Medicinal Cannabis (MedCan 3): a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess THC/CBD (1:20) to relieve symptom burden in patients with cancer-a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Distressing symptoms are common in advanced cancer. Medicinal cannabinoids are commonly prescribed for a variety of symptoms. There is little evidence to support their use for most indications in palliative care. This study aims to assess a 1:20 delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD) cannabinoid preparation in the management of symptom distress in patients with advanced cancer undergoing palliative care. METHODS AND DESIGN: One hundred and fifty participants will be recruited across multiple sites in Queensland, Australia. A teletrial model will facilitate the recruitment of patients outside of major metropolitan areas. The study is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomised, placebo-controlled, two-arm trial of escalating doses of an oral 1:20 THC/CBD medicinal cannabinoid preparation (10 mg THC:200 mg CBD/mL). It will compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of a titrated dose range of 2.5 mg THC/50mgCBD to 30 mg THC/600 mg CBD per day against a placebo. There is a 2-week patient-determined titration phase, to reach a dose that achieves symptom relief or intolerable side effects, with a further 2 weeks of assessment on the final dose. The primary objective is to assess the effect of escalating doses of a 1:20 THC/CBD medicinal cannabinoid preparation against placebo on change in total symptom distress score, with secondary objectives including establishing a patient-determined effective dose, the effect on sleep quality and overall quality of life. Some patients will be enrolled in a sub-study which will more rigorously evaluate the effect on sleep. DISCUSSION: MedCan-3 is a high-quality, adequately powered, placebo-controlled trial which will help demonstrate the utility of a THC:CBD 1:20 oral medicinal cannabis product in reducing total symptom distress in this population. Secondary outcomes may lead to new hypotheses regarding medicinal cannabis' role in particular symptoms or in particular cancers. The sleep sub-study will test the feasibility of using actigraphy and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) in this cohort. This will be the first large-scale palliative care randomised clinical trial to utilise the teletrial model in Australia. If successful, this will have significant implications for trial access for rural and remote patients in Australia and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR ACTRN12622000083796 . Protocol number 001/20. Registered on 21 January 2022. Recruitment started on 8 August 2022.

The effects of OPRM1 118A>G on methadone response in pain management in advanced cancer at end of life.

Cancer pain is the most feared symptom at end of life. Methadone has advantages over other opioids but is associated with significant variability in clinical response, making dosing challenging in practice. OPRM1 is the most studied pharmacogene associated with the pharmacodynamics of opioids, however reports on the association of the A118G polymorphism on opioid dose requirements are conflicting, with no reports including methadone as the primary intervention. This association study on OPRM1 A118G and response to methadone for pain management, includes a review of this genetic factor's role in inter-patient variability. Fifty-four adult patients with advanced cancer were recruited in a prospective, multi-centre, open label dose individualization study. Patient characteristics were not shown to influence methadone response, and no significant associations were observed for methadone dose or pain score. The findings of our review of association studies for OPRM1 A118G in advanced cancer pain demonstrate the importance of taking ancestry into account. While our sample size was small, our results were consistent with European populations, but in contrast to studies in Chinese patients, where carriers of the A118G polymorphism were associated with higher opioid dose requirements. Pharmacogenetic studies in palliative care are challenging, continued contribution will support future genotype-based drug dosing guidelines.

