis and policy changes regarding legalization of cannabis occurring around the world, it is necessary to consider cannabis use in the context of opioid use disorder (OUD) and its treatment. We aimed to examine (1) past-month cannabis use in patients with OUD, (2) self-reported cannabis-related side effects and craving, and (3) the association between specific characteristics of cannabis use and opioid use during treatment in cannabis users. Methods Participants receiving pharmacological treatment for OUD (n = 2315) were recruited from community-based addiction treatment clinics in Ontario, Canada, and provided information on past-month cannabis use (self-report). Participants were followed for 3 months with routine urine drug screens in order to assess opioid use during treatment. We used logistic regression analysis to explore (1) the association between any cannabis use and opioid use during treatment, and (2) amongst cannabis-users, specific cannabis use characteristics associated with opioid use. Qualitative methods were used to examine responses to the question: “What effect does marijuana have on your treatment?”. Results Past-month cannabis use was reported by 51% of participants (n = 1178). Any cannabis use compared to non-use was not associated with opioid use (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.87–1.23, p = 0.703). Amongst cannabis users, nearly 70% reported daily use, and half reported experiencing cannabis-related side effects, with the most common side effects being slower thought process (26.2%) and lack of motivation (17.3%). For cannabis users, daily cannabis use was associated with lower odds of opioid use, when compared  with occasional use (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.47–0.79, p < 0.001) as was older age of onset of cannabis use (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.94, 0.99, p = 0.032), and reporting cannabis-related side effects (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.51, 0.85, p = 0.001). Altogether, 75% of cannabis users perceived no impact of cannabis on their OUD treatment. Conclusion Past-month cannabis use was not associated with more or less opioid use during treatment. For patients who use cannabis, we identified specific characteristics of cannabis use associated with differential outcomes. Further examination of characteristics and patterns of cannabis use is warranted and may inform more tailored assessments and treatment recommendations.

ObjectivesExisting methods of measuring effectiveness of pharmacological treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) are highly variable. Therefore, understanding patients’ treatment goals is an integral part of patient-centred care. Our objective is to explore whether patients’ treatment goals align with a frequently used clinical outcome, opioid abstinence.DesignTriangulation mixed-methods design.Setting and participantsWe collected prospective data from 2030 participants who were receiving methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for a diagnosis of OUD in order to meet study inclusion criteria. Participants were recruited from 45 centrally-managed outpatient opioid agonist therapy clinics in Ontario, Canada. At study entry, we asked, ‘What are your goals in treatment?’ and used NVivo software to identify common themes.Primary outcome measureUrine drug screens (UDS) were collected for 3 months post-study enrolment in order to identify abstinence versus ongoing opioid use (mean number of UDS over 3 months=12.6, SD=5.3). We used logistic regression to examine the association between treatment goals and opioid abstinence.ResultsParticipants had a mean age of 39.2 years (SD=10.7), 44% were women and median duration in treatment was 2.6 years (IQR 5.2). Six overarching goals were identified from patient responses, including ‘stop or taper off of treatment’ (68%), ‘stay or get clean’ (37%) and ‘live a normal life’ (14%). Participants reporting the goal ‘stay or get clean’ had lower odds of abstinence at 3 months than those who did not report this goal (OR=0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.91, p=0.005). Although the majority of patients wanted to taper off or stop medication, this goal was not associated with opioid abstinence, nor were any of their other goals.ConclusionsPatient goals in OUD treatment do not appear to be associated with programme measures of outcome (ie, abstinence from opioids). Future studies are needed to examine outcomes related to patient-reported treatment goals found in our study; pain management, employment, and stopping/tapering treatment should all be explored.

