Medical cannabis: What practitioners need to know

The South African (SA) Constitutional Court recently decriminalised the private cultivation, possession and use of cannabis by adults. Cannabis contains varying amounts of the cannabinoids delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), depending on various cultivation factors. No commercial plant-derived cannabis products are currently registered by the SA Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) for medical use. Such products are therefore unregulated, but are freely available in SA, and may be of inadequate quality and unverified composition, and not guaranteed to be safe or effective. SAHPRA has to date approved only one synthetic medical cannabis product, dronabinol. Evidence supporting benefit from medical cannabis exists for two drug-resistant childhood forms of epilepsy, Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Adjuvant therapy with medical cannabis can reduce seizure frequency for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome by 18.8% and 22.8%, respectively, and may be beneficial for other rare forms of epilepsy. There is moderate evidence for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with the synthetic cannabinoids. Multiple sclerosis-associated spasticity showed a small clinical improvement in self-reported spasticity when a purified form of THC/CBD was added to existing therapy. Currently, low-level or no convincing evidence exists for the use of medical cannabis for chronic pain, sleep and weight disorders, and neuropsychiatric disorders. Cannabis is associated with a greater risk of adverse effects than active and placebo controls, and may be involved in clinically significant drug-drug interactions. The evolving regulatory and legal landscape on the use of medical cannabis will guide prescription and recreational use in the coming years

Blood and cerebrospinal fluid biomarker changes in patients with HIV-associated neurocognitive impairment treated with lithium: analysis from a randomised placebo-controlled trial

HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) persist in the era of antiretroviral therapy (ART). Thus, ART does not completely halt or reverse the pathological processes behind HAND. Adjuvant mitigating treatments are, therefore, prudent. Lithium treatment is known to promote neuronal brain–derived neurotrophic factors (BDNF). Lithium is also an inhibitor of glycogen synthase kinase-3 beta (GSK-3-β). We analyzed biomarkers obtained from participants in a randomized placebo-controlled trial of lithium in ART-treated individuals with moderate or severe HAND. We assayed markers at baseline and 24 weeks across several pathways hypothesized to be affected by HIV, inflammation, or degeneration. Investigated biomarkers included dopamine, BDNF, neurofilament light chain, and CD8 + lymphocyte activation (CD38 + HLADR +). Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) biomarkers included soluble amyloid precursor protein alpha and beta (sAPPα/β), Aβ38, 40, 42, and ten other biomarkers validated as predictors of mild cognitive impairment and progression in previous studies. These include apolipoprotein C3, pre-albumin, α1-acid glycoprotein, α1-antitrypsin, PEDF, CC4, ICAM-1, RANTES, clusterin, and cystatin c. We recruited 61 participants (placebo = 31; lithium = 30). The age baseline mean was 40 (± 8.35) years and the median CD4 + T-cell count was 498 (IQR: 389–651) cells/μL. Biomarker concentrations between groups did not differ at baseline. However, both groups’ blood dopamine levels decreased significantly after 24 weeks (adj. p < 002). No other marker was significantly different between groups, and we concluded that lithium did not confer neuroprotection following 24 weeks of treatment. However, the study was limited in duration and sample size

How COVID-19 has fundamentally changed clinical research in global health

COVID-19 has had negative repercussions on the entire global population. Despite there being a common goal that should have unified resources and efforts, there have been an overwhelmingly large number of clinical trials that have been registered that are of questionable methodological quality. As the final paper of this Series, we discuss how the medical research community has responded to COVID-19. We recognise the incredible pressure that this pandemic has put on researchers, regulators, and policy makers, all of whom were doing their best to move quickly but safely in a time of tremendous uncertainty. However, the research community\u27s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has prominently highlighted many fundamental issues that exist in clinical trial research under the current system and its incentive structures. The COVID-19 pandemic has not only re-emphasised the importance of well designed randomised clinical trials but also highlighted the need for large-scale clinical trials structured according to a master protocol in a coordinated and collaborative manner. There is also a need for structures and incentives to enable faster data sharing of anonymised datasets, and a need to provide similar opportunities to those in high-income countries for clinical trial research in low-resource regions where clinical trial research receives considerably less research funding

Bleeding and thrombosis outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients on low-molecular-weight heparin and antiplatelet therapy