Medically assisted hydration for adults receiving palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Many people receiving palliative care have reduced oral intake during their illness, and particularly at the end of their life. Management of this can include the provision of medically assisted hydration (MAH) with the aim of improving their quality of life (QoL), prolonging their life, or both. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 2, 2008, and updated in February 2011 and March 2014. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of MAH compared with placebo and standard care, in adults receiving palliative care on their QoL and survival, and to assess for potential adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, CareSearch, Dissertation Abstracts, Science Citation Index and the reference lists of all eligible studies, key textbooks, and previous systematic reviews. The date of the latest search conducted on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase was 17 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of studies of MAH in adults receiving palliative care aged 18 and above. The criteria for inclusion was the comparison of MAH to placebo or standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance, and two review authors extracted data and performed risk of bias assessment. The primary outcome was QoL using validated scales; secondary outcomes were survival and adverse events. For continuous outcomes, we measured the arithmetic mean and standard deviation (SD), and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between groups. For dichotomous outcomes, we estimated and compared the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs between groups. For time-to-event data, we planned to calculate the survival time from the date of randomisation and to estimate and express the intervention effect as the hazard ratio (HR). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new study (200 participants), for a total of four studies included in this update (422 participants). All participants had a diagnosis of advanced cancer. With the exception of 29 participants who had a haematological malignancy, all others were solid organ cancers. Two studies each compared MAH to placebo and standard care. There were too few included studies to evaluate different subgroups, such as type of participant, intervention, timing of intervention, and study site. We considered one study to be at high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding; otherwise, risk of bias was assessed as low or unclear. MAH compared with placebo Quality of life One study measured change in QoL at one week using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) (scale from 0 to 108; higher score = better QoL). No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves QoL (MD 4.10, 95% CI -1.63 to 9.83; 1 study, 93 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Survival One study reported on survival from study enrolment to last date of follow-up or death. We were unable to estimate HR. No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves survival (1 study, 93 participants, very low-certainty evidence).  Adverse events One study reported on intensity of adverse events at two days using a numeric rating scale (scale from 0 to 10; lower score = less toxicity). No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH leads to adverse events (injection site pain: MD 0.35, 95% CI -1.19 to 1.89; injection site swelling MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.22; 1 study, 49 participants, very low-certainty evidence).  MAH compared with standard care Quality of life No data were available for QoL. Survival One study measured survival from randomisation to last date of follow-up at 14 days or death. No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves survival (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 1 study, 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence).  Adverse events Two studies measured adverse events at follow-up (range 2 to 14 days). We are uncertain whether MAH leads to adverse events (RR 11.62, 95% CI 1.62 to 83.41; 2 studies, 242 participants, very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the previous update of this review, we have found one new study. In adults receiving palliative care in the end stage of their illness, there remains insufficient evidence to determine whether MAH improves QoL or prolongs survival, compared with placebo or standard care. Given that all participants were inpatients with advanced cancer at end of life, our findings are not transferable to adults receiving palliative care in other settings, for non-cancer, dementia or neurodegenerative diseases, or for those with an extended prognosis. Clinicians will need to make decisions based on the perceived benefits and harms of MAH for each individual's circumstances, without the benefit of high-quality evidence to guide them.

Understanding the Perspective of Youths on Undergoing Metabolic Monitoring While on Second-Generation Antipsychotics: Challenges, Insight, and Implications.

Introduction: Prescription of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in youths is rapidly increasing globally, despite the potential for significant adverse effects and long-term health consequences. A known adverse reaction resulting from SGAs is metabolic syndrome (MS). Youths exposed to antipsychotics are at higher risk than adults for adverse drug reactions, including adverse events such as MS (with weight gain as the most significant adverse outcome) and other long-term endocrinological abnormalities. This study aimed to explore the experiences of young patients on factors impacting barriers to metabolic monitoring of SGAs and the strategies to address those barriers thereby providing further guidance on policy and service delivery. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients (youths who were prescribed SGAs) who attended Child and Youth Mental Health Services. The interviews focused on barriers to monitoring and strategies to enhance rates of monitoring that could be customized across study sites. Results: Young patients revealed that none of them had any concerns or objections to receiving anthropometric metabolic measurements. However, they seemed concerned to undergo blood tests as part of the metabolic monitoring process. Specifically, youths cited their fear of the needles as barrier to undergo the required blood tests. Youths have also reported that their dislike to healthy foods and exercise being the most common challenge they face while trying to engage in a healthy lifestyle to manage the SGAs resulted weight gain. Conclusion: Prescribers are recommended to actively engage young patients about the expected SGAs-induced adverse effects, the importance of conducting metabolic monitoring, and how to prevent and minimize the expected adverse effects from the start of initiating SGAs. This could be a vital step toward a successful treatment as the insight of youths into the details of the chosen treatment can play a significant role into treatment adherence and recovery.

Corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in people with advanced cancer. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is pervasive and debilitating, and can greatly impact quality of life (QoL). CRF has a highly variable clinical presentation, likely due to a complex interaction of multiple factors. Corticosteroids are commonly used to improve CRF, but the benefits are unclear and there are significant adverse effects associated with long-term use. With the increasing survival of people with metastatic cancer, the long-term effects of medications are becoming increasingly relevant. Since the impact of CRF can be immensely debilitating and can negatively affect QoL, its treatment warrants further review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of corticosteroids compared with placebo or an active comparator in adults with advanced cancer and CRF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Science), LILACS, and two clinical trial registries from inception to 18 July 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults aged ≥18 years. We included participants with advanced cancer who were suffering from CRF. We included trials that randomised participants to corticosteroids at any dose, by any route, administered for the relief of CRF; compared to placebo or an active comparator, including supportive care or non-pharmacological treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy; two review authors assessed risk of bias; and two extracted data. We extracted the primary outcome of participant-reported fatigue relief using validated scales and secondary outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events and QoL. We calculated the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between groups for dichotomous outcomes. We measured arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI between groups for continuous outcomes. We used standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs when an outcome was measured with different instruments measuring the same construct. We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse the outcome data. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.  MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 297 enroled participants; data were available for only 239 participants. Three studies compared corticosteroid (equivalent ≤ 8 mg dexamethasone) to placebo. One study compared corticosteroid (dexamethasone 4 mg) to an active comparator (modafinil 100 mg). There were insufficient data to evaluate subgroups, such as dose and duration of treatment. One study had a high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding, and one study had a high risk of attrition bias. Otherwise, we assessed risks of bias as low or unclear. Comparison 1: corticosteroids compared with placebo Participant-reported fatigue relief The was no clear difference between corticosteroids and placebo (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.14; 3 RCTs, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence) for relief of fatigue at one week of the intervention. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for study limitations due to unclear risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of lIfe One study reported QoL at one week using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) well-being, and found no clear difference in QoL between groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -1.93 to 0.77). Another study measured QoL using the Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer Patients Treated with Anticancer Drugs (QoL-ACD), and found no clear difference between groups. There was no clear difference between groups for either study, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Comparison 2: corticosteroids compared with active comparator (modafinil) Participant-reported fatigue relief There was improvement in fatigue from baseline to two weeks in both groups (modafinil MD 10.15, 95% CI 7.43 to 12.87; dexamethasone MD 9.21, 95% CI 6.73 to 11.69), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD -0.94, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.61; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for very serious study limitations and imprecision. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events There were no serious adverse events reported in either group (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Quality of lIfe One study measured QoL at two weeks, using the ESAS-well-being. There was marked improvement in QoL from baseline in both groups (modafinil MD -2.43, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.98; dexamethasone MD -2.16, 95% CI -2.68 to -1.64), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD 0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.93; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of systemic corticosteroids in adults with cancer and CRF. We included four small studies that provided very low-certainty of evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroids in the management of CRF. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids in this setting.

Association of KCNJ6 rs2070995 and methadone response for pain management in advanced cancer at end-of-life.

Opioids are the therapeutic agents of choice to manage moderate to severe pain in patients with advanced cancer, however the unpredictable inter-individual response to opioid therapy remains a challenge for clinicians. While studies are few, the KCNJ6 gene is a promising target for investigating genetic factors that contribute to pain and analgesia response. This is the first association study on polymorphisms in KCNJ6 and response to methadone for pain management in advanced cancer. Fifty-four adult patients with advanced cancer were recruited across two study sites in a prospective, open label, dose individualisation study. Significant associations have been previously shown for rs2070995 and opioid response in opioid substitution therapy for heroin addiction and studies in chronic pain, with mixed results seen in postoperative pain. In this study, no associations were shown for rs2070995 and methadone dose or pain score, consistent with other studies conducted in patients receiving opioids for pain in advanced cancer. There are many challenges in conducting studies in advanced cancer with significant attrition and small sample sizes, however it is hoped that the results of our study will contribute to the evidence base and allow for continued development of gene-drug dosing guidelines for clinicians.

Practitioners' Perspective on Metabolic Monitoring of Second-Generation Antipsychotics: Existing Gaps in Knowledge, Barriers to Monitoring, and Strategies.

