No abstract

In 2017, a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report comprehensively evaluated the body of evidence regarding cannabis health effects through the year 2016. The objectives of this study are to identify and map the most recently (2016–2019) published literature across approved conditions for medical cannabis and to evaluate the quality of identified recent systematic reviews, published following the NASEM report. Following the literature search from 5 databases and consultation with experts, 11 conditions were identified for evidence compilation and evaluation: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism, cancer, chronic noncancer pain, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, glaucoma, human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson’s disease, and posttraumatic stress disorder. A total of 198 studies were included after screening for condition-specific relevance and after imposing the following exclusion criteria: preclinical focus, non-English language, abstracts only, editorials/commentary, case studies/series, and non-U.S. study setting. Data extracted from studies included: study design type, outcome definition, intervention definition, sample size, study setting, and reported effect size. Few completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Studies classified as systematic reviews were graded using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 tool to evaluate the quality of evidence. Few high-quality systematic reviews were available for most conditions, with the exceptions of MS (9 of 9 graded moderate/high quality; evidence for 2/9 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; evidence for 7/9 indicating cannabis inconclusive), epilepsy (3 of 4 graded moderate/high quality; 3 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; 1 indicating cannabis inconclusive), and chronic noncancer pain (12 of 13 graded moderate/high quality; evidence for 7/13 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; evidence from 6/7 indicating cannabis inconclusive). Among RCTs, we identified few studies of substantial rigor and quality to contribute to the evidence base. However, there are some conditions for which significant evidence suggests that select dosage forms and routes of administration likely have favorable risk-benefit ratios (i.e., epilepsy and chronic noncancer pain). The body of evidence for medical cannabis requires more rigorous evaluation before consideration as a treatment option for many conditions, and evidence necessary to inform policy and treatment guidelines is currently insufficient for many conditions.

No abstract

Graphical Abstract

No abstract

Background and aims One‐third of opioid (OPI) overdose deaths involve concurrent benzodiazepine (BZD) use. Little is known about concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine use (OPI–BZD) most associated with overdose risk. We aimed to examine associations between OPI–BZD dose and duration trajectories, and subsequent OPI or BZD overdose in US Medicare. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting US Medicare. Participants Using a 5% national Medicare data sample (2013–16) of fee‐for‐service beneficiaries without cancer initiating OPI prescriptions, we identified 37 879 beneficiaries (age ≥ 65 = 59.3%, female = 71.9%, white = 87.6%, having OPI overdose = 0.3%). Measurements During the 6 months following OPI initiation (i.e. trajectory period), we identified OPI–BZD dose and duration patterns using group‐based multi‐trajectory models, based on average daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for OPIs and diazepam milligram equivalents (DME) for BZDs. To label dose levels in each trajectory, we defined OPI use as very low (< 25 MME), low (25–50 MME), moderate (51–90 MME), high (91–150 MME) and very high (>150 MME) dose. Similarly, we defined BZD use as very low (< 10 DME), low (10–20 DME), moderate (21–40 DME), high (41–60 DME) and very high (> 60 DME) dose. Our primary analysis was to estimate the risk of time to first hospital or emergency department visit for OPI overdose within 6 months following the trajectory period using inverse probability of treatment‐weighted Cox proportional hazards models. Findings We identified nine distinct OPI–BZD trajectories: group A: very low OPI (early discontinuation)–very low declining BZD (n = 10 598; 28.0% of the cohort); B: very low OPI (early discontinuation)–very low stable BZD (n = 4923; 13.0%); C: very low OPI (early discontinuation)–medium BZD (n = 4997; 13.2%); D: low OPI–low BZD (n = 5083; 13.4%); E: low OPI–high BZD (n = 3906; 10.3%); F: medium OPI–low BZD (n = 3948; 10.4%); G: very high OPI–high BZD (n = 1371; 3.6%); H: very high OPI–very high BZD (n = 957; 2.5%); and I: very high OPI–low BZD (n = 2096; 5.5%). Compared with group A, five trajectories (32.3% of the study cohort) were associated with increased 6‐month OPI overdose risks: E: low OPI–high BZD [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.61–6.63]; F: medium OPI–low BZD (HR = 4.04, 95% CI = 2.06–7.95); G: very high OPI–high BZD (HR = 6.98, 95% CI = 3.11–15.64); H: very high OPI–very high BZD (HR = 4.41, 95% CI = 1.51–12.85); and I: very high OPI–low BZD (HR = 6.50, 95% CI = 3.15–13.42). Conclusions Patterns of concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine use most associated with overdose risk among fee‐for‐service US Medicare beneficiaries initiating opioid prescriptions include very high‐dose opioid use (MME > 150), high‐dose benzodiazepine use (DME > 40) or medium‐dose opioid with low‐dose benzodiazepine use.

No abstract

We examined trends in management of headache disorders in United States (US) emergency department (ED) visits. We conducted a cross-sectional study using 2007–2018 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data. We included adult patient visits (≥18 years) with a primary ED discharge diagnosis of headache. We classified headache medications by pharmacological group: opioids, butalbital, ergot alkaloids/triptans, acetaminophen/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antiemetics, diphenhydramine, corticosteroids, and intravenous fluids. To obtain reliable estimates, we aggregated data into three time periods: 2007–2010, 2011–2014, and 2015–2018. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined medication, neuroimaging, and outpatient referral trends, separately. Among headache-related ED visits, opioid use decreased from 54.1% in 2007–2010 to 28.3% in 2015–2018 (Ptrend < 0.001). There were statistically significant increasing trends in acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids use (all Ptrend < 0.001). Changes in butalbital (6.4%), ergot alkaloid/triptan (4.7%), antiemetic (59.2% in 2015–2018), and neuroimaging (37.3%) use over time were insignificant. Headache-related ED visits with outpatient referral for follow-up increased slightly from 73.3% in 2007–2010 to 79.7% in 2015–2018 (Ptrend = 0.02). Reflecting evidence-based guideline recommendations for headache management, opioid use substantially decreased from 2007 to 2018 among US headache-related ED visits. Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatment for headaches (e.g., sumatriptan, dexamethasone) and appropriate outpatient referral and reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs.