ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Cannabidiol (CBD) is now a legal substance in Europe and is available in 'high street shops', usually as CBD oil. However, in the United Kingdom (UK), there is no clear consensus among healthcare professionals and organisations over how to manage CBD use in their patients. This is an important issue as CBD is a constituent of 'medicinal and recreational cannabis' and is gaining support in the scientific literature and lay media for use in physical and mental health problems. Given the aforementioned, this study is an exploration of healthcare professionals' beliefs and attitudes with regard to CBD. METHODS: In July 2018, we sent requests by email to approximately 2000 clinical staff (including 319 physicians) at a mental health trust in South West London to answer 8 questions in a single survey using Surveyplanet.com , about their beliefs regarding CBD. There was no specific method of choosing the staff, and the aim was to get the email request sent to as many staff as possible on each service line. We did an analysis to see how the attitudes and beliefs of different staff member groups compared. We also gave them space to offer free text responses to illustrate their ideas and concerns. We used chi-squared tests for comparison across groups and used odds ratio for pairwise group comparisons. RESULTS: One hundred ninety surveys were received in response, and of these, 180 were included in the final sample. The physician response rate was 17.2% (55/319); the response rate for non-physicians could not be estimated as their total number was not known at outset. 32.2% of the responders had the right to prescribe (58/180) and 52.8% had an experience of working in addiction services (95/180). We found that staff members who can prescribe were 1.99 times as likely to believe CBD has potential therapeutic properties compared to those who do not (OR = 1.99, CI = 1.03, 3.82; p = 0.038) and 2.94 times less likely to think it had dangerous side effects (OR = 0.34, CI = 0.15, 0.75; p = 0.006). Prescribing healthcare professionals were 2.3 times as likely to believe that CBD reduces the likelihood of psychosis (OR = 2.30, CI = 1.10, 4.78; p = 0.024). However, prescribing healthcare professionals with the ability to prescribe were 2.12 times as likely to believe that CBD should be prescription only (OR = 2.12, CI = 1.12, 4.01; p = 0.02). Individuals experienced in addiction services were 2.22 times as likely to be associated with a belief that CBD has therapeutic properties (OR = 2.22, CI = 1.22, 4.04; p = 0.009). Staff in general reported a lack of knowledge about CBD in their free text responses. CONCLUSIONS: With almost 95% of prescribers being physicians, they appear to demonstrate awareness of potential therapeutic benefit, reduced likelihood of psychosis and seeming lack of dangerous side effects with CBD. However, their higher stringency about the need for prescription implies an attitude of caution. There was also a suggestion that biases about cannabis were influencing responses to questions as well. The external validity of this study could be diminished by sampling bias and limitation to a single mental health trust. Nonetheless, some of the results drew a reasonable comparison with similar studies.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND Haemorrhoids are variceal dilatations of the anal and perianal venous plexus and often develop secondary to the persistently elevated venous pressure within the haemorrhoidal plexus. Phlebotonics are a heterogenous class of drugs consisting of plant extracts (i.e. flavonoids) and synthetic compounds (i.e. calcium dobesilate). Although their precise mechanism of action has not been fully established, they are known to improve venous tone, stabilize capillary permeability and increase lymphatic drainage. They have been used to treat a variety of conditions including chronic venous insufficiency, lymphoedema and haemorrhoids. OBJECTIVE The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy of phlebotonics in alleviating the signs, symptoms and severity of haemorrhoidal disease and verify their effect post-haemorrhoidectomy. METHODS Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library 2011 issue 9, MEDLINE (1950 to September 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to September 2011). Selection criteria: Only randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of phlebotonics in treating haemorrhoidal disease were used. No cross-over or cluster-randomized trials were included for analysis and any trial which had a quasi-random method of allocation was excluded. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted the data and analyzed the eligibility of the data for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by meaningful discussion. MAIN RESULTS We considered twenty-four studies for inclusion in the final analysis. Twenty of these studies (enrolling a total of 2344 participants) evaluated the use of phlebotonics versus a control intervention. One of these twenty studies evaluated the use of phlebotonics with a medical intervention and another study with rubber band ligation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence suggests that there is a potential benefit in using phlebotonics ...
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Haemorrhoids are variceal dilatations of the anal and perianal venous plexus and often develop secondary to the persistently elevated venous pressure within the haemorrhoidal plexus (Kumar 2005). Phlebotonics are a heterogenous class of drugs consisting of plant extracts (i.e. flavonoids) and synthetic compounds (i.e. calcium dobesilate). Although their precise mechanism of action has not been fully established, they are known to improve venous tone, stabilize capillary permeability and increase lymphatic drainage. They have been used to treat a variety of conditions including chronic venous insufficiency, lymphoedema and haemorrhoids.Numerous trials assessing the effect of phlebotonics in treating the symptoms and signs of haemorrhoidal disease suggest that there is a potential benefit. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy of phlebotonics in alleviating the signs, symptoms and severity of haemorrhoidal disease and verify their effect post-haemorrhoidectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library 2011 issue 9 , MEDLINE (1950 to September 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to September 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of phlebotonics in treating haemorrhoidal disease were used. No cross-over or cluster-randomized trials were included for analysis and any trial which had a quasi-random method of allocation was excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and analysed the eligibility of the data for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by meaningful discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We considered twenty-four studies for inclusion in the final analysis. Twenty of these studies (enrolling a total of 2344 participants) evaluated the use of phlebotonics versus a control intervention. One of these twenty studies evaluated the use of phlebotonics with a medical intervention and another study with rubber band ligation.The remaining four studies included two which compared different forms of phlebotonics with each other, one study which evaluated phlebotonics with a medical intervention and one study which compared the use of phlebotonics with infrared photocoagulation. Eight studies were excluded for various reasons including poor methodological quality.Phlebotonics demonstrated a statistically significant beneficial effect for the outcomes of pruritus (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.79) (P=0.02), bleeding (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) (P=0.0002), bleeding post-haemorrhoidectomy (OR 0.18; 95% 0.06 to 0.58)(P=0.004), discharge and leakage (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42) (P=0.0008) and overall symptom improvement (OR 15.99 95% CI 5.97 to 42.84) (P< 0.00001), in comparison with a control intervention. Although beneficial they did not show a statistically significant effect compared with a control intervention for pain (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.11) (P=0.06), pain scores post-haemorrhoidectomy (SMD -1.04; 95% CI -3.21 to 1.12 ) (P= 0.35) or post-operative analgesic consumption (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99)(P=0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that there is a potential benefit in using phlebotonics in treating haemorrhoidal disease as well as a benefit in alleviating post-haemorrhoidectomy symptoms. Outcomes such as bleeding and overall symptom improvement show a statistically significant beneficial effect and there were few concerns regarding their overall safety from the evidence presented in the clinical trials.However methodological limitations were encountered. In order to enhance our conclusion further, more robust clinical trials which take into account these limitations will need to be performed in the future.
