Response to Cohen et al

Non peer reviewe

Cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for adults with cancer pain

Background: Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate‐to‐severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine‐like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids.Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis‐based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain.Search methods: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023.Selection criteria: We selected double‐blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant‐derived and synthetic cannabis‐based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.Main results: We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment.We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double‐blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta‐analysis.There was moderate‐certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate‐certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate‐certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate‐certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add‐on treatment for opioid‐refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.19, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.02).There was low‐certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non‐small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies.There was low‐certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD −0.98, 95% CI −1.36 to −0.60), but not superior to low‐dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.32; 5 single‐dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate‐to‐severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single‐dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies.There was low‐certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis).We found no studies using herbal cannabis.Authors' conclusions: There is moderate‐certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate‐to‐severe opioid‐refractory cancer pain. There is low‐certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio‐) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non‐small cell lung cancer. There is low‐certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low‐dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate‐to‐severe cancer pain. There is low‐certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer

Cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for adults with cancer pain

Background: Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate‐to‐severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine‐like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids.Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis‐based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain.Search methods: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023.Selection criteria: We selected double‐blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant‐derived and synthetic cannabis‐based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.Main results: We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment.We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double‐blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta‐analysis.There was moderate‐certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate‐certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate‐certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate‐certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add‐on treatment for opioid‐refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.19, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.02).There was low‐certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non‐small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies.There was low‐certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD −0.98, 95% CI −1.36 to −0.60), but not superior to low‐dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.32; 5 single‐dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate‐to‐severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single‐dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies.There was low‐certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis).We found no studies using herbal cannabis.Authors' conclusions: There is moderate‐certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate‐to‐severe opioid‐refractory cancer pain. There is low‐certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio‐) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non‐small cell lung cancer. There is low‐certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low‐dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate‐to‐severe cancer pain. There is low‐certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer

Ketamine as an adjuvant to opioids for cancer pain

Background This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and updated in 2012. Ketamine is a commonly used anaesthetic agent, and in subanaesthetic doses is also given as an adjuvant to opioids for the treatment of refractory cancer pain, when opioids alone or in combination with appropriate adjuvant analgesics prove to be ineffective. Ketamine is known to have psychomimetic (including hallucinogenic), urological, and hepatic adverse effects. Objectives To determine the effectiveness and adverse effects of ketamine as an adjuvant to opioids for refractory cancer pain in adults. Search methods For this update, we searched MEDLINE (OVID) to December 2016. We searched CENTRAL (CRSO), Embase (OVID) and two clinical trial registries to January 2017. Selection criteria The intervention considered by this review was the addition of ketamine, given by any route of administration, in any dose, to preexisting opioid treatment given by any route and in any dose, compared with placebo or active control. We included studies with a group size of at least 10 participants who completed the trial. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the search results and performed ' Risk of bias' assessments. We aimed to extract data on patient- reported pain intensity, total opioid consumption over the study period; use of rescue medication; adverse events; measures of patient satisfaction/preference; function; and distress. We also assessed participant withdrawal (dropout) from trial. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Main results One new study (185 participants) was identified by the updated search and included in the review. We included a total of three studies in this update. Two small studies, both with cross-over design, with 20 and 10 participants respectively, were eligible for inclusion in the original review. One study with 20 participants examined the addition of intrathecal ketamine to intrathecal morphine, compared with intrathecal morphine alone. The second study with 10 participants examined the addition of intravenous ketamine bolus in two different doses to ongoing morphine therapy, compared with placebo. Both of these studies reported reduction in pain intensity and reduction in morphine requirements when ketamine was added to opioid for refractory cancer pain. The new study identified by the updated search had a parallel group design and 185 participants. This placebo-controlled study examined rapid titration of subcutaneous ketamine to high dose (500 mg) in participants who were using different opioids. There were no differences between groups for patient-reported pain intensity. Pooling of the data from the three included trials was not appropriate because of clinical heterogeneity. The study examining intrathecal drug administration reported no adverse events related to ketamine. In the study using intravenous bolus administration, ketamine caused hallucinations in four of 10 participants. In the rapid dose escalation/high-dose subcutaneous ketamine study, there was almost twice the incidence of adverse events in the ketamine group, compared to the placebo group, with the most common adverse events being needle site irritation and cognitive disturbance. Two serious adverse events (bradyarrhythmia and cardiac arrest) thought to be related to ketamine were also reported in this trial. For all three studies there was an unclear risk of bias overall. Using GRADE, we judged the quality of the evidence to be very low due to study limitations and imprecision due to the small number of participants in all comparisons. Authors' conclusions Current evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of ketamine as an adjuvant to opioids for the relief of refractory cancer pain. The evidence was of very low quality, meaning that it does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is high. Rapid dose escalation of ketamine to high dose (500 mg) does not appear to have clinical benefit and may be associated with serious adverse events. More randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining specific lowdose ketamine clinical regimens in current use are needed

Pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia (fibromyalgia syndrome) in adults – an overview of Cochrane Reviews (Protocol).