Background. An increased incidence of thromboembolic events in hospitalised COVID‐19 patients has been demonstrated despite the use of low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH). Antiplatelet therapy prior to admission and early in the disease course has been hypothesised to be protective against thrombosis. Objectives. To describe the bleeding and thrombosis outcomes in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID‐19 receiving LMWH, with and without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. Secondary objectives were to explore predictors of bleeding and thrombosis outcomes, and dosing practices of antiplatelet therapy and LMWH. Methods. We conducted a descriptive, cross‐sectional study of bleeding and thrombosis outcomes at Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, during the first COVID‐19 wave, in 808 hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID‐19 receiving LMWH with and without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed if predictors were deemed statistically and clinically significant. Results. Patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy had similar bleeding outcomes compared with patients only receiving LMWH (odds ratio (OR) 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 ‐ 4.0). Patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy had increased odds of developing thrombosis compared with patients only receiving LMWH (OR 4.8; 95% CI 2.1 ‐ 10.7). Conclusion. The bleeding risk in COVID‐19 patients receiving both LMWH and antiplatelet therapy was not significantly increased. A potentially higher risk of thrombosis in patients receiving LMWH and antiplatelet therapy was observed. However, this could reflect confounding by indication. Randomised studies are required to further evaluate the use of antiplatelet therapy to treat hospitalised patients with COVID‐19

Ivermectin exposures reported to the Poisons Information Helpline in South Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background. Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that has shown in vitro activity against COVID‑19. Clinical studies supporting ivermectin for COVID‑19 prevention and treatment are conflicting, with important limitations. Public support for ivermectin is significant, with extensive off-label use despite the conflicting views on its efficacy. Ivermectin tablets and injectable formulations are not registered in South Africa for human use by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority. The National Department of Health does not currently recommend the use of ivermectin for COVID‑19. Objectives. To describe cases of ivermectin exposure reported to the Poisons Information Helpline of the Western Cape (PIHWC) before and after publication of the drug’s in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. Methods. In a retrospective review, ivermectin-related calls reported to the PIHWC from 1 June 2015 to 30 June 2020 (period 1) were compared with calls received from 1 July 2020 to 31 July 2021 (period 2), dichotomised according to the first publication indicating ivermectin activity against SARS-CoV-2. Results. Seventy-one cases were screened, and 65 were included for analysis; 19 cases were reported during period 1 and 46 during period 2. During period 2, 25 ivermectin cases (54.3%) were related to COVID‑19 use. Of these, 24 cases (52.2%) involved veterinary preparations, 3 (6.5%) human preparations and 19 (41.3%) unknown preparations. Fourteen cases (73.7%) during period 1 and 30 (65.2%) during period 2 were reported to be symptomatic. The most common organ systems involved were the central nervous (n=26 cases; 40.0%), gastrointestinal (n=18; 27.7%), ocular (n=9; 13.8%) and dermatological (n=5; 7.7%) systems. Conclusion. Ivermectin-related exposure calls increased during study period 2, probably as a result of ivermectin being used as preventive and definitive therapy for COVID‑19 in the absence of robust evidence on efficacy, dosing recommendations or appropriate formulations

Therapeutic drug monitoring of amlodipine and the Z-FHL/HHL ratio: Adherence tools in patients referred for apparent treatment-resistant hypertension

Background. Non-adherence to antihypertensives is a cause of ‘pseudo-treatment-resistant’ hypertension.Objective. To determine whether monitoring plasma amlodipine concentrations and inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) can be adjunct adherence tools.Methods. Patients with hypertension who were prescribed enalapril and amlodipine were enrolled. Blood pressures (BPs) were monitored and an adherence questionnaire was completed. Steady-state amlodipine was assayed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and degree of ACE inhibition using the Z-FHL/HHL (z-phenylalanine-histidine-leucine/hippuryl-histidine-leucine) ratio.Results. One hundred patients (mean (standard deviation) age 50.5 (12) years, 46% male) were enrolled. Based on plasma assays, 26/97 patients (26.8%) were unsuppressed by enalapril and 20/100 (20%) were sub-therapeutic for amlodipine. There were significant BP differences based on plasma levels of the medication: 21/20 mmHg lower in the group with suppressed ACE and 26/20 mmHg in the group with steady-state amlodipine concentrations.Conclusions. Monitoring antihypertensive adherence by assaying plasma medication concentrations is a feasible option for evaluating true v. pseudo-resistant hypertension.