Barriers in accessing medical cannabis for children with drug-resistant epilepsy in Canada: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The use of medical cannabis to treat drug-resistant epilepsy in children is increasing; however, there has been limited study of the experiences of parents with the current system of accessing medical cannabis for their children. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we used a patient-centered access to care framework to explore the barriers faced by parents of children with drug-resistant epilepsy when trying to access medical cannabis in Canada. We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 parents to elicit their experiences with medical cannabis. We analyzed the data according to five dimensions of access, namely approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability, and appropriateness. RESULTS: Parents sought medical cannabis as a treatment because of a perceived unmet need stemming from the failure of antiepileptic drugs to control their children's seizures. Medical cannabis was viewed as an acceptable treatment, especially compared with adding additional antiepileptic drugs. After learning about medical cannabis from the media, friends and family, or other parents, participants sought authorization for medical use. However, most encountered resistance from their child's neurologist to discuss and/or authorize medical cannabis, and many parents experienced difficulty in obtaining authorization from a member of the child's existing care team, leading them to seek authorization from a cannabis clinic. Participants described spending up to $2000 per month on medical cannabis, and most were frustrated that it was not eligible for reimbursement through public or private insurance programs. CONCLUSIONS: Parents pursue medical cannabis as a treatment for their children's drug-resistant epilepsy because of a perceived unmet need. However, parents encounter barriers in accessing medical cannabis in Canada, and strategies are needed to ensure that children using medical cannabis receive proper care from healthcare professionals with training in epilepsy care, antiepileptic drugs, and medical cannabis.

Neurologists' perspectives on medical cannabis for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy in Canada: A qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: To understand the experiences with and perspectives of neurologists about the use of medical cannabis in the treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we interviewed neurologists who provide care to children with drug-resistant epilepsy in Canada. Through semi-structured telephone interviews, we sought participants' views about and experiences with medical cannabis for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in children. Here we present a thematic summary of the interviews. RESULTS: The 12 interviewed neurologists generally perceived medical cannabis as a viable treatment option for children with drug-resistant epilepsy; however, participants identified important gaps in the evidence and implications for their practices. Six themes were generated from the content of the interviews: learning about medical cannabis; perceptions about medical cannabis; discussing medical cannabis with parents; experiences with medical cannabis authorization; barriers to authorizing medical cannabis; and the impact of medical cannabis on clinical care. Of note, while some neurologists took on all aspects of the children's care, including medical cannabis, others referred interested families to non-neurology health care professionals. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the diverse opinions and experiences of neurologists in Canada with medical cannabis for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in children, including with the authorization process and caring for children using medical cannabis. Additional education about medical cannabis may be warranted, in order to better prepare neurologists to have informed and open conversations with parents about this treatment option and to provide care for children using medical cannabis.

Cannabis-based products for pediatric epilepsy: An updated systematic review.

PURPOSE: To provide an up-to-date summary of the benefits and harms of cannabis-based products for epilepsy in children. METHODS: We updated our earlier systematic review, by searching for studies published up to May 2019. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) involving cannabis-based products administered to children with epilepsy. Outcomes were seizure freedom, seizure frequency, quality of life, sleep, status epilepticus, death, gastrointestinal adverse events, and emergency room visits. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies, including four RCTs, have assessed the benefits and harms of cannabis-based products in pediatric epilepsy (12 since April 2018). All involved cannabis-based products as adjunctive treatment, and most involved cannabidiol. In the RCTs, there was no statistically significant difference between cannabidiol and placebo for seizure freedom (relative risk 6.77, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.36-128.38), quality of life (mean difference [MD] 0.6, 95 %CI -2.6 to 3.9), or sleep disruption (MD -0.3, 95 %CI -0.8 to 0.2). Data from both RCTs and NRS suggest that cannabidiol reduces seizure frequency and increases treatment response; however, there is an increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse events. CONCLUSION: Newly available evidence supports earlier findings that cannabidiol probably reduces the frequency of seizures among children with drug-resistant epilepsy. PROSPERO: CRD42018084755.