Introduction: Prescription of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in youth is rapidly increasing globally and in Australia. Lack of timely metabolic monitoring for potential adverse effects puts youth at greater risk for lifelong adverse health impact. Metabolic monitoring is recommended as best practice to prevent and/or manage SGA-induced weight gain/metabolic syndrome. The adherence to clinical guidelines remains suboptimal. It is crucial to gauge insight to challenges and strategies from the perspective of prescribers and to recommend strategies in promoting quality use of SGAs and adherence to pharmacovigilance standards. Methods: Psychiatrists participated through semistructured interviews within the community mental health clinics in the Queensland State of Australia. The interviews focused on barriers to monitoring and strategies to enhance rate of monitoring with key focus on practical strategies for future implications in community setting. Results: Ten participants completed the interviews. Barriers were specified such as lack of adequate resources to conduct monitoring, carers' disengagement in their youth's treatments, and patients' refusal to undergo blood tests. Strategies to enhance metabolic monitoring heavily relied on organizational support, provision of training, and education opportunities. Conclusions: Clinical recommendations require mental health providers to facilitate conduction of metabolic monitoring among youth prescribed SGA/s. However, they are not provided with enough support and there are challenges that prevent such care. It is crucial to understand the challenges in managing a complex and vulnerable patient cohort. This research has thrown light on these key aspects of existing gap between best practice standards and clinical practice in youth prescribed SGAs.

Association of polymorphisms in ARRB2 and clinical response to methadone for pain in advanced cancer.

Background: The prescription of methadone in advanced cancer poses multiple challenges due to the considerable interpatient variation seen in effective dose and toxicity. Previous reports have suggested that ARRB2 influences the response to methadone in opioid substitution therapy. Associations with opioid response for pain management in advanced cancer are conflicting, with no studies including methadone as the primary intervention. Methods: In a prospective, multicenter, open-label dose-individualization study, we investigated whether polymorphisms in ARRB2 were associated with methadone dose requirements and pain severity. Results: Significant associations were found for rs3786047, rs1045280, rs2036657 and pain score. Conclusion: While studies are few and the sample size small, ARRB2 genotyping may assist in individualized management of the most feared symptom in advanced cancer.

Practice review: Evidence-based quality use of corticosteroids in the palliative care of patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: It would be unusual for a patient with advanced cancer not to be prescribed corticosteroids at some stage of their disease course for a variety of specific and non-specific indications. AIM: The aim of this practice review was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting current practice and to identify areas in which further research is indicated. DESIGN: A 'state-of-the-art' review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related complications and in symptom control, in the context of known risks and harms to inform quality use of this medicine. We developed 'Do', 'Do not', and 'Don't know' recommendations based on current literature and identified areas for future investigation and research. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library from inception to 14th October 2020. Our initial search limited to reviews, reviews of reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials was supplemented by supporting literature as appropriate. RESULTS: Evidence to support common practice in the use of corticosteroids is lacking for most indications. This is in the context of strong evidence for the potential for significant toxicity and poor quality use of medicine. CONCLUSION: Guidelines recommending the widespread use of corticosteroids should acknowledge the poor evidence base supporting much current dogma. Quality research is essential not only to define the role of corticosteroids in this context but to ensure good prescribing practice.

Oral medicinal cannabinoids to relieve symptom burden in the palliative care of patients with advanced cancer: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial of efficacy and safety of 1:1 delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in medical care, patients with advanced cancer still experience substantial symptom distress. There is increasing interest in the use of medicinal cannabinoids but little high-quality evidence to guide clinicians. This study aims to define the role of a 1:1 delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD) cannabinoid preparation in the management of symptom burden in patients with advanced cancer undergoing standard palliative care. METHODS AND DESIGN: One hundred fifty participants will be recruited from five sites within the Queensland Palliative Care Research Group (QPCRG) and randomly assigned to an active treatment or placebo group. This study is a pragmatic multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, two-arm trial of escalating doses of an oral 1:1 THC/CBD cannabinoid preparation. It will compare efficacy and safety outcomes of a titrated dose (10 mg/10 mg/mL oral solution formulation, dose range 2.5 mg/2.5 mg-30 mg/30 mg/day) against placebo. There is a 2-week patient-determined titration phase, using escalating doses of 1:1 THC/CBD or placebo, to reach a dose that achieves symptom relief with tolerable side effects. This is then followed by a further 2-week assessment period on the stable dose determined in collaboration with clinicians. The primary objective is to assess the effect of escalating doses of a 1:1 THC/CBD cannabinoid preparation against placebo on change in total symptom score, with secondary objectives including establishing a patient-determined effective dose, the change in total physical and emotional sores, global impression of change, anxiety and depression, opioid use, quality of life and adverse effects. DISCUSSION: This will be the first placebo-controlled clinical trial to rigorously evaluate the efficacy, safety and acceptability of 1:1 THC/CBD for symptom relief in advanced cancer patients. This study will allow the medical community to have some evidence to present to patients wishing to access cannabis for their symptoms caused by advanced malignancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN, ACTRN12619000037101 . Registered on 14 January 2019. Trial Sponsor: Mater Misericordiae Limited (MML) and Mater Medical Research Institute Limited (MMRI)-Raymond Terrace, South Brisbane, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Oral medicinal cannabinoids to relieve symptom burden in the palliative care of patients with advanced cancer: a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomised clinical trial of efficacy and safety of cannabidiol (CBD).

