Search

BackgroundCannabis legalization has enabled increased consumption in older adults. Age-related mental, physical, and physiological changes may lead to differences in effects of cannabis in older adults compared to younger individuals.ObjectiveTo perform a scoping review to map the evidence regarding the health effects of cannabis use for medical and non-medical purposes in older adults.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library) were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized/observational studies (NRSs) assessing the health effects and associations of cannabis use (medical or non-medical) in adults ≥ 50 years of age. Included studies met age-related inclusion criteria or involved a priori identified health conditions common among older adults. Records were screened using a liberal accelerated approach and data charting was performed independently by two reviewers. Descriptive summaries, structured tables, effect direction plots and bubble plots were used to synthesize study findings.FindingsFrom 31,393 citations, 133 publications describing 134 unique studies (26 SRs, 36 RCTs, 72 NRSs) were included. Medical cannabis had inconsistent therapeutic effects in specific patient conditions (e.g., end-stage cancer, dementia), with a number of studies suggesting possible benefits while others found no benefit. For medical cannabis, harmful associations outnumbered beneficial, and RCTs reported more negative effects than NRSs. Cannabis use was associated with greater frequencies of depression, anxiety, cognitive impairment, substance use and problematic substance use, accidents/injuries, and acute healthcare use. Studies often were small, did not consistently assess harms, and did not adjust for confounding.DiscussionThe effects of medical cannabis are inconsistent within specific patient conditions. For older adults, generally, the available evidence suggests cannabis use may be associated with greater frequencies of mental health issues, substance use, and acute healthcare use, and the benefit-to-risk ratio is unclear. Studies with a balanced assessment of benefits and harms may guide appropriate public health messaging to balance the marketing pressures of cannabis to older adults.

BackgroundExisting systematic reviews of Rh immunoprophylaxis include only data from randomized controlled trials, have dated searches, and some do not report on all domains of risk of bias or evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Our objective was to perform an updated review, by including new trials, any comparative observational studies, and assessing the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to November 26, 2019. Relevant websites and bibliographies of systematic reviews and guidelines were searched for studies published before 2000. Outcomes of interest were sensitization and adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool and ROBINS-I. The certainty of the evidence was performed using the GRADE framework.ResultsThirteen randomized trials and eight comparative cohort studies were identified, evaluating 12 comparisons. Although there is some evidence of beneficial treatment effects (e.g., at 6-months postpartum, fewer women who received RhIg at delivery compared to no RhIg became sensitized [70 fewer sensitized women per 1,000 (95%CI: 67 to 71 fewer); I2 = 73%]), due to very low certainty of the evidence, the magnitude of the treatment effect may be overestimated. The certainty of the evidence was very low for most outcomes often due to high risk of bias (e.g., randomization method, allocation concealment, selective reporting) and imprecision (i.e., few events and small sample sizes). There is limited evidence on prophylaxis for invasive fetal procedures (e.g. amniocentesis) in the comparative literature, and few studies reported adverse events.ConclusionSerious risk of bias and low to very low certainty of the evidence is found in existing RCTs and comparative observational studies addressing optimal effectiveness of Rh immunoprophylaxis. Guideline development committees should exercise caution when assessing the strength of the recommendations that inform and influence clinical practice in this area.

BackgroundGuidelines recommend that individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; however, the most appropriate psychosocial intervention is not known. In collaboration with people with lived experience, clinicians, and policy makers, we sought to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among persons with OUD.MethodsA review protocol was registered a priori (CRD42018090761), and a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted from database inception to June 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Established methods for study selection and data extraction were used. Primary outcomes were treatment retention and opioid use (measured by urinalysis for opioid use and opioid abstinence outcomes). Odds ratios were estimated using network meta-analyses (NMA) as appropriate based on available evidence, and in remaining cases alternative approaches to synthesis were used.ResultsSeventy-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluations commonly identified study limitations and poor reporting with regard to methods used for allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Due to inconsistency in reporting of outcome measures, only 48 RCTs (20 unique interventions, 5,404 participants) were included for NMA of treatment retention, where statistically significant differences were found when psychosocial interventions were used as an adjunct to OAT as compared to OAT-only. The addition of rewards-based interventions such as contingency management (alone or with community reinforcement approach) to OAT was superior to OAT-only. Few statistically significant differences between psychosocial interventions were identified among any other pairwise comparisons. Heterogeneity in reporting formats precluded an NMA for opioid use. A structured synthesis was undertaken for the remaining outcomes which included opioid use (n = 18 studies) and opioid abstinence (n = 35 studies), where the majority of studies found no significant difference between OAT plus psychosocial interventions as compared to OAT-only.ConclusionsThis systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence and the limitations of current trials of psychosocial interventions applied as an adjunct to OAT for OUD. Clinicians and health services may wish to consider integrating contingency management in addition to OAT for OUD in their settings to improve treatment retention. Aside from treatment retention, few differences were consistently found between psychosocial interventions adjunctive to OAT and OAT-only. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to establish more definitive conclusions.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration CRD42018090761.