Toward reducing racialized pain care disparities: Approaching cannabis research and access through the lens of equity and inclusion.

There is growing interest in cannabis use for cancer pain. This commentary aims to discuss the evidence surrounding cannabis use for cancer pain in the context of the long-racialized landscape of cannabis policies and the disparity in pain control among cancer patients holding minoritized racial identities. Much evidence surrounding both the benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer patients, and all patients in general, is lacking. Although drawing on the research in cancer that is available, it is also important to illustrate the broader context about how cannabis' deep roots in medical, political, and social history impact patient use and health care policies. There are lessons we can learn from the racialized disparities in opioid risk mitigation strategies, so they are not replicated in the settings of cannabis for cancer symptom management. Additionally, the authors intentionally use the term "cannabis" here rather than "marijuana.: In the early 1900s, the lay press and government popularized the use of the word "marijuana" instead of the more common "cannabis" to tie the drug to anti-Mexican prejudice.

Reconstructing Nasal Defects With Acellular Dermal Matrix After Mohs Micrographic Surgery: A 12-year Experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Large defects of the nose after Mohs surgery pose a significant reconstructive challenge to both dermatologic and reconstructive surgeons. The authors present their 12-year experience utilizing acellular dermal matrices for nasal reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing Mohs surgery and alloplastic nasal reconstruction with acellular dermal matrices between 2010 and 2022 was performed. Patients who underwent single-stage reconstruction and dual-stage reconstruction with skin graft with at least 90 days of follow-up were included. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients met criteria with a median age of 77 years. Fifty-three lesions were reconstructed with acellular dermal matrices. The most common lesion location was nasal sidewall (50%) with a mean defect size of 10.8 cm 2 . 30.8% underwent same-day acellular dermal matrix reconstruction, with 69.2% undergoing two-stage reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrices successfully reconstructed acquired defects in 94.2% of lesions. Average time to re-epithelialization was 27.6 + 6.2 days. Average time to repigmentation was 145.35 + 86 days. No recurrences were recorded. Total complication rate was 9.62%. Average size for successful healing was 10.8 cm 2 . Average defect size for complication or failure was 14.7 cm 2 . Seven sites (13.46%) underwent aesthetic improvement procedures. CONCLUSION: Acellular bilayer wound matrix is an adequate reconstructive option for single or dual-stage reconstruction of the nose with low complication and revision rates.

A retrospective case series of Mohs micrographic surgery and interdisciplinary management of female genital skin cancers: Local recurrence rates and patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Conventional excision of female genital skin cancers has high rates of local recurrence and morbidity. Few publications describe local recurrence rates (LRRs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) for female genital skin cancers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate LRRs, PROs, and interdisciplinary care after MMS for female genital skin cancers. METHODS: A retrospective case series was conducted of female genital skin cancers treated with MMS between 2006 and 2021 at an academic center. The primary outcome was local recurrence. Secondary outcomes were PROs and details of interdisciplinary care. RESULTS: Sixty skin cancers in 57 patients were treated with MMS. Common diagnoses included squamous cell cancer (n = 26), basal cell cancer (n = 12), and extramammary Paget disease (n = 11). Three local recurrences were detected with a mean follow-up of 61.1 months (median: 48.8 months). Thirty-one patients completed the PROs survey. Most patients were satisfied with MMS (71.0%, 22/31) and reported no urinary incontinence (93.5%, 29/31). Eight patients were sexually active at follow-up and 75.0% (6/8) experienced no sexual dysfunction. Most cases involved interdisciplinary collaboration 71.7% (43/60). LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the retrospective single-center design, heterogeneous cohort, and lack of preoperative function data. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating MMS into interdisciplinary teams may help achieve low LRRs and satisfactory function after genital skin cancer surgery.

A Cost Comparison Between Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Conventional Excision for the Treatment of Head and Neck Melanomas In Situ and Thin Melanomas.