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in medical care, patients with advanced cancer still experience substantial symptom distress. There is increasing interest in the use of medicinal cannabinoids, but there is little high quality evidence to guide clinicians. This study aims to define the role of cannabidiol (CBD) in the management of symptom burden in patients with advanced cancer undergoing standard palliative care. METHODS AND DESIGN: This study is a multicentre, randomised, placebo controlled, two arm, parallel trial of escalating doses of oral CBD. It will compare efficacy and safety outcomes of a titrated dose of CBD (100 mg/mL formulation, dose range 50 mg to 600 mg per day) against placebo. There is a 2-week patient determined titration phase, using escalating doses of CBD or placebo to reach a dose that achieves symptom relief with tolerable side effects. This is then followed by a further 2-week assessment period on the stable dose determined in collaboration with clinicians. DISCUSSION: A major strength of this study is that it will target symptom burden as a whole, rather than just individual symptoms, in an attempt to describe the general improvement in wellbeing previously reported by some patients in open label, non controlled trials of medicinal cannabis. Randomisation with placebo is essential because of the well-documented over reporting of benefit in uncontrolled trials and high placebo response rates in cancer pain trials. This will be the first placebo controlled clinical trial to evaluate rigorously the efficacy, safety and acceptability of CBD for symptom relief in advanced cancer patients. This study will provide the medical community with evidence to present to patients wishing to access medicinal cannabis for their cancer related symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ALCTRN12618001220257 Registered 20/07/2018.

Systemic corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related breathlessness (dyspnoea) in adults.

BACKGROUND: Dyspnoea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70% among patients at end of life. The cause of dyspnoea is often multifactorial, and may cause considerable psychological distress and suffering. Dyspnoea is often undertreated and good symptom control is less frequently achieved in people with dyspnoea than in people with other symptoms of advanced cancer, such as pain and nausea. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids in managing dyspnoea is unclear, yet corticosteroids are commonly used in palliative care for a variety of non-specific indications, including pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue and low mood, despite being associated with a wide range of adverse effects. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of the effects of corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related dyspnoea. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related breathlessness (dyspnoea) in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and clinical trial registries, from inception to 25 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that included adults aged 18 years and above. We included participants with cancer-related dyspnoea when randomised to systemic corticosteroids (at any dose) administered for the relief of cancer-related dyspnoea or any other indication, compared to placebo, standard or alternative treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five review authors independently assessed trial quality and three extracted data. We used means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence using GRADE. We extracted primary outcomes of sensory-perceptual experience of dyspnoea (intensity of dyspnoea), affective distress (quality of dyspnoea) and symptom impact (burden of dyspnoea or impact on function) and secondary outcomes of serious adverse events, participant satisfaction with treatment and participant withdrawal from trial. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 157 participants (37 participants in one study and 120 in the other study), of whom 114 were included in the analyses. The studies compared oral dexamethasone to placebo, followed by an open-label phase in one study. One study lasted seven days, and the duration of the other study was 15 days.We were unable to conduct many of our predetermined analyses due to different agents, dosages, comparators and outcome measures, routes of drug delivery, measurement scales and time points. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible.Primary outcomesWe included two studies (114 participants) with data at one week in the meta-analysis for change in dyspnoea intensity/dyspnoea relief from baseline. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in an MD of lower dyspnoea intensity compared to placebo at one week (MD -0.85 lower dyspnoea (scale 0-10; lower score = less breathlessness), 95% CI -1.73 to 0.03; very low-quality evidence), although we were uncertain as to whether corticosteroids had an important effect on dyspnoea as results were imprecise. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels from high to very low due to very serious study limitations and imprecision.One study measured affective distress (quality of dyspnoea) and results were similar between groups (29 participants; very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence three times for imprecision, inconsistency, and serious study limitations.Both studies assessed symptom impact (burden of dyspnoea or impact on function) (113 participants; very low-quality evidence). In one study, it was unclear whether dexamethasone had an effect on dyspnoea as results were imprecise. The second study showed more improvement for physical well-being scores at days eight and 15 in the dexamethasone group compared with the control group, but there was no evidence of a difference for FACIT social/family, emotional or functional scales. We downgraded the quality of the evidence three times for imprecision, inconsistency, and serious study limitations.Secondary outcomesDue to the lack of homogenous outcome measures and inconsistency in reporting, we could not perform quantitative analysis for any secondary outcomes. In both studies, the frequency of adverse events was similar between groups, and corticosteroids were generally well tolerated. The withdrawal rates for the two studies were 15% and 36%. Reasons for withdrawal included lost to follow-up, participant or carer (or both) refusal, and death due to disease progression. We downgraded the quality of evidence for these secondary outcomes by three levels from high to very low due to serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.Neither study examined participant satisfaction with treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are few studies assessing the effects of systemic corticosteroids on cancer-related dyspnoea in adults with cancer. We judged the evidence to be of very low quality that neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this population. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.

