Vitamin D supplementation protects against reductions in plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D induced by open-heart surgery: Assess-d trial.

Low vitamin D (serum or plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D)) is a global pandemic and associates with a greater prevalence in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Open-heart surgery is a form of acute stress that decreases circulating 25(OH)D concentrations and exacerbates the preponderance of low vitamin D in a patient population already characterized by low levels. Although supplemental vitamin D increases 25(OH)D, it is unknown if supplemental vitamin D can overcome the decreases in circulating 25(OH)D induced by open-heart surgery. We sought to identify if supplemental vitamin D protects against the acute decrease in plasma 25(OH)D propagated by open-heart surgery during perioperative care. Participants undergoing open-heart surgery were randomly assigned (double-blind) to one of two groups: (a) vitamin D (n = 75; cholecalciferol, 50,000 IU/dose) or (b) placebo (n = 75). Participants received supplements on three separate occasions: orally the evening before surgery and either orally or per nasogastric tube on postoperative days 1 and 2. Plasma 25(OH)D concentrations were measured at baseline (the day before surgery and before the first supplement bolus), after surgery on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, and 4, at hospital discharge (5-8 days after surgery), and at an elective outpatient follow-up visit at 6 months. Supplemental vitamin D abolished the acute decrease in 25(OH)D induced by open-heart surgery during postoperative care. Moreover, plasma 25(OH)D gradually increased from baseline to day 3 and remained significantly increased thereafter but plateaued to discharge with supplemental vitamin D. We conclude that perioperative vitamin D supplementation protects against the immediate decrease in plasma 25(OH)D induced by open-heart surgery. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02460211.

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.