Cost-effectiveness of cannabinoids for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Drug-resistant epilepsy negatively impacts the quality of life and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and high costs to the healthcare system. Cannabis-based treatments may be effective in reducing seizures in this population, but whether they are cost-effective is unclear. In this systematic review, we will search for cost-effectiveness analyses involving the treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy with cannabis-based products to inform decision-making by public healthcare payers about reimbursement of such products. We will also search for cost-effectiveness analyses of other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as estimates of healthcare resource use, costs, and utilities, for use in a subsequent cost-utility analysis to address this decision problem. METHODS: We will search the published and gray literature for economic evaluations of cannabis-based products and other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as resource utilization and utility studies. Two independent reviewers will screen the title and abstract of each identified record and the full-text version of any study deemed potentially relevant. Study and population characteristics, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), as well as total costs and benefits, will be extracted, and quality will be assessed by use of the Drummond and CHEERS checklists; context-specific issues will also be considered. From model-based cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses, we will extract and summarize the model structure, including health states, time horizon, and cycle length. From resource utilization studies, we will extract data about the frequency of resource use (e.g., neurology visits, emergency department visits, admissions to hospital). From utility studies, we will extract the utility for each health state, the source of the preferences (e.g., child, parent, patient, general public), and the method of elicitation. DISCUSSION: Drug-resistant epilepsy in children is associated with important costs to the healthcare system, and decision-makers require high-quality evidence on which to base reimbursement decisions. The results of this review will be useful to both decision-makers considering the decision problem of whether to reimburse cannabis-based products through public formularies and to analysts conducting studies in this area. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no.: CRD42018099591 .

Cannabis-based products for pediatric epilepsy: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of cannabis-based products for pediatric epilepsy. METHODS: We identified in this living systematic review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) involving children with epilepsy treated with cannabis-based products. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and gray literature (April 25, 2018). The primary outcome was seizure freedom; secondary outcomes were seizure frequency (total, ≥50% reduction), quality of life, sleep, status epilepticus, death, gastrointestinal adverse events, and visits to the emergency room. Data were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed for each study, and GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: Four RCTs and 19 NRSs were included, primarily involving cannabidiol. All RCTs were at low risk of bias, whereas all NRSs were at high risk. Among RCTs, there was no statistically significant difference between cannabidiol and placebo in seizure freedom (relative risk [RR] = 6.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.36-128.38; 1 RCT), quality of life (mean difference = 0.6, 95% CI = -2.6 to 3.9; 3 RCTs), sleep disruption (mean difference = -0.3, 95% CI = -0.8 to 0.2; 3 RCTs), or vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.51-1.96; 4 RCTs). There was a statistically significant reduction in the median frequency of monthly seizures with cannabidiol compared with placebo (-19.8%, 95% CI = -27.0% to -12.6%; 3 RCTs) and an increase in the number of participants with at least a 50% reduction in seizures (RR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.07-2.88; 1 RCT) and diarrhea (RR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.38-3.68; 3 RCTs). Death and status epilepticus were infrequently reported. SIGNIFICANCE: Evidence from high-quality RCTs suggests that cannabidiol probably reduces seizures among children with drug-resistant epilepsy (moderate certainty). At this time, the evidence base is primarily limited to cannabidiol, and these findings should not be extended to all cannabis-based products.

