The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) Priorities for Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research.

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has a broad interest in the study of the biological activities of natural products with a strong research emphasis on products for which there is compelling preclinical evidence for potential biological activity that may lead to a health benefit or treatment interventions, and/or products that are widely used by the American public. Use of cannabis for medical purposes is legal in 38 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, the use of cannabis products to treat medical conditions in the United States continues to climb without sufficient knowledge regarding risks and benefits. In keeping with NCCIH's natural product research priorities and in recognizing this gap in knowledge, NCCIH formally launched a research program in 2019 to expand research on the potential therapeutic benefit of minor cannabinoids and terpenes for the treatment of pain. This Viewpoint provides additional details and rationale for this research priority at NCCIH. In addition, NCCIH's efforts and initiatives to facilitate and coordinate an NIH research agenda focused on cannabis and cannabinoid research is described. Significance Statement Trends in the use of cannabis products to treat medical conditions continues without sufficient knowledge regarding risks and benefits. Research is needed to help the public and health care providers make informed decisions about cannabis and cannabinoids for medical purposes. NCCIH along with other NIH Institutes, Centers and Office is expanding its study on the safety, efficacy, and harms of cannabis; a complex mixture of phytochemicals that need to be studied alone and in combination.

Use of a WHO-recommended algorithm to reduce mortality in seriously ill patients with HIV infection and smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis in South Africa: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, WHO released revised recommendations and an algorithm for the diagnosis and treatment of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis in seriously ill people living with HIV/AIDS. We aimed to assess the effect of the recommendations on clinical outcome in patients in South Africa. METHODS: We enrolled seriously ill patients (aged ≥15 years) with HIV infection and suspected smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis from three hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Patients were consecutively enrolled into two cohorts: the first cohort was managed according to standard practice, and the second according to the WHO-recommended algorithm. The primary endpoints were rates of continued stay in hospital at 7 days after admission and survival at 8 weeks after admission. FINDINGS: 338 patients were enrolled in the standard practice cohort between August, 2008, and February, 2009, and 187 were enrolled in the algorithm cohort between March, 2009, and December, 2009. 7 days after hospital admission, 27% (n=50) of patients in the algorithm cohort were still in hospital, compared with 38% (n=130) in the standard practice cohort (rate ratio 0·70, 95% CI 0·53-0·91; p=0·009). 8 weeks after admission, 83% (n=156) of patients in the algorithm cohort were alive, compared with 68% (n=230) in the standard practice cohort (1·23, 1·11-1·35; p=0·0001), with effect modified by hospital location. INTERPRETATION: In seriously ill patients with HIV infection and suspected smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis, early antituberculosis treatment according to the WHO algorithm could significantly reduce mortality in South Africa. FUNDING: US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

Isoniazid, rifampin, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide pharmacokinetics and treatment outcomes among a predominantly HIV-infected cohort of adults with tuberculosis from Botswana.

BACKGROUND: We explored the association between antituberculosis drug pharmacokinetics and treatment outcomes among patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in Botswana. METHODS: Consenting outpatients with tuberculosis had blood samples collected 1, 2, and 6 h after simultaneous isoniazid, rifampin, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide ingestion. Maximum serum concentrations (C(max)) and areas under the serum concentration time curve were determined. Clinical status was monitored throughout treatment. RESULTS: Of the 225 participants, 36 (16%) experienced poor treatment outcome (treatment failure or death); 155 (69%) were infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Compared with published standards, low isoniazid C(max) occurred in 84 patients (37%), low rifampin C(max) in 188 (84%), low ethambutol C(max) in 87 (39%), and low pyrazinamide C(max) in 11 (5%). Median rifampin and pyrazinamide levels differed significantly by HIV status and CD4 cell count category. Only pyrazinamide pharmacokinetics were significantly associated with treatment outcome; low pyrazinamide C(max) was associated with a higher risk of documented poor treatment outcome, compared with normal C(max) (50% vs. 16%; P < .01). HIV-infected patients with a CD4 cell count <200 cells/microL had a higher risk of poor treatment outcome (27%) than did HIV-uninfected patients (11%) or HIV-infected patients with a CD4 cell count 200 cells/microL (12%; P = .01). After adjustment for HIV infection and CD4 cell count, patients with low pyrazinamide C(max) were 3 times more likely than patients with normal pyrazinamide C(max) to have poor outcomes (adjusted risk ratio, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-6.22). CONCLUSIONS: Lower than expected antituberculosis drug C(max) occurred frequently, and low pyrazinamide C(max) was associated with poor treatment outcome. Exploring the global prevalence and significance of these findings may suggest modifications in treatment regimens that could improve tuberculosis cure rates.

Purchasing behavior and calorie information at fast-food chains in New York City, 2007.

We surveyed 7318 customers from 275 randomly selected restaurants of 11 fast food chains. Participants purchased a mean of 827 calories, with 34% purchasing 1000 calories or more. Unlike other chains, Subway posted calorie information at point of purchase and its patrons more often reported seeing calorie information than patrons of other chains (32% vs 4%; P<.001); Subway patrons who saw calorie information purchased 52 fewer calories than did other Subway patrons (P<.01). Fast-food chains should display calorie information prominently at point of purchase, where it can be seen and used to inform purchases.

Should health studies measure wealth? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Health researchers rarely measure accumulated wealth to reflect socioeconomic status/position (SES). In order to determine whether health research should more frequently include measures of wealth, this study assessed the relationship between wealth and health. METHODS: Studies published between 1990 to 2006 were systematically reviewed. Included studies used wealth and at least one other SES measure as independent variables, and a health-related dependent variable. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Measures of wealth varied greatly. In most studies, greater wealth was associated with better health, even after adjusting for other SES measures. The findings appeared most consistent when using detailed wealth measures on specific assets and debts, rather than a single question. Adjusting for wealth generally decreased observed racial/ethnic disparities in health. CONCLUSIONS: Health studies should include wealth as an important SES indicator. Failure to measure wealth may result in under-estimating the contribution of SES to health, such as when studying the etiology of racial/ethnic disparities. Validation is needed for simpler approaches to measuring wealth that would be feasible in health studies.

Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all.

Problems with measuring socioeconomic status (SES)-frequently included in clinical and public health studies as a control variable and less frequently as the variable(s) of main interest-could affect research findings and conclusions, with implications for practice and policy. We critically examine standard SES measurement approaches, illustrating problems with examples from new analyses and the literature. For example, marked racial/ethnic differences in income at a given educational level and in wealth at a given income level raise questions about the socioeconomic comparability of individuals who are similar on education or income alone. Evidence also shows that conclusions about nonsocioeconomic causes of racial/ethnic differences in health may depend on the measure-eg, income, wealth, education, occupation, neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics, or past socioeconomic experiences-used to "control for SES," suggesting that findings from studies that have measured limited aspects of SES should be reassessed. We recommend an outcome- and social group-specific approach to SES measurement that involves (1) considering plausible explanatory pathways and mechanisms, (2) measuring as much relevant socioeconomic information as possible, (3) specifying the particular socioeconomic factors measured (rather than SES overall), and (4) systematically considering how potentially important unmeasured socioeconomic factors may affect conclusions. Better SES measures are needed in data sources, but improvements could be made by using existing information more thoughtfully and acknowledging its limitations.