An answered call for aid? Cannabinoid clinical framework for the opioid epidemic.

BACKGROUND: The opioid crisis continues in full force, as physicians and caregivers are desperate for resources to help patients with opioid use and chronic pain disorders find safer and more accessible non-opioid tools. MAIN BODY: The purpose of this article is to review the current state of the opioid epidemic; the shifting picture of cannabinoids; and the research, policy, and current events that make opioid risk reduction an urgent public health challenge. The provided table contains an evidence-based clinical framework for the utilization of cannabinoids to treat patients with chronic pain who are dependent on opioids, seeking alternatives to opioids, and tapering opioids. CONCLUSION: Based on a comprehensive review of the literature and epidemiological evidence to date, cannabinoids stand to be one of the most interesting, safe, and accessible tools available to attenuate the devastation resulting from the misuse and abuse of opioid narcotics. Considering the urgency of the opioid epidemic and broadening of cannabinoid accessibility amidst absent prescribing guidelines, the authors recommend use of this clinical framework in the contexts of both clinical research continuity and patient care.

Standard-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Anticoagulation with Warfarin in Asian Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Multi-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Anticoagulation with warfarin in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often has been decreased as an international normalized ratio (INR) of prothrombin time 1.6-2.6 due to fear of bleeding, although universal criteria recommend an INR of 2.0-3.0. In this randomized, open-label trial, low-intensity anticoagulation (INR 1.6-2.6) was compared with standard-intensity anticoagulation (INR 2.0-3.0) with warfarin. A total 616 patients with AF and at least 1 risk factor for stroke were randomized to low-intensity anticoagulation (n = 308) and standard-intensity anticoagulation (n = 308) groups. The intention-to-treat analysis was performed to determine differences. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. New-onset stroke occurred in 2 patients (0.44% per year) in the low-intensity group and 5 patients (1.05% per year) in the standard-intensity group (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08-2.15). Major bleeding occurred in 4 patients (0.89% per year) in the low-intensity group and 5 patients (1.06% per year) in the standard-intensity group (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.22-3.11). The rate of the net clinical outcome (composite of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, and death) was 1.33% per year in the low-intensity group compared with 2.12% per year in the standard-intensity group (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23-1.72). In Asian patients with AF, clinical outcomes were not different between low-intensity and standard-intensity anticoagulation with warfarin.