Cannabis use in patients with Autosomal Recessive Spastic Ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay.

Autosomal Recessive Spastic Ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay (ARSACS) is an early-onset cerebellar ataxia with often presence of peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy and lower limb spasticity. Recently, the presence of pain has been associated with ARSACS in a quarter of the population in relation to spasms and neuropathic pain. However, limited therapeutic options available to patients and the occurrence of persistent symptoms despite treatment with the usual pharmacologic agents have led to exploring cannabis as a potential alternative. The aim of this study was to characterize the profile of cannabis use among patients with ARSACS. Phone interviews were conducted to document current or former cannabis use. Reasons of cannabis use and the characteristics of use were also investigated. Among the 50 study participants, 18% currently used cannabis, 40% reported at least one occurrence of cannabis use and 42% reported having never used cannabis. A greater proportion of patients with regular cannabis use reported chronic pain in comparison to those who never used. Although less frequent than ataxia, spasticity, muscle cramps or muscle spasms, which were independently reported by more than half of the studied sample, chronic pain was notably present in 30% of participants. While our study did not assess the therapeutic effects of cannabis, our results highlight that there is a potential role for cannabis and cannabinoids in the management of multiple ARSACS-associated symptoms and that agents modulating the endocannabinoid system need to be properly investigated.

Characterization of cannabis use by patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1: A pilot study.

The treatment of myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) focuses on reducing symptom burden. However, since medication often fails to produce satisfying symptom relief, some patients seek alternatives, such as cannabis, to help reduce some of these symptoms. The aim of this study was to provide an accurate profile of cannabis use among DM1 patients. Phone interviews were conducted to identify current and former users, and to assess reasons for cannabis use. Characteristics of cannabis use were also investigated. Briefly, among the 72 study participants, 22.2% currently used cannabis and a majority of them (56.9%) reported using it to relieve symptoms associated with DM1. These users, classified as therapeutic users, reported poorer health status (EQ-5D index scores: 0.532±0.230 vs. 0.823±0.208, p = 0.020; EQ-VAS scale 50.56±10.74 vs. 75.57±21.50, p = 0.009) than non-therapeutic users. Finally, differences among sex were also highlighted. While the therapeutic effects of cannabis were not explored in our study, our results support the potential role of cannabis and cannabinoids in the treatment of DM1-associated symptoms which will need to be thoroughly investigated.

Adalimumab, Infliximab, and Vedolizumab in Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: A Long-Term Retrospective Study in a Tertiary Referral Center.

Background: Biological therapies have changed the landscape of pharmacological management of ulcerative colitis (UC). However, a large proportion of patients do not respond to biologics, lose their response over time, or present adverse drug events. This study aims to assess therapeutic response and treatment persistence to adalimumab, infliximab, and vedolizumab, 3 agents widely used in a tertiary referral center of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean (Quebec, Canada). Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based study with a thorough review of patients' medical charts. Adults at UC diagnosis, with current or past use of adalimumab, infliximab, or vedolizumab, were included in the study. Clinical data were collected in order to assess response phenotypes and persistence to treatment. Kaplan-Meier curves were performed to assess treatment persistence, and predictors for discontinuation were assessed using Cox regression analyses. Results: A total of 134 patients were included in this study. For the cases exposed to adalimumab, infliximab, and vedolizumab, 56.9%, 62.5%, and 47.5% were responders, respectively. Mean persistence rates (95% CI) were 5.5 (4.3-6.6), 10.1 (8.7-11.5), and 3.6 (2.9-4.2) years for adalimumab, infliximab, and vedolizumab, respectively. Increased persistence rates were observed in biologic-naïve patients treated with infliximab in comparison to those with the previous exposition to 2 biologics, but no such effect was observed for adalimumab or vedolizumab. Overall, 61.9% of cases had adverse drug events and of these, 6 led to treatment discontinuation. Conclusion: This study presents long-term treatment persistence data with adalimumab, infliximab, and vedolizumab, showing that more than half of cases treated with these biologics remained on treatment at least 24 months after initiation.