BACKGROUND: Variation in operative setting and surgical technique exists when treating specialty site melanomas. There are limited data comparing costs among surgical modalities. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs of head and neck melanoma surgery performed with Mohs micrographic surgery or conventional excision in the operating room or office-based settings. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients aged 18 years and older with surgically treated head and neck melanoma in 2 cohorts, an institutional cohort and an insurance claims cohort, for the years 2008-2019. The primary outcome was total cost of care for a surgical encounter, provided in the form of insurance reimbursement data. A generalized linear model was used to adjust for covariates affecting differences between treatment groups. RESULTS: In the institutional and insurance claims cohorts, average adjusted treatment cost was highest in the conventional excision-operating room treatment group, followed by the Mohs surgery and conventional excision-office setting ( p < .001). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the important economic role the office-based setting has for head and neck melanoma surgery. This study allows cutaneous oncologic surgeons to better understand the costs of care involved in head and neck melanoma treatment. Cost awareness is important for shared decision-making discussions with patients.

Dispensary Staff Perceptions About the Benefits, Risks, and Safety of Cannabis for Medical Purposes.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic use of cannabis is common in the United States (up to 18.7% of Americans aged ≥12), and dispensaries in the US are proliferating rapidly. However, the efficacy profile of medical cannabis is unclear, and customers often rely on dispensary staff for purchasing decisions. The objective was to describe cannabis dispensary staff perceptions of medical cannabis benefits and risks, as well as its safety in high-risk populations. METHODS: Online Survey study conducted using Qualtrics from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 with a national sample of dispensary staff who reportedinteracting with customers in a cannabis dispensary selling tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products. Participants were queried about benefits ("helpfulness") and risks ("worry") about cannabis for a variety of medical conditions, and safety in older adults and pregnant women on a five-point Likert scale. These results were then collapsed into three categories including "neutral" (3/5). "I don't know" (uncertainty) was a response option for helpfulness and safety. RESULTS: Participants (n = 434) were from 29 states and included patient-facing dispensary staff (40%); managers (32%); pharmacists (13%); and physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants (5%). Over 80% of participants perceived cannabis as helpful for post-traumatic stress disorder (88.7%), epilepsy (85.3%) and cancer (83.4%). Generally, participants were not concerned about potential cannabis risks, including increased use of illicit drugs (76.3%), decreases in intelligence (74.4%), disrupted sleep (71.7%), and new/worsening health problems from medical cannabis use (70.7%). Cannabis was considered safe in older adults by 81.3% of participants, though there was much less consensus on safety in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis dispensary staff generally view medical cannabis as beneficial and low-risk. However, improvements in dispensary staff training, an increased role for certifying clinicians, and interventions to reduce dispensary staff concerns (e.g., cost, judgment) may improve evidence-based staff recommendations to patients seeking medical cannabis.

Health Experiences Research as a Resource and Mechanism for Veteran Engagement in VA Healthcare Research and Care Delivery.

Engaging patients in the research process helps to ensure researchers ask meaningful questions and generate useful evidence to inform healthcare decisions. In 2015, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D) service convened a Veteran engagement workgroup, comprised of researchers, clinicians, and Veterans, to identify ways to integrate Veteran engagement into HSR&D. A subgroup was designated to explore the utility of health experiences research (research focused on enhancing understanding of people's experiences with healthcare and illnesses) as a mechanism to complement and broaden traditional engagement mechanisms. The subgroup recommended the VA adopt the Database of Individual Patient Experiences (DIPEx) methodology for conducting and disseminating health experiences research (HER). In this paper, we describe (1) the key components of the DIPEx approach, (2) how these components complement and broaden current methods of Veteran engagement, (3) an update on VA activities using the DIPEx approach, and (4) a roadmap for future VA HER activities.

