START CARE: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of step-wise budesonide-formoterol reliever-based treatment in children.

Background: Asthma is the most common chronic childhood respiratory condition globally. Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever-based regimens reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations compared with conventional short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever-based regimens in adults and adolescents. The current limited evidence for anti-inflammatory reliever therapy in children means it is unknown whether these findings are also applicable to children. High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed. Objective: The study aim is to determine the efficacy and safety of budesonide-formoterol reliever alone or maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) compared with standard therapy: budesonide or budesonide-formoterol maintenance, both with terbutaline reliever, in children aged 5 to 11 years with mild, moderate and severe asthma. Methods: A 52-week, multicentre, open-label, parallel group, phase III, two-sided superiority RCT will recruit 400 children aged 5 to 11 years with asthma. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either budesonide-formoterol 100/6 µg Turbuhaler reliever alone or MART; or budesonide or budesonide-formoterol Turbuhaler maintenance, with terbutaline Turbuhaler reliever. The primary outcome is moderate and severe asthma exacerbations as rate per participant per year. Secondary outcomes are asthma control, lung function, exhaled nitric oxide and treatment step change. Assessment of Turbuhaler technique and cost-effectiveness analysis are also planned. Conclusion: This will be the first RCT to compare the efficacy and safety of a step-wise budesonide-formoterol reliever alone or MART regimen with conventional inhaled ICS or ICS-long-acting ß-agonist maintenance plus SABA reliever in children. The results will provide a much-needed evidence base for the treatment of asthma in children.

Asthma control with ICS-formoterol reliever versus maintenance ICS and SABA reliever therapy: a post hoc analysis of two randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In randomised controlled trials, as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever therapy reduces severe exacerbation risk compared with maintenance ICS plus short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) reliever in adolescent and adult asthma, but results in slightly worse control of asthma symptoms, as measured by mean Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) score. OBJECTIVE: To assess the levels and changes in asthma control for as-needed budesonide-formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus SABA in post hoc analyses from the Novel START and PRACTICAL clinical trials. METHODS: The number and proportion of participants at study end in each ACQ-5 category ('well-controlled', 'partly controlled' or 'inadequately controlled' symptoms), and in each responder category based on the minimal clinically important difference for ACQ-5 of 0.5 (improved, no change and worse) with as-needed budesonide-formoterol and maintenance budesonide plus SABA treatment were calculated. RESULTS: With last observation carried forwards, 189/214 (88.3%) and 354/434 (81.6%) of patients in the budesonide-formoterol group had 'well-controlled' or 'partly controlled' symptoms at the end of the study, vs 183/214 (85.5%) and 358/431 (83.1%) in the budesonide maintenance group, for Novel START and PRACTICAL, respectively. The proportion of patients whose symptom control was either improved or unchanged from baseline was 190/214 (88.8%) and 368/434 (84.8%) for budesonide-formoterol, vs 185/214 (86.4%) and 376/431 (87.2%) for maintenance budesonide, in Novel START and PRACTICAL respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically important differences in the proportions of patients with 'well-controlled' or 'partly controlled' asthma symptoms, or proportions who improved or maintained their level of control, with as-needed budesonide-formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus SABA.

Estimating the prevalence of drawing in clinical practice among kiwi doctors.

Drawing has played a key role in the development and dissemination of Medicine and Surgery, such as to share anatomy, pathology, and techniques for clinical interventions. While many of the visuals used in medicine today are created by medical illustration professionals, and by imaging techniques such as photography and radiography; many doctors continue to draw routinely in their clinical practice. This is known to be valued by patients, for example when making informed decisions about care. We surveyed doctors in New Zealand online regarding their use of drawing to explore the prevalence of this practice. 472 complete responses were obtained over 3 months. There were very high rates of drawing among responding doctors practicing in both medical and surgical specialties. Reasons for drawing are explored and included professional, collegial, and patient communication, supporting informed consent, clinical documentation, and for planning procedures. Widespread use of drawing in clinical practice, almost non-existent training or support for this in digital workflows, and high interest in resources to develop clinical drawing skills, suggest unmet training needs for this practical clinical communication tool.