Current pharmacotherapy options for conduct disorders in adolescents and children.

INTRODUCTION: Conduct disorder (CD) is a common mental health disorder of childhood and adolescence. CD's complexity, with its heterogenous clinical manifestations and overlapping comorbidities makes the application of evidence-based management approaches challenging. This article aims to combine a systematic review of the available literature, with a consensus opinion from both child and adolescent psychiatrists and developmental pediatricians on the clinical and pharmacological management of children and adolescents with conduct disorder (CD). AREAS COVERED: The authors review the CD population and provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapies using preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and strength of evidence recommendation taxonomy (SORT) guidelines. The authors then provide an expert clinical opinion for the use of different pharmacotherapies to address aggressive and disruptive behavior in children. EXPERT OPINION: Atypical antipsychotics (e.g. risperidone) demonstrate evidence for efficacy in CD. Other pharmacotherapies (e.g. mood stabilizers, anticonvulsants, psychostimulants and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) have a low level of evidence for CD alone, however, can sometimes be effective in managing the symptoms of CD when other psychiatric disorders are also present.

Enhancement and Suppression of Ionization in Drug Analysis Using HPLC-MS/MS in Support of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: A Review of Current Knowledge of Its Minimization and Assessment.

High-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry is commonly used for quantitation of analytes in biological matrices, because of the selectivity, sensitivity, and high throughput offered by this technique. However, the presence of both suppression and enhancement of ionization (SEI) by matrix components is an increasingly recognized impediment to accurate results. The existence of SEI indicates that ionization efficiency is a result of the chemical environment seen by both the analyte and internal standard during ion formation. SEI is influenced by the type and the make of ion source used, mobile-phase composition, extent of sample preparation, and the ability to chromatographically separate other compounds that may influence ionization of the analyte and/or internal standard. A comprehensive review of the phenomenon of SEI in high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry was conducted, and a summary of salient papers relating to therapeutic agents in biological matrices is presented. Suggestions for approaches to minimize, normalize, or assess SEI and its deleterious effect on accuracy and sensitivity, and hence the validity of quantitative results, are provided. Consideration is also given to a strategy to test for SEI, including the number of samples from different sources that are required to adequately test for SEI.

Critical assessment of thioguanine treatment for inflammatory bowel diseases: Is it time to rehabilitate this treatment?