Bupivacaine to Reduce Pain and Narcotic Use After Mohs Micrographic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exists for bupivacaine injection after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). OBJECTIVE: Evaluate how bupivacaine affects postoperative pain and narcotic use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, single-blinded, prospective randomized controlled trial, patients received bupivacaine or saline (placebo) immediately after MMS with flap reconstructions identified by American Academy of Dermatology expert consensus as high-risk for pain and narcotic use. For 48 hours postoperatively, patients logged analgesic use, pain scores (0-10), and whether pain was controlled. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four patients were included. Narcotic analgesic use was higher in the placebo group during the first 24 hours (odds ratio 2.18; confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-4.41; p = .03), second 24 hours (odds ratio 2.18; CI: 0.91-5.29; p = .08), and 48 hours combined (odds ratio 2.58; CI: 1.28-5.24; p < .01). Pain scores were lower in the bupivacaine group during the first 8 hours (mean difference 1.6; CI: 0.73-2.38; p < .001). Overall analgesic use (narcotic and non-narcotic) and percentage of patients reporting pain under control were similar between groups. There were no significant differences in demographics or surgical characteristics. No adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Single-dose bupivacaine decreased postoperative pain and narcotic analgesic use after MMS with reconstructions likely to cause significant pain. Bupivacaine may have a role in postoperative pain management and reducing narcotic use in this population.

An unexpected case of non-uremic calciphylaxis in a patient with multiple risk factors.

A 58-year-old woman with a history of morbid obesity, asthma, and prior warfarin use presented to the hospital with shortness of breath and a three-month history of painful, ulcerated ulcers with retiform purpura of her bilateral distal extremities. A punch biopsy specimen demonstrated focal necrosis and hyalinization of the adipose tissue with subtle arteriolar calcium deposition, findings consistent with calciphylaxis. We discuss the presentation of non-uremic calciphylaxis and review the risk factors, pathophysiology, and interdisciplinary management approach of this rare disease.

Associations of Pain Numeric Rating Scale Scores Collected during Usual Care with Research Administered Patient Reported Pain Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which numeric rating scale (NRS) scores collected during usual care are associated with more robust and validated measures of pain, disability, mental health, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). DESIGN: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: We included 186 patients with musculoskeletal pain who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy. SETTING: VA Portland Health Care System outpatient clinic. METHODS: All patients had been screened with the 0-10 NRS during routine outpatient visits. They also completed research visits that assessed pain, mental health and HRQOL every 6 months for 2 years. Accounting for nonindependence of repeated measures data, we examined associations of NRS data obtained from the medical record with scores on standardized measures of pain and its related outcomes. RESULTS: NRS scores obtained in clinical practice were moderately associated with pain intensity scores (B's = 0.53-0.59) and modestly associated with pain disability scores (B's = 0.33-0.36) obtained by researchers. Associations between pain NRS scores and validated measures of depression, anxiety, and health related HRQOL were low (B's = 0.09-0.26, with the preponderance of B's < .20). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized assessments of pain during usual care are moderately associated with research-administered measures of pain intensity and would be improved from the inclusion of more robust measures of pain-related function, mental health, and HRQOL.

A qualitative study of VHA clinicians' knowledge and perspectives on cannabis for medical purposes.

BACKGROUND: The legalization of cannabis is expanding across the USA, and its use has increased significantly, including among Veterans. Although the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) abides by the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance, it recently recommended that clinicians discuss cannabis with their patients. Little is known about VHA clinicians' perspectives on and knowledge of cannabis. OBJECTIVE: We sought to better understand clinicians' attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and communication with patients regarding cannabis. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 14 VHA clinicians. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: VA clinicians described ambivalence towards cannabis for therapeutic purposes and identified several factors that inhibit conversations about cannabis use with their patients including discomfort with the lack of product standardization; lack of research examining the effectiveness and risks of cannabis use; unfamiliarity with pharmacology, formulations, and dosing of cannabis; and uncertainty regarding VHA policy. Clinicians had differing views on cannabis in the context of the opioid crisis. CONCLUSIONS: VA clinicians face challenges in navigating the topic of medical cannabis. Educational materials about cannabis products, dose and harms would be helpful to clinicians.