IMPORTANCEIn the literature on opioid use disorder (OUD), opioid abstinence is used as an outcome measure for individuals receiving medication-assisted treatment (MAT), without consideration of patient-reported goals (PRGs).OBJECTIVES To identify common PRGs for youths receiving MAT for OUD and assess whether these patients achieve their stated goals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis prospective cohort study examined data from 152 individuals aged 16 to 25 years (noninclusive) recruited between May 22, 2018, and March 11, 2020, from 45 outpatient MAT clinics in the Pharmacogenetics of Opioid Substitution Treatment Response study. Youths receiving MAT for OUD were included and were followed up for 3 months. EXPOSURES Medication-assisted treatment for OUD. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The frequency of each PRG; the success of goal attainment, compared between those who reported specific PRGs and those who did not; and associations between reporting certain goals and achieving them. RESULTS Among the 152 youths in the study, 82 were male (53.9%), and the mean (SD) age was 22.8 (1.8) years. Ten overarching goals were identified, with the most common being to taper the dose of or stop MAT (96 [63.2%]), avoid use of recreational substances (71 [46.7%]), manage OUD symptoms (25 [16.4%]), live a normal life (14 [9.2%]), improve mental health (11 [7.2%]), and gain employment (8 [5.3%]). Overall, individuals who reported PRGs had similar odds of achieving themas those who did not for the goals of taper dose of or stop MAT (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.88-4.46; P = .10), avoid recreational substances (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.65-2.74; P = .43), manage OUD symptoms (β coefficient, -0.93; 95% CI, -4.24 to 2.38; P = .58), and improve mental health (β coefficient, -0.76; 95% CI, -6.31 to 4.78; P = .79). Furthermore, multivariable logistic regression showed that goals to taper the dose of or stop MAT (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.78-4.63; P = .16) or avoid recreational substances (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.60-2.67; P = .53) were not associated with achieving these respective outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis study suggests that youths have highly variable PRGs regarding MAT for OUD and that reporting a goal may not mean one is at higher odds of achieving it.There is a need to develop treatment plans that effectively incorporate PRGs. In addition, the finding that most youths aim to minimize or stop their MAT dose warrants the creation of a tapering protocol to guide clinicians. Because a diagnosis of OUD has substantial psychosocial implications in this population, clinicians must ensure that these dimensions of care are part of routine clinical practice.

Casein Kinase 2 (CSNK2) is an extremely pleiotropic, ubiquitously expressed protein kinase involved in the regulation of numerous key biological processes. Mapping the CSNK2-dependent phosphoproteome is necessary for better characterization of its fundamental role in cellular signalling. While ATP-competitive inhibitors have enabled the identification of many putative kinase substrates, compounds targeting the highly conserved ATP-binding pocket often exhibit off-target effects limiting their utility for definitive kinase-substrate assignment. To overcome this limitation, we devised a strategy combining chemical genetics and quantitative phosphoproteomics to identify and validate CSNK2 substrates. We engineered U2OS cells expressing exogenous wild type CSNK2A1 (WT) or a triple mutant (TM, V66A/H160D/I174A) with substitutions at residues important for inhibitor binding. These cells were treated with CX-4945, a clinical-stage inhibitor of CSNK2, and analyzed using large-scale triple SILAC (Stable Isotope Labelling of Amino Acids in Cell Culture) quantitative phosphoproteomics. In contrast to wild-type CSNK2A1, CSNK2A1-TM retained activity in the presence of CX-4945 enabling identification and validation of several CSNK2 substrates on the basis of their increased phosphorylation in cells expressing CSNK2A1-TM. Based on high conservation within the kinase family, we expect that this strategy can be broadly adapted for identification of other kinase-substrate relationships.

Cannabis and opioids are substances that affect reproductive health. Opioids suppress testosterone and studies have shown that cannabis may increase testosterone. However, there is minimal research describing the endocrine effects of concurrent cannabis and opioid use. We hypothesize that cannabis use improves opioid-induced testosterone suppression. To test this hypothesis, we used cross-sectional data from a prospective cohort study including 122 men enrolled in methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). We measured serum testosterone with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at study enrolment. Urine drug screens were collected for 15 months and identified 52.5% of participants (n = 64) as cannabis users. The association between cannabis use and testosterone level was examined using regression models with serum testosterone as the dependent variable. In our multivariable regression, methadone dose was associated with lower serum testosterone (β = −0.003, 95% CI-0.005, −0.001, p = 0.003). However, neither cannabis use as a dichotomous variable nor the percentage of cannabis-positive urine drug screens were significantly associated with serum testosterone (β = 0.143, 95% CI −0.110, 0.396, p = 0.266, and β = 0.002, 95% CI > −0.001, 0.005, p = 0.116, respectively). Therefore, it does not appear that cannabis has an association with testosterone levels in men on MMT.