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (overview). The objectives are as follows:To provide an overview of the therapeutic efficacy of pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia (fibromyalgia syndrome) in adults, and to report on adverse events associated with their use. The major comparison of interest will be with placebo

Identification of Type 1 Diabetes-Associated DNA Methylation Variable Positions That Precede Disease Diagnosis

Monozygotic (MZ) twin pair discordance for childhood-onset Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) is similar to 50%, implicating roles for genetic and non-genetic factors in the aetiology of this complex autoimmune disease. Although significant progress has been made in elucidating the genetics of T1D in recent years, the non-genetic component has remained poorly defined. We hypothesized that epigenetic variation could underlie some of the non-genetic component of T1D aetiology and, thus, performed an epigenome-wide association study (EWAS) for this disease. We generated genome-wide DNA methylation profiles of purified CD14(+) monocytes (an immune effector cell type relevant to T1D pathogenesis) from 15 T1D-discordant MZ twin pairs. This identified 132 different CpG sites at which the direction of the intra-MZ pair DNA methylation difference significantly correlated with the diabetic state, i.e. T1D-associated methylation variable positions (T1D-MVPs). We confirmed these T1D-MVPs display statistically significant intra-MZ pair DNA methylation differences in the expected direction in an independent set of T1D-discordant MZ pairs (P = 0.035). Then, to establish the temporal origins of the T1D-MVPs, we generated two further genome-wide datasets and established that, when compared with controls, T1D-MVPs are enriched in singletons both before (P = 0.001) and at (P = 0.015) disease diagnosis, and also in singletons positive for diabetes-associated autoantibodies but disease-free even after 12 years follow-up (P = 0.0023). Combined, these results suggest that T1D-MVPs arise very early in the etiological process that leads to overt T1D. Our EWAS of T1D represents an important contribution toward understanding the etiological role of epigenetic variation in type 1 diabetes, and it is also the first systematic analysis of the temporal origins of disease-associated epigenetic variation for any human complex disease

Macroscopic quantum resonators (MAQRO)

Quantum physics challenges our understanding of the nature of physical reality and of space-time and suggests the necessity of radical revisions of their underlying concepts. Experimental tests of quantum phenomena involving massive macroscopic objects would provide novel insights into these fundamental questions. Making use of the unique environment provided by space, MAQRO aims at investigating this largely unexplored realm of macroscopic quantum physics. MAQRO has originally been proposed as a medium-sized fundamental-science space mission for the 2010 call of Cosmic Vision. MAQRO unites two experiments: DECIDE (DECoherence In Double-Slit Experiments) and CASE (Comparative Acceleration Sensing Experiment). The main scientific objective of MAQRO, which is addressed by the experiment DECIDE, is to test the predictions of quantum theory for quantum superpositions of macroscopic objects containing more than 10e8 atoms. Under these conditions, deviations due to various suggested alternative models to quantum theory would become visible. These models have been suggested to harmonize the paradoxical quantum phenomena both with the classical macroscopic world and with our notion of Minkowski space-time. The second scientific objective of MAQRO, which is addressed by the experiment CASE, is to demonstrate the performance of a novel type of inertial sensor based on optically trapped microspheres. CASE is a technology demonstrator that shows how the modular design of DECIDE allows to easily incorporate it with other missions that have compatible requirements in terms of spacecraft and orbit. CASE can, at the same time, serve as a test bench for the weak equivalence principle, i.e., the universality of free fall with test-masses differing in their mass by 7 orders of magnitude.Comment: Proposal for a medium-sized space mission, 28 pages, 9 figures - in v2, we corrected some minor mistakes and replaced fig. 9 with a higher-resolution version; Experimental Astronomy, March 2012, Online, Open Acces

Circadian Rhythms

Circadian rhythms are a ubiquitous adaptation of eukaryotic organisms to the most reliable and predictable of environmental changes, the daily cycles of light and temperature. Prominent daily rhythms in behavior, physiology, hormone levels and biochemistry (including gene expression) are not merely responses to these environmental cycles, however, but embody the organism's ability to keep and tell time. At the core of circadian systems is a mysterious mechanism, located in the brain (actually the Suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus) of mammals, but present even in unicellular organisms, that functions as a clock. This clock drives circadian rhythms. It is independent of, but remains responsive to, environmental cycles (especially light). The interest in temporal regulation — its organization, mechanism and consequences — unites investigators in diverse disciplines studying otherwise disparate systems. This diversity is reflected in the brief reviews that summarize the presentations at a meeting on circadian rhythms held in New York City on October 31, 1992. The meeting was sponsored by the Fondation pour l'Étude du Systéme Nerveux (FESN) and followed a larger meeting held 18 months earlier in Geneva, whose proceedings have been published (M. Zatz (Ed.), Report of the Ninth FESN Study Group on ‘Circadian Rhythms’, Discussions in Neuroscience, Vol. VIII, Nos. 2 + 3, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992). Some speakers described progress made in the interim, while others addressed aspects of the field not previously covered.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/60639/1/circadian_rhythms.pd

The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda

Using a teaching model framework, we systematically review empirical evidence on the impact of entrepreneurship education (EE) in higher education on a range of entrepreneurial outcomes, analyzing 159 published articles from 2004 to 2016. The teaching model framework allows us for the first time to start rigorously examining relationships between pedagogical methods and specific outcomes. Reconfirming past reviews and meta-analyses, we find that EE impact research still predominantly focuses on short-term and subjective outcome measures and tends to severely underdescribe the actual pedagogies being tested. Moreover, we use our review to provide an up-to-date and empirically rooted call for less obvious, yet greatly promising, new or underemphasized directions for future research on the impact of university-based entrepreneurship education. This includes, for example, the use of novel impact indicators related to emotion and mind-set, focus on the impact indicators related to the intention-to-behavior transition, and exploring the reasons for some contradictory findings in impact studies including person-, context-, and pedagogical model-specific moderator