Our research study examines Veterans Health Administration clinicians' attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and communication with patients about cannabis (marijuana) use. We conducted phone interviews with 14 VHA clinicians in order to describe their experiences of talking to their patients about cannabis. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed to identify themes. We describe both common and unique experiences. Our findings suggest that VA clinicians have feelings of uncertainty towards cannabis use for medical purposes and described several reasons that prevent conversations about cannabis use with their patients, including discomfort with the lack of product regulation; lack of research examining the effect cannabis has on the body; unfamiliarity with the different cannabis products that are available; and uncertainty about VHA policy. VA clinicians have diverse views of cannabis in relation to the opioid epidemic.

Pharmacotherapy for the Treatment of Cannabis Use Disorder: A Systematic Review.

Background: Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a growing concern, and evidence-based data are needed to inform treatment options. Purpose: To review the benefits and risks of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of CUD. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and clinical trial registries from inception through September 2019. Study Selection: Pharmacotherapy trials of adults or adolescents with CUD that targeted cannabis abstinence or reduction, treatment retention, withdrawal symptoms, and other outcomes. Data Extraction: Data were abstracted by 1 investigator and confirmed by a second. Study quality was dually assessed, and strength of evidence (SOE) was determined by consensus according to standard criteria. Data Synthesis: Across 26 trials, the evidence was largely insufficient. Low-strength evidence was found that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) do not reduce cannabis use or improve treatment retention. Low- to moderate-strength evidence was found that buspirone does not improve outcomes and that cannabinoids do not increase abstinence rates (moderate SOE), reduce cannabis use (low SOE), or increase treatment retention (low SOE). Across all drug studies, no consistent evidence of increased harm was found. Limitations: Few methodologically rigorous trials have been done. Existing trials are hampered by small sample sizes, high attrition rates, and heterogeneity of concurrent interventions and outcomes assessment. Conclusion: Although data on pharmacologic interventions for CUD are scarce, evidence exists that several drug classes, including cannabinoids and SSRIs, are ineffective. Because of increasing access to and use of cannabis in the general population, along with a high prevalence of CUD among current cannabis users, an urgent need exists for more research to identify effective pharmacologic treatments. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42018108064).

Correlates of Use and Perceived Effectiveness of Non-pharmacologic Strategies for Chronic Pain Among Patients Prescribed Long-term Opioid Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Non-pharmacologic treatments (NPTs) are recommended for chronic pain. Information is limited on patient use or perceptions of NPTs. We examined the frequency and correlates of use and self-rated helpfulness of NPTs for chronic pain among patients who are prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). METHODS: Participants (n = 517) with musculoskeletal pain who were prescribed LTOT were recruited from two integrated health systems. They rated the frequency and utility of six clinician-directed and five self-directed NPTs for chronic pain. We categorized NPT use at four levels based on number of interventions used and frequency of use (none, low, moderate, high). Analyses examined clinical and demographic factors that differed among groups for both clinician-directed and self-directed NPTs. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of participants reported use of any NPT for pain within the prior 6 months. NPTs were rated as being helpful by more than 50% of users for all treatments assessed (range 51-79%). High users of clinician-directed NPTs were younger than non-users or low-frequency users and had the most depressive symptoms. In both clinician-directed and self-directed categories, high NPT users had significantly higher pain disability compared to non-NPT users. No significant group differences were detected on other demographic or clinical variables. In multivariable analyses, clinician-directed NPT use was modestly associated with younger age (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96-0.98) and higher pain disability (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.00-1.02). Variables associated with greater self-directed NPT use were some college education (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.13-2.84), college graduate or more (OR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.20-3.40), and higher pain disability (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.01-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: NPT use was associated with higher pain disability and younger age for both clinician-directed and self-directed NPTs and higher education for self-directed NPTs. These strategies were rated as helpful by those that used them. These results can inform intervention implementation and be used to increase engagement in NPTs for chronic pain.