Effects of inhaled JAK inhibitor GDC-4379 on exhaled nitric oxide and peripheral biomarkers of inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Janus Kinases (JAKs) mediate activity of many asthma-relevant cytokines. GDC-0214, an inhaled small molecule JAK1 inhibitor, has previously been shown to reduce fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in patients with mild asthma, but required an excessive number of inhalations. AIM: To assess whether GDC-4379, a new inhaled JAK inhibitor, reduces FeNO and peripheral biomarkers of inflammation. METHODS: This study assessed the activity of GDC-4379 in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 study in patients with mild asthma. Participants included adults (18-65y) with a diagnosis of asthma for ≥6 months, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)> 70% predicted, FeNO >40 ppb, using as-needed short-acting beta-agonist medication only. Four sequential, 14-day, ascending-dose cohorts (10 mg QD, 30 mg QD, 40 mg BID, and 80 mg QD) of 12 participants each were randomized 2:1 to GDC-4379 or placebo. The primary activity outcome was percent change from baseline (CFB) in FeNO to Day 14 compared to the pooled placebo group. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers, including blood eosinophils, serum CCL17, and serum CCL18, were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 48 enrolled participants, the mean age was 25 years and 54% were female. Median (range) FeNO at baseline was 79 (41-222) ppb. GDC-4379 treatment led to dose-dependent reductions in FeNO. Compared to placebo, mean (95% CI) percent CFB in FeNO to Day 14 was: -6 (-43, 32) at 10 mg QD, -26 (-53, 2) at 30 mg QD, -55 (-78, -32) at 40 mg BID and -52 (-72, -32) at 80 mg QD. Dose-dependent reductions in blood eosinophils and serum CCL17 were also observed. Higher plasma drug concentrations corresponded with greater FeNO reductions. No serious AEs occurred. The majority of AEs were mild to moderate. The most common AEs were headache and oropharyngeal pain. Minor changes in neutrophils were noted at 80 mg QD, but were not considered clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild asthma, 14-day treatment with GDC-4379 reduced FeNO levels and peripheral biomarkers of inflammation. Treatment was well tolerated without any major safety concerns. AUSTRALIAN NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: ACTRN12619000227190.

Experiences, patient interactions and knowledge regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in a cohort of New Zealand doctors in an oncology setting.

PURPOSE OF STUDY: To explore the experiences, patient interactions and knowledge regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in New Zealand doctors in an oncology setting. STUDY DESIGN: An observational cross-sectional survey undertaken between November 2019 and January 2020 across four secondary-care hospital oncology departments within New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin). Participants were a convenience sample of doctors; consultants, registrars, medical officers of special status and house surgeons working in oncology departments. Of 53 individuals approached, 45 participated (85% Response Rate). The primary outcome was reporteddoctor-patient interactions. Secondary outcomes included knowledge of cannabis-based products, their efficacy, prescribing regulations and educational access. RESULTS: Of 44 doctors, 37 (84%, 95% CI: 70 to 93) reported patient requests to prescribe cannabis-based products and 43 (98%, 95% CI: 88 to 100) reported patients using illicit cannabis for medical symptoms. Primary request reasons were pain, nausea/vomiting and cancer treatment. 33/45 (73%, 95% CI: 58 to 85) cited knowledge of at least one cannabis-based product and 27/45 (60%, 95% CI: 44 to 74) indicated at least one condition that had evidence of efficacy. 36/44 (82%, 95% CI: 67 to 92) expressed future prescribing concerns but all were willing to use a cannabis-based product developed with traditional medical provenance. CONCLUSION: In the oncology setting, patients are asking doctors about symptomatic and curative treatment with cannabis-based products. Doctors are not biased against the use of products showing medical provenance; however, NZ-specific clinical and regulatory guidelines are essential to support patient discussions and appropriate prescribing.

Medicinal applications of cannabis/cannabinoids.

Regulatory approvals for Epidiolex (purified cannabidiol) in the treatment of childhood drug resistant epilepsy have set a precedent for the use of cannabinoids as a prescribed medicine. Two common reasons cited for the use and prescription of cannabis-based products are pain and insomnia. Unlike drug resistant epilepsy, the level of evidence of efficacy in pain is poorly developed. The lowest quality trials with the greatest methodological shortcomings suggest some benefit, a level of evidence that is inconsistent with widespread prescribing. The evidence in insomnia is scant. Ongoing trial development and critical review of the literature should not be overshadowed by increasing permissiveness towards cannabis use and anecdotal reports of efficacy.

A systematic review of the label accuracy of cannabinoid-based products in regulated markets: is what's on the label what's in the product?

OBJECTIVES: To review the literature regarding label accuracy and contamination of medical cannabinoid-based products. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131565). RESULTS: Five studies reported label accuracy data ranging between 17% and 86%. Four studies reported contaminants, including pesticides, solvents and AB-FUBINACA. Meta-analysis was limited to the proportion of pesticide-contaminated samples found in two studies (0.25 (95% CI [0.10, 0.40])) and displayed significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Label inaccuracies and contaminants are found across a spectrum of cannabinoid-based products. The review highlights the paucity and heterogeneity of research relating to cannabinoid-based products in light of changing global legislation. Further robust research is required to support ongoing pharmacovigilance and patient safety.