OBJECTIVE: The potential therapeutic effect of thioguanine in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is hindered due to association with vascular hepatotoxicity. The study aimed to assess the evidence for efficacy of thioguanine in IBD management and the association with nodular regenerative hyperplasia (NRH) and other thioguanine-related hepatotoxicities. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for literature search. Due to the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the search was extended to observational studies. Quality of the included studies were graded A to C based on evaluation tools used to determine efficacy (subjective and objective grading tools) and nodular regenerative hyperplasia safety (liver biopsy and imaging tools). RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety studies were identified, but following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines only 13 studies were evaluated for efficacy and safety of thioguanine. Outcome measures were consistent across the included studies. Thioguanine appeared efficacious and well-tolerated in patients who were intolerant/non-responsive to existing immunomodulators. There was a trend toward a positive association between dose of thioguanine and NRH but not with other adverse events such as liver biochemical abnormalities or with portal hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to support thioguanine treatment is limited to observational studies. While encouraging, there is a need for prospective RCTs to determine the role of thioguanine in the management of IBD.

Can Saliva and Plasma Methadone Concentrations Be Used for Enantioselective Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Studies in Patients With Advanced Cancer?

PURPOSE: Methadone is a potent analgesic used to treat refractory cancer pain. It is administered as a racemic mixture, with the l-enantiomer being primarily a µ-receptor agonist, whereas the d-enantiomer is an N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist and inhibits serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake. Dose requirements vary greatly among patients to achieve optimal pain control and to avoid the risk of adverse effects. The relationship between plasma and saliva methadone enantiomer concentrations was investigated to determine if saliva could be a substitute for plasma in pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies for clinical monitoring and dose optimization of methadone in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer who were prescribed varying doses of oral methadone for pain management were recruited to obtain paired plasma and saliva samples. Pain scores were recorded at the time of sampling. The total and unbound plasma and saliva concentrations of the l- and d-enantiomers of methadone were quantified by using an HPLC-MS/MS method. The relationship between plasma (total and unbound) and saliva concentrations were compared. The saliva-to-plasma concentration ratio was compared versus the dose administered and the time after dosing for both enantiomers. The association of methadone concentrations with reported pain scores was compared by using a Mann-Whitney U test for significance. FINDINGS: Fifty patients receiving a mean dose of 11mg/d of methadone provided 151 paired plasma and saliva samples. The median age of the population was 61 years with an interquartile range of 53-71 years with total body weight ranging from 59-88 kg. Median (interquartile) total plasma concentrations for l- and d-methadone were 50.78 ng/mL (30.6-113.0 ng/mL) and 62.0 ng/mL (28.7-116.0 ng/mL), respectively. Median (interquartile range) saliva concentrations for l- and d-methadone were 81.5 ng/mL (28.0-203.2 ng/mL) and 44.2 (16.2-149.7 ng/mL). No relationship could be established between plasma and saliva concentrations for l- and d-methadone (r2 = 0.35 and 0.25). The saliva-to-plasma concentration analyzed with the methadone dose showed higher saliva concentrations at lower doses. Dose-normalized saliva concentrations followed a similar pattern over time compared with plasma concentrations. No correlation was found between l-methadone plasma, d-methadone plasma, l-methadone saliva, d-methadone saliva concentrations, and pain score. IMPLICATIONS: Saliva concentration was not a better predictor of pain control than plasma concentration for dose optimization and monitoring studies of methadone in patients with cancer. Although the saliva-to-plasma ratio of the concentration of methadone enantiomers was stable across the dosing range, due to the variability in individual saliva-to-plasma ratios, saliva sampling may not be a valid substitute in pharmacokinetic studies of methadone in cancer.

Corticosteroids for adult patients with advanced cancer who have nausea and vomiting (not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery).