Effect of high dose folic acid supplementation in pregnancy on pre-eclampsia (FACT): double blind, phase III, randomised controlled, international, multicentre trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of high dose folic acid supplementation for prevention of pre-eclampsia in women with at least one risk factor: pre-existing hypertension, prepregnancy diabetes (type 1 or 2), twin pregnancy, pre-eclampsia in a previous pregnancy, or body mass index ≥35. DESIGN: Randomised, phase III, double blinded international, multicentre clinical trial. SETTING: 70 obstetrical centres in five countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Jamaica, and UK). PARTICIPANTS: 2464 pregnant women with at least one high risk factor for pre-eclampsia were randomised between 2011 and 2015 (1144 to the folic acid group and 1157 to the placebo group); 2301 were included in the intention to treat analyses. INTERVENTION: Eligible women were randomised to receive either daily high dose folic acid (four 1.0 mg oral tablets) or placebo from eight weeks of gestation to the end of week 16 of gestation until delivery. Clinicians, participants, adjudicators, and study staff were masked to study treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was pre-eclampsia, defined as hypertension presenting after 20 weeks' gestation with major proteinuria or HELLP syndrome (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelets). RESULTS: Pre-eclampsia occurred in 169/1144 (14.8%) women in the folic acid group and 156/1157 (13.5%) in the placebo group (relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.34; P=0.37). There was no evidence of differences between the groups for any other adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Supplementation with 4.0 mg/day folic acid beyond the first trimester does not prevent pre-eclampsia in women at high risk for this condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN23781770 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01355159.

Aspirin or Rivaroxaban for VTE Prophylaxis after Hip or Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials and meta-analyses have suggested that aspirin may be effective for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) after total hip or total knee arthroplasty, but comparisons with direct oral anticoagulants are lacking for prophylaxis beyond hospital discharge. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involving patients who were undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty. All the patients received once-daily oral rivaroxaban (10 mg) until postoperative day 5 and then were randomly assigned to continue rivaroxaban or switch to aspirin (81 mg daily) for an additional 9 days after total knee arthroplasty or for 30 days after total hip arthroplasty. Patients were followed for 90 days for symptomatic venous thromboembolism (the primary effectiveness outcome) and bleeding complications, including major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (the primary safety outcome). RESULTS: A total of 3424 patients (1804 undergoing total hip arthroplasty and 1620 undergoing total knee arthroplasty) were enrolled in the trial. Venous thromboembolism occurred in 11 of 1707 patients (0.64%) in the aspirin group and in 12 of 1717 patients (0.70%) in the rivaroxaban group (difference, 0.06 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.55 to 0.66; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.84 for superiority). Major bleeding complications occurred in 8 patients (0.47%) in the aspirin group and in 5 (0.29%) in the rivaroxaban group (difference, 0.18 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.65 to 0.29; P=0.42). Clinically important bleeding occurred in 22 patients (1.29%) in the aspirin group and in 17 (0.99%) in the rivaroxaban group (difference, 0.30 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.07 to 0.47; P=0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who received 5 days of rivaroxaban prophylaxis after total hip or total knee arthroplasty, extended prophylaxis with aspirin was not significantly different from rivaroxaban in the prevention of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01720108 .).

Effect of folic acid supplementation in pregnancy on preeclampsia: the folic acid clinical trial study.

Preeclampsia (PE) is hypertension with proteinuria that develops during pregnancy and affects at least 5% of pregnancies. The Effect of Folic Acid Supplementation in Pregnancy on Preeclampsia: the Folic Acid Clinical Trial (FACT) aims to recruit 3,656 high risk women to evaluate a new prevention strategy for PE: supplementation of folic acid throughout pregnancy. Pregnant women with increased risk of developing PE presenting to a trial participating center between 8(0/7) and 16(6/7) weeks of gestation are randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to folic acid 4.0 mg or placebo after written consent is obtained. Intent-to-treat population will be analyzed. The FACT study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in 2009, and regulatory approval from Health Canada was obtained in 2010. A web-based randomization system and electronic data collection system provide the platform for participating centers to randomize their eligible participants and enter data in real time. To date we have twenty participating Canadian centers, of which eighteen are actively recruiting, and seven participating Australian centers, of which two are actively recruiting. Recruitment in Argentina, UK, Netherlands, Brazil, West Indies, and United States is expected to begin by the second or third quarter of 2013. This trial is registered with NCT01355159.