Cannabinoids in the Treatment of Insomnia Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia is associated with significant comorbidity, disability and impact on quality of life and, despite advances in pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, remains a significant burden to society. Cannabinoids are gaining acceptance for use as medicines in the treatment of insomnia disorder. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of cannabinoids in the treatment of insomnia disorder. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Complete databases from inception to 5 December 2019, and again prior to data abstraction, for studies of cannabis-based products for the treatment of insomnia disorder in adults. Inclusion criteria were (1) clinical studies, (2) participants aged ≥ 18 years, (3) insomnia disorder either formally diagnosed against contemporaneous diagnostic criteria or quantified with validated instruments and (4) compared cannabis-based products with the standard of care, placebo or a sedative. No language restrictions were imposed. Non-primary research, animal studies and studies of cannabis-induced insomnia were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized trials. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: A total of five studies (two RCTs and three non-randomised studies) with 219 study participants were included, of which three could be combined. The three non-randomised studies contributed data on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index Questionnaire score, showing a favourable effect of cannabinoids at ≤ 4 weeks of follow-up (mean difference - 1.89 [95% confidence interval {CI} - 2.68 to - 1.10]; n = 176) and at 8 weeks of follow-up (mean difference - 2.41 [95% CI - 3.36 to - 1.46]; n = 166). One double-blind crossover RCT (n = 32) reported that, compared with amitriptyline, nabilone-a synthetic analogue to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-improved Insomnia Severity Index scores after 2 weeks of treatment (adjusted difference - 3.25 [95% CI - 5.26 to - 1.24]) and resulted in a more restful sleep as a sub-measure of the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ) (difference 0.48 [95% CI 0.01-0.95]) but with no effect on overall sleep quality as measured by the LSEQ. In a single ascending-dose RCT (n = 9), THC reduced sleep-onset latency compared with placebo at 10 mg, 20 mg and 30 mg doses (mean difference - 43.00 min [95% CI - 82.76 to - 3.24], - 62.00 [95% CI - 103.60 to - 20.40] and - 54.00 [95% CI - 103.93 to - 4.07], respectively). All the included studies were assessed as poor quality, mainly due to small sample sizes, short treatment periods, uncertain clinical significance and high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have examined the efficacy of cannabinoids in the treatment of insomnia disorder. Despite some possible signals for efficacy, the heterogeneity of participants, interventions, efficacy outcomes and results, and the high risk of bias across included trials, do not reliably inform evidence-based practice. This review highlights shortcomings in the existing literature, including lack of diagnostic clarity, poorly defined participant groups, non-standardised interventions and studies of inappropriate design, duration and power to detect clinically meaningful outcomes. Further research in the form of high-quality RCTs are required before drawing any conclusions about the efficacy of cannabinoids in the treatment of insomnia disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number, CRD42020161043.

Knowledge and perspectives about the use of cannabis as a medicine: a mixed methods observational study in a cohort of New Zealand general practice patients.

AIM: To determine what patients presenting to general practice (GP) understand about the use of cannabis as a medicine, beliefs of how this may impact their medical conditions and interactions with doctors. METHOD: An in-person survey of 134 GP patients from four GP practices throughout the North Island of New Zealand undertaken from November 2018 to October 2019. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of the sample were female, with 40% of all participants aged 60 years plus. Ninety-one percent of participants indicated they would use a prescribed medicinal cannabis product while 45% reported they believed it may be of some benefit to their medical condition. Of those who believed it beneficial, 71% indicated they thought it useful for pain relief. Participants indicated comfort discussing medicinal cannabis use with GPs and specialists (92% respectively); however, less than 10% had done this. CONCLUSIONS: Just under half of patients surveyed believe that medicinal cannabis products may be helpful to their condition, and while the majority report willingness, few have discussed this with their GP or specialist. There is need for accessible, accurate information regarding the use of cannabis-based medicine for patients and doctors alike to guide the patient-doctor consultation and decrease barriers to open discussion.

Cannabis-based medicinal products in arthritis, a painful conundrum.

