ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Tinnitus has a significant impact on quality of life and causes considerable psychological distress. Cannabis is known to modulate neuron hyperexcitability, provide protection against auditory damage, and has been used for treatment for many diseases which have physiological similarities with tinnitus. The objective of this study was to survey patients presenting with tinnitus regarding their perspectives and usage patterns of cannabis. METHODS: Patients with a primary presenting complaint of tinnitus in a tertiary neuro-otology clinic completed a 18-item questionnaire assessing perception, attitudes, and cannabis usage patterns. RESULTS: Forty five patients completed the survey (mean age: 54.5 years, 31 females and 14 males). Overall, 96% of patients reported that they would consider cannabis as treatment for their tinnitus. Patients considered cannabis use for auditory symptoms (91%), and symptoms related to their tinnitus, such as emotional complaints (60%), sleep disturbances (64%), and functional disturbances (56%). 36% of patients had previously used cannabis and 22% of patients reported cannabis use at the time of the study. 80% of patients that were actively using cannabis reported that it helped with tinnitus-related symptoms, such as dizziness, anxiety, bodily pain, and sleep disturbances. Most patients would prefer to use edibles (62%), tablet (58%) and cream (47%) formulations of cannabis. Patients were concerned about the cost (29%), potential physical health implications (53%) and psychosocial side effects (60%) of cannabis. Over half of patients learned about cannabis from a friend or family member and only 22% of patients learned about cannabis from a physician or nurse. CONCLUSION: Cannabis use is common amongst patients with tinnitus and current users of cannabis reported that it helped with their symptoms. Most patients would consider its use as a potential treatment to alleviate their tinnitus-related symptoms and are interested in learning more regarding its use. By understanding how cannabis is perceived by tinnitus patients, healthcare providers can provide appropriate patient education.
Subject(s)
Cannabis , Tinnitus , Male , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Quality of Life , Pain , AttitudeABSTRACT
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Patients on haemodialysis (HD) are at increased risk of both bleeding and thrombotic events, due to comorbidities and nature of dialysis treatment. However, there is a lack of research on evidence-based treatment strategies and prescribing patterns for antithrombotic therapies (ATT) in this population. To characterize ATT use and its main indications in an outpatient HD unit. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective chart review was conducted in a Toronto outpatient HD unit (n = 329). Medical histories, number of ATTs and corresponding indications were collected from adult patients prescribed at least one ATT from 1 October 2019 to 31 December 2019, inclusive. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of 329 patients in the unit, a total of 135 (41%) patients were on at least one ATT. Of these 135 patients, 80% were on monotherapy (55% antiplatelet, 25.1% anticoagulant), 12.6% were on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), and 7.4% were on a antiplatelet and anticoagulant combination. Primary indications for ATT in our cohort were coronary artery disease (CAD; 55%), atrial fibrillation (18.5%) and venous thromboembolism (VTE; 17%). Described ATT use was in-line with current clinical guidelines. Monotherapy was primarily used in our HD cohort, whereas few patients were on dual therapy. Low-dose aspirin was the most common antiplatelet prescribed for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. Warfarin monotherapy was primarily indicated for VTE, and DAPT aspirin/clopidogrel was the most commonly prescribed for CAD. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Our characterization of ATT use in this HD cohort demonstrates that ATT is often prescribed for a number of different CVD reasons. Overlapping and confounding indications for prescribing ATTs, lack of randomized controlled trials and unclear clinical guidelines mean that individualized risk-benefit assessments for ATT use are still needed to provide care for these high-risk patients. More research to address the safety and efficacy of ATTs is warranted to develop more robust evidence-based treatment guidelines for the HD population.
