Clinical Data for the Use of Cannabis-Based Treatments: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To compile and synthesize the available literature describing medical cannabis use across various disease states. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EBSCO, and Google Scholar searches were conducted using MeSH and/or keywords. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were included if they described the use of cannabis-based products and medications in the treatment of a predefined list of disease states in humans and were published in English. The extraction period had no historical limit and spanned through April 2019. DATA SYNTHESIS: Evidence was compiled and summarized for the following medical conditions: Alzheimer disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism, cancer and cancer-associated adverse effects, seizure disorders, human immunodeficiency virus, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), nausea, pain, posttraumatic stress disorder, and hospice care. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Based on identified data, the most robust evidence suggests that medical cannabis may be effective in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, seizure disorders, MS-related spasticity, and pain (excluding diabetic neuropathy). Overall, the evidence is inconsistent and generally limited by poor quality. The large variation in cannabis-based products evaluated in studies limits the ability to make direct comparisons. Regardless of the product, a gradual dose titration was utilized in most studies. Cannabis-based therapies were typically well tolerated, with the most common adverse effects being dizziness, somnolence, dry mouth, nausea, and euphoria. CONCLUSIONS: As more states authorize medical cannabis use, there is an increasing need for high-quality clinical evidence describing its efficacy and safety. This review is intended to serve as a reference for clinicians, so that the risks and realistic benefits of medical cannabis are better understood.

Newly Initiated In-Hospital Antipsychotics Continued at Discharge in Non-psychiatric Patients.

Objectives: Antipsychotics are commonly initiated in the hospital for agitation and delirium and may be inappropriately continued upon floor transfer and at discharge. We sought to evaluate the magnitude of this issue within our health care system. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study within a 22-hospital health care system to evaluate the proportion of patients without identifiable psychiatric illness who received newly initiated inpatient antipsychotics and were then continued on an antipsychotic at hospital discharge. Results: Of 23 049 patients who received at least 1 in-hospital dose of haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone, 8297 patients were included in the final analysis after applying exclusion for identifiable psychiatric illness or previous antipsychotic use. Ultimately, 334 patients (4%) were discharged with a new antipsychotic prescription. Patients receiving antipsychotics at discharge were more likely as an inpatient to receive quetiapine (77.2% vs 35.9%; odds ratio [OR]: 6.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.7-8.0; P < .001) and less likely to receive haloperidol (15% vs 47%; OR: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.14-0.27; P < .001) or olanzapine (16.2% vs 20.9%; OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.53-0.98; P < .04). Conclusions: Antipsychotics may be inappropriately continued in non-psychiatric patients at hospital discharge. Strategies to limit potentially unnecessary antipsychotics upon discharge should be evaluated.