AIMS: The changing medicolegal climate regarding the medicinal use of cannabinoids in New Zealand will increase the likelihood of patients consulting general practitioners (GPs) about these products. Arthritis is a common medical condition for which cannabis-based products are promoted and used; however, doctors' knowledge about the efficacy and safety of these products in the setting of arthritis may be limited. METHODS: We undertook a rapid review of the medical literature on cannabis-based medicinal products in arthritis. RESULTS: Animal studies have identified endocannabinoid pathways in arthritis that are potentially amenable to interventions. One randomised placebo-controlled trial of Sativex® in adults with rheumatoid arthritis has shown some improvements in pain but not in comparison with a standardised pharmacological treatment regimen. Systematic reviews of cannabis-based products in arthritis have determined that there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend cannabis-based medicines for routine clinical use. There were five ongoing registered clinical trials of cannabis-based products in arthritis, the results of which are yet to be reported. CONCLUSIONS: While animal models have identified possible endocannabinoid pathways in arthritis, there is no clear evidence of benefit in humans or comparative efficacy with current treatments. At this stage, there is little evidence to support GPs prescribing cannabis-based medicinal products for arthritis.

Predictive value of blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide in adults with mild asthma: a prespecified subgroup analysis of an open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether blood eosinophil counts and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) are associated with important outcomes in mild asthma is unclear. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of a previously published open-label clinical trial, we aimed to assess associations between blood eosinophil counts and FeNO with outcomes and response to asthma treatment. METHODS: In the previously reported 52-week, open-label, randomised controlled trial, people with mild asthma receiving only ß agonist reliever inhalers were enrolled at one of 16 clinical trials units in New Zealand, the UK, Italy, or Australia. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1, stratified by country), to receive inhalers to take as-needed salbutamol (two inhalations of 100 µg in a pressurised metered dose inhaler), maintenance budesonide (200 µg twice per day by inhaler) plus as-needed salbutamol (two inhalations of 100 µg), or as-needed budesonide-formoterol (one inhalation of 200 µg budesonide and 6µg formoterol by inhaler). The primary outcome was the annual rates of asthma exacerbations per patient, and in this prespecified subgroup analysis, we assessed whether annual exacerbation rates in each treatment group were significantly different depending on levels of blood eosinophil count, FeNO, or a composite score of both. Analyses were done for patients with available biomarker measurements The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12615000999538. FINDINGS: 675 participants were enrolled between March 17, 2016, and Aug 29, 2017, of whom 656 had results for blood eosinophil analysis and 668 had results for FeNO. Of the patients who received as-needed salbutamol, the proportion of patients having a severe exacerbation increased progressively with increasing blood eosinophil count (two [4%] of 49 participants with <0·15 × 109/L, six [6%] of 93 with 0·15 to <0·3 × 109/L, and 15 [19%] of 77 with ≥0·3 × 109/L; p=0·014). There were no significant interactions between blood eosinophil count or FeNO level and the effect of as-needed budesonide-formoterol compared with as-needed salbutamol for either exacerbations or severe exacerbations. However, there were significant interactions between blood eosinophil count subgroups and the effect of maintenance budesonide plus as-needed salbutamol compared with as-needed salbutamol, both for exacerbations (p=0·0006) and severe exacerbations (p=0·0007). Maintenance budesonide plus as-needed salbutamol was more effective than as-needed salbutamol in patients with blood eosinophil counts of 0·3 × 109/L or more, both for exacerbations (rate ratio 0·13 [95% CI 0·05-0·33]) and severe exacerbations (risk odds ratio 0·11 [0·03-0·45]). This difference was not seen for blood eosinophil counts of less than 0·15 × 109/L (1·15 [0·51-1·28] for exacerbations and 5·72 [0·97-33·60] for severe exacerbations). There was no consistent interaction between treatment response and FeNO or the composite score. INTERPRETATION: In patients with mild asthma, the effects of as-needed budesonide-formoterol on exacerbations are independent of biomarker profile, whereas the benefits of maintenance inhaled budesonide are greater in patients with high blood eosinophil counts than in patients with low counts. FUNDING: AstraZeneca, Health Research Council of New Zealand.

Medical cannabis: knowledge and expectations in a cohort of North Island New Zealand general practitioners.