Efficacy and safety outcomes of oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs in the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise and compare the efficacy and safety of various oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and vitamin K antagonists) and antiplatelet agents (acetylsalicylic acid) for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Literature search using Medline (1950 to present), Embase (1980 to present), and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials using the OVID interface. Publications from potentially relevant journals were also searched by hand. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials of patients receiving anticoagulants, antiplatelet drugs, or placebo or observation for secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism. Selected outcomes were rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding. Two reviewers independently extracted data onto standardised forms. RESULTS: 12 articles met our inclusion criteria, with 11,999 patients evaluated for efficacy and 12,167 for safety. All treatments reduced the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism. Compared with placebo or observation, vitamin K antagonists at a standard adjusted dose (target international normalised ratio 2.0-3.0) showed the highest risk difference (odds ratio 0.07; 95% credible interval 0.03 to 0.15) and acetylsalicylic acid showed the lowest risk difference (0.65; 0.39 to 1.03). Risk of major bleeding was higher with a standard adjusted dose of vitamin K antagonists (5.24; 1.78 to 18.25) than with placebo or observation. Fatal recurrent venous thromboembolism and fatal bleeding were rare. Detailed subgroup and individual patient level data were not available. CONCLUSIONS: All oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents investigated in this analysis were associated with a reduced recurrence of venous thromboembolism compared with placebo or observation, although acetylsalicylic acid was associated with the lowest risk reduction. Vitamin K antagonists given at a standard adjusted dose was associated with the greatest risk reduction in recurrent venous thromboembolism, but also the greatest risk of major bleeding.

Cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in preventing stroke and other cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Secondary objectives related to assessing the cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants stratified by center-specific time in therapeutic range, age, and CHADS2 score. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was assessed by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Analysis used a Markov cohort model that followed patients from initiation of pharmacotherapy to death. Transition probabilities were obtained from a concurrent network meta-analysis. Utility values and costs were obtained from published data. Numerous deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The incremental cost per QALY gained for dabigatran 150 mg versus warfarin was $20,797. Apixaban produced equal QALYs at a higher cost. Dabigatran 110 mg and rivaroxaban were dominated by dabigatran 150 mg and apixaban. Results were sensitive to the drug costs of apixaban, the time horizon adopted, and the consequences from major and minor bleeds with dabigatran. Results varied by a center's average time in therapeutic range, a patient's CHADS2 score, and patient age, with either dabigatran 150 mg or apixaban being optimal. CONCLUSIONS: Results were highly sensitive to patient characteristics. Rivaroxaban and dabigatran 110 mg were unlikely to be cost-effective. For different characteristics, apixaban or dabigatran 150 mg were optimal. Thus, the choice between these two options may come down to the price of apixaban and further evidence on the impact of major and minor bleeds with dabigatran.

Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus specialist care.

PURPOSE: Most women with breast cancer are diagnosed at an early stage and more than 80% will be long-term survivors. Routine follow-up marks the transition from intensive treatment to survivorship. It is usual practice for routine follow-up to take place in specialist clinics. This study tested the hypothesis that follow-up by the patient's family physician is a safe and acceptable alternative to specialist follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was conducted involving 968 patients with early-stage breast cancer who had completed adjuvant treatment, were disease free, and were between 9 and 15 months after diagnosis. Patients may have continued receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy. Patients were randomly allocated to follow-up in the cancer center according to usual practice (CC group) or follow-up from their own family physician (FP group). The primary outcome was the rate of recurrence-related serious clinical events (SCEs). The secondary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS: In the FP group, there were 54 recurrences (11.2%) and 29 deaths (6.0%). In the CC group, there were 64 recurrences (13.2%) and 30 deaths (6.2%). In the FP group, 17 patients (3.5%) compared with 18 patients (3.7%) in the CC group experienced an SCE (0.19% difference; 95% CI, -2.26% to 2.65%). No statistically significant differences (P < .05) were detected between groups on any of the HRQL questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients can be offered follow-up by their family physician without concern that important recurrence-related SCEs will occur more frequently or that HRQL will be negatively affected.