Patient-clinician communication among patients with stage I lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Limited data exist about patient-centered communication (PCC) and patient-centered outcomes among patients who undergo surgery or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to examine the relationship between PCC and decision-making processes among NSCLC patients, using baseline data from a prospective, multicenter study. METHODS: Patients with stage 1 NSCLC completed a survey prior to treatment initiation. The survey assessed sociodemographic characteristics, treatment decision variables, and patient psychosocial outcomes: health-related quality of life (HRQOL), treatment self-efficacy, decisional conflict, and PCC. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent (n = 85) of 165 individuals planned to receive SBRT. There were no baseline differences detected on patient psychosocial outcomes between those who planned to receive SBRT or surgery. All participants reported high HRQOL (M = 72.5, SD = 21.3) out of 100, where higher scores indicate better functioning; high self-efficacy (M = 1.5, SD = 0.5) out of 6, where lower numbers indicate higher self-efficacy; minimal decisional conflict (M = 15.2, SD = 12.7) out of 100, where higher scores indicate higher decisional conflict; and high levels of patient-centered communication (M = 2.4, SD = 0.8) out of 7 where higher scores indicate worse communication. Linear regression analyses adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical variables showed that higher quality PCC was associated with higher self-efficacy (ß = 0.17, p = 0.03) and lower decisional conflict (ß = 0.42, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher quality PCC was associated with higher self-efficacy and lower decisional conflict. Self-efficacy and decisional conflict may influence subsequent health outcomes. Therefore, our findings may inform future research and clinical programs that focus on communication strategies to improve these outcomes.

Benefits and Harms of Plant-Based Cannabis for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is available from medical dispensaries for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in many states of the union, yet its efficacy in treating PTSD symptoms remains uncertain. PURPOSE: To identify ongoing studies and review existing evidence regarding the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis preparations in treating PTSD in adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and other sources from database inception to March 2017. STUDY SELECTION: English-language systematic reviews, trials, and observational studies with a control group that reported PTSD symptoms and adverse effects of plant-based cannabis use in adults with PTSD. DATA EXTRACTION: Study data extracted by 1 investigator was checked by a second reviewer; 2 reviewers independently assessed study quality, and the investigator group graded the overall strength of evidence by using standard criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two systematic reviews, 3 observational studies, and no randomized trials were found. The systematic reviews reported insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about benefits and harms. The observational studies found that compared with nonuse, cannabis did not reduce PTSD symptoms. Studies had medium and high risk of bias, and overall evidence was judged insufficient. Two randomized trials and 6 other studies examining outcomes of cannabis use in patients with PTSD are ongoing and are expected to be completed within 3 years. LIMITATION: Very scant evidence with medium to high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis preparations in patients with PTSD, but several ongoing studies may soon provide important results. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO: CRD42016033623).

The Effects of Cannabis Among Adults With Chronic Pain and an Overview of General Harms: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is increasingly available for the treatment of chronic pain, yet its efficacy remains uncertain. PURPOSE: To review the benefits of plant-based cannabis preparations for treating chronic pain in adults and the harms of cannabis use in chronic pain and general adult populations. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and several other sources from database inception to March 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Intervention trials and observational studies, published in English, involving adults using plant-based cannabis preparations that reported pain, quality of life, or adverse effect outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently abstracted study characteristics and assessed study quality, and the investigator group graded the overall strength of evidence using standard criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 27 chronic pain trials, there is low-strength evidence that cannabis alleviates neuropathic pain but insufficient evidence in other pain populations. According to 11 systematic reviews and 32 primary studies, harms in general population studies include increased risk for motor vehicle accidents, psychotic symptoms, and short-term cognitive impairment. Although adverse pulmonary effects were not seen in younger populations, evidence on most other long-term physical harms, in heavy or long-term cannabis users, or in older populations is insufficient. LIMITATION: Few methodologically rigorous trials; the cannabis formulations studied may not reflect commercially available products; and limited applicability to older, chronically ill populations and patients who use cannabis heavily. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that cannabis may alleviate neuropathic pain in some patients, but insufficient evidence exists for other types of chronic pain. Among general populations, limited evidence suggests that cannabis is associated with an increased risk for adverse mental health effects. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42016033623).