AIM: To investigate GP knowledge of the use of cannabis as a medicine and its regulation in New Zealand. METHOD: A convenience sample of GPs completed a questionnaire during continuing medical education sessions. Key domains investigated were: patient interactions around use of cannabis as a medicine; prescription facilitation and impediments; knowledge of evidence for and against the use of cannabis as a medicine; knowledge of the New Zealand regulatory processes and knowledge of pharmaceutical grade products. Questionnaires were administered between June and October 2018. RESULTS: There were 42/76 (55%) GPs who stated at least one patient had asked for a cannabis prescription for medical use in the last 12 months and 43/76 (57%) were aware of pharmaceutical grade preparations, the majority Sativex. There were 59/75 (79%) who expressed concerns about future prescribing; however, 63/75 (84%) indicated they would be 'somewhat' or 'very' likely to prescribe a PHARMAC-funded product with good evidence in specific conditions. CONCLUSION: Some GPs have concerns about prescribing medicinal cannabis. Due to regulatory restrictions, including no currently funded products, and uncertain scientific evidence of efficacy and safety, education programmes will be required to inform the medico-legal, evidential and practical elements of prescribing cannabis as a medicine.

Cannabis-based medicinal products and the role of the doctor: should we be cautious or cautiously optimistic?

With rapidly changing legislation designed to improve access to cannabis-based medicinal products, we assess the obligations of the law and professional bodies on the proposed prescribers of these products. We argue that the current legal and professional obligations may limit prescribing practices despite legislative change, and that without the usual licensing processes of Medsafe being applied to these products, prescribers and their professional bodies must engage in the process of change to ensure short- and long-term patient safety and to maintain professional standards.

Controlled Trial of Budesonide-Formoterol as Needed for Mild Asthma.

BACKGROUND: In double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, budesonide-formoterol used on an as-needed basis resulted in a lower risk of severe exacerbation of asthma than as-needed use of a short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA); the risk was similar to that of budesonide maintenance therapy plus as-needed SABA. The availability of data from clinical trials designed to better reflect clinical practice would be beneficial. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, controlled trial involving adults with mild asthma. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: albuterol (100 µg, two inhalations from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler as needed for asthma symptoms) (albuterol group); budesonide (200 µg, one inhalation through a Turbuhaler twice daily) plus as-needed albuterol (budesonide maintenance group); or budesonide-formoterol (200 µg of budesonide and 6 µg of formoterol, one inhalation through a Turbuhaler as needed) (budesonide-formoterol group). Electronic monitoring of inhalers was used to measure medication use. The primary outcome was the annualized rate of asthma exacerbations. RESULTS: The analysis included 668 of 675 patients who underwent randomization. The annualized exacerbation rate in the budesonide-formoterol group was lower than that in the albuterol group (absolute rate, 0.195 vs. 0.400; relative rate, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.72; P<0.001) and did not differ significantly from the rate in the budesonide maintenance group (absolute rate, 0.195 in the budesonide-formoterol group vs. 0.175 in the budesonide maintenance group; relative rate, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.79; P = 0.65). The number of severe exacerbations was lower in the budesonide-formoterol group than in both the albuterol group (9 vs. 23; relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.86) and the budesonide maintenance group (9 vs. 21; relative risk, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.96). The mean (±SD) dose of inhaled budesonide was 107±109 µg per day in the budesonide-formoterol group and 222±113 µg per day in the budesonide maintenance group. The incidence and type of adverse events reported were consistent with those in previous trials and with reports in clinical use. CONCLUSIONS: In an open-label trial involving adults with mild asthma, budesonide-formoterol used as needed was superior to albuterol used as needed for the prevention of asthma exacerbations. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; Novel START Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12615000999538.).

Endotoxin and indoor allergen levels in kindergartens and daycare centres in Wellington, New Zealand.

AIMS: A large majority of children in New Zealand attend daycare centres and kindergartens early in life. Overseas studies have demonstrated a possible protective effect of daycare attendance against asthma and allergy later in life. One hypothesised agent for this protection is high levels of endotoxin, which have not previously been measured in New Zealand childcare facilities. The purpose of this study was to measure endotoxin and indoor allergens in kindergartens and daycare centres in the Wellington region. METHODS: Dust samples were collected from 18 kindergartens and 18 daycare centres and analysed for endotoxin by the kinetic limulus amebocyte lysate assay and for indoor allergens by double monoclonal/polyclonal antibody ELISA. RESULTS: The geometric mean level (95% CI) was 29,206 EU/g (19,410-43,950) for endotoxin, 0.25 mcg/g (0.04-2.28) for Der p 1, 1.24 mcg/g (0.80-1.90) for Fel d 1, 0.43 mcg/g (0.26-0.71) for Can f 1, and 0.028 mcg/g (0.020-0.039) for Bla g 2. CONCLUSIONS: Endotoxin levels in daycare centres and kindergartens in Wellington, New Zealand are similar to domestic dwellings in Wellington, however indoor allergen levels are much lower. The low indoor allergens in the daycare centres and kindergartens are unlikely to be problematic for sensitised infants, although some individual childcare facilities had very high Der p 1 levels.