BACKGROUND: Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery, a significant number of people with advanced cancer also suffer from nausea unrelated to such therapies. Nausea and vomiting may also cause psychological distress, and have a negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients; similarly to pain, nausea is often under-treated. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids on nausea is unclear, however, they are used to manage a number of cancer-specific complications, including spinal cord compression, raised intracranial pressure, and lymphangitis carcinomatosis. They are also commonly used in palliative care for a wide variety of non-specific indications, such as pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and low mood. However, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy in symptom control, and corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of their effects on nausea and vomiting not related to cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science Web of Science, and clinical trial registries, from inception to 23rd August 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any double-blind randomised or prospective controlled trial that included adults aged 18 years and over with advanced cancer with nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery were eligible for the review, when using corticosteroids as antiemetic treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 451 participants. The trial size varied from 51 to 280 participants. Two studies compared dexamethasone to placebo, and the third study compared a number of additional interventions in various combinations, including metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone. The duration of the studies ranged from seven to 14 days. We included two studies (127 participants) with data at eight days in the meta-analysis for nausea intensity; no data were available that incorporated the same outcome measures for the third study. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in less nausea (measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with a lower score indicating less nausea) compared to placebo at eight days (MD 0.48 lower nausea, 95% CI 1.53 lower to 0.57 higher; very low-quality evidence), although this result was not statistically significant (P = 0.37). Frequency of adverse events was not significantly different between groups, and the interventions were well tolerated. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of nausea, and the use of different agents, dosages, and comparisons. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible due to insufficient data. The quality of this evidence was downgraded by three levels, from high to very low due to imprecision, likely selection bias, attrition bias, and the small number of participants in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are few studies assessing the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. This review found very low-quality evidence which neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this setting. Further high quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.

Micronutrient Therapy for Violent and Aggressive Male Youth: An Open-Label Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacotherapy for problematic aggressive and violent behavior disorders in male children and adolescents is associated with significant adverse events. Treatments with more acceptable risk-benefit ratios are critically needed. Micronutrient intervention will be investigated as an alternative to bridge the therapeutic gap in the management of these behaviors. METHODS: Males aged 4-14 who displayed ongoing violent and aggressive behaviors received micronutrient intervention containing alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E), ascorbic acid (vitamin C), biotin, chromium, pyridoxal-5-phosphate (P5P), pyridoxine (vitamins B6), selenium, and zinc, in a 16-week open-label trial. Plasma zinc, plasma copper, copper/zinc ratio, and urinary hydroxyhemopyrroline-2-one (HPL) tests were conducted at baseline and endpoint. Participants were examined for changes in aggressive and violent behaviors measured using the Children's Aggression Scale (CAS) and the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS), improvements in family functioning measured using the Family Functioning Style Scale, improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) at baseline, 8 weeks, endpoint, and at 4-6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-two male children and adolescents met inclusion criteria. Thirty-one (mean 8.35 ± standard deviation 2.93 years) completed the study, with one participant lost to follow-up. Micronutrient therapy significantly improved parent-reported aggressive and violent behaviors measured using the CAS for all domains except the use of weapons (p < 0.001 to p = 0.02) with medium to large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.72-1.43) and the MOAS (p < 0.001) with large effect size (Cohen's d = 1.26). Parent-reported HRQoL (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = -1.69) and family functioning (p = 0.03; Cohen's d = -0.41) also significantly improved. CONCLUSION: Micronutrient therapy appeared well tolerated, with a favorable side effect profile. It appeared effective in the reduction of parent-reported aggressive and violent behaviors, and showed improvement in family functioning and HRQoL in male youth after 16 weeks. Further research in the form of a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial is required to verify these initial positive observations.

Comparison between self-formulation and compounded-formulation dexamethasone mouth rinse for oral lichen planus: a pilot, randomized, cross-over trial.

AIM: There is a lack of appropriate, commercially-available topical corticosteroid formulations for use in oral lichen planus (OLP) and oral lichenoid reaction. Current therapy includes crushing a dexamethasone tablet and mixing it with water for use as a mouth rinse. This formulation is unpleasant esthetically and to use in the mouth, as it is a bitter and gritty suspension, resulting in poor compliance. Thus, the present study was designed to formulate and pilot an effective, esthetically-pleasing formulation. METHODS: A single-blinded, cross-over trial was designed with two treatment arms. Patients were monitored for 7 weeks. Quantitative and qualitative data was assessed using VAS, numeric pain scales, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication-9, and thematic analysis to determine primary patient-reported outcomes, including satisfaction, compliance, quality of life, and symptom relief. RESULTS: Nine patients completed the pilot trial. Data analysis revealed the new compounded formulation to be superior to existing therapy due to its convenience, positive contribution to compliance, patient-perceived faster onset of action, and improved symptom relief. CONCLUSION: Topical dexamethasone is useful in the treatment of OLP. When carefully formulated into a compounded mouth rinse, it improves patient outcomes.