Unsubstantiated health claims for COVID-19 infections are led by cannabidiol: return of snake oil medicine.

BACKGROUND: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitors, inspects, and enforces the promotion of products by companies that claim to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose, or cure COVID-19. The introduction of COVID-19-related diagnostics and therapeutics during the pandemic has highlighted the significance of rigorous clinical trials to ensure safety and efficacy of such interventions. The objective of this report is to provide a descriptive review of promotional violations of health products for COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Warning letters issued by the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research were retrieved over an 18 month period (March 6, 2020, to August 30, 2021) to identify promotional violations. FDA violation letters categorized as "Unapproved and Misbranded Products Related to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)" were reviewed. A content analysis was performed for each letter to identify categories for product type, promotional venue, violation type, and country of origin. For cannabidiol-related violations, a content analysis was repeated within its own product category. RESULTS: A total of 130 letters were reported. Across all letters, cannabidiol products were the most frequent subject of violation (15/130; 11.5%). Of the cannabidiol letters, all reported the promotion of unapproved products (15/15; 100%), misbranding (15/15; 100%), and/or had claims that lacked scientific substantiation (14/15; 93.3%). All promotional violations were linked to websites (15/15; 100%), along with other mainstream venues: Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn, and email. Lastly, the cannabidiol products were described to provide therapeutic benefit to COVID-19, by acting as an anti-viral (5; 33.3%), pro-inflammatory (1; 6.7%), anti-inflammatory (7; 46.7%), immune-booster (5; 40%), immune-suppressor (2; 13.3%), and/or other (2; 13.3%). CONCLUSION: Despite the urgent need for COVID-19 treatments, promotional material by companies must comply with standard regulatory requirements, namely substantiation of claims. As the pandemic persists, the FDA must continue their efforts to monitor, inspect, and enforce violative companies. Cannabidiol-related substances led the spectrum of products with unsubstantiated claims to treat COVID-19 infection. Improving awareness among the public, healthcare providers, and stakeholders highlights the value of drug approval process, while protecting public safety.

Compliance With Cannabis Act Regulations Regarding Online Promotion Among Canadian Commercial Cannabis-Licensed Firms.

Importance: As global jurisdictions shift toward cannabis legalization, 2 areas of public health importance relate to exposure to youth and to truthful promotion. Although Canada's Cannabis Act specifies many prohibitions related to cannabis promotion, no systematic monitoring or enforcement among licensed firms exists. Compliance with marketing regulations has effects beyond Canadian citizens because of the global outreach of websites and social media. Objectives: To evaluate compliance among licensed firms with the Cannabis Act and analyze trends among violations regarding promotional material. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated cannabis-licensed firms after cannabis legalization. Data were extracted from online public platforms, including company websites, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, from October 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. Descriptive statistics, Poisson regression, and logistic regression were used to analyze the associations of covariates with promotion violations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was characterization of type and prevalence of promotion violations. Secondary outcomes were the role of various covariates (namely, licensed firm characteristics and online platforms) in the frequency and probability of violations. Hypotheses were formulated before data collection. Results: Among 261 licensed firms, 211 (80.8%) had an online platform, including 204 (96.7%) with websites, 128 (60.7%) with Facebook, 123 (58.3%) with Instagram, and 123 (58.3%) with Twitter. Of all licensed firms with an online platform, 182 (86.3%) had at least 1 violation. Compared with websites, the risk of violations was significantly higher on Facebook (rate ratio [RR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.39) and Instagram (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.34). The most common violations included lack of age restrictions, brand glamorization, and omission of risk information. With websites as the reference group, lack of age restrictions was approximately 15 times more likely to occur on Facebook (odds ratio [OR], 14.76; 95% CI, 8.06-27.05); the odds of an age restriction violation were also higher on Instagram (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.43-4.32) and Twitter (OR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.29-7.09). For unsubstantiated claims, the odds of violations were significantly decreased on Facebook (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.48) and Instagram (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.14-0.57). The odds of glamorization were associated with an increase on Instagram (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.72-4.88). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, widespread violations were observed in online Canadian cannabis promotion. To protect public health and safety amid legalization, decision-makers should make explicit federal regulation and enforcement regarding promotional activities of cannabis retailers. These results suggest that policy and enforcement of cannabis promotion in Canada would have an international impact, from ease of access to online media and downstream consequences of unregulated promotion.

Electronic Data Capture Versus Conventional Data Collection Methods in Clinical Pain Studies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The most commonly used means to assess pain is by patient self-reported questionnaires. These questionnaires have traditionally been completed using paper-and-pencil, telephone, or in-person methods, which may limit the validity of the collected data. Electronic data capture methods represent a potential way to validly, reliably, and feasibly collect pain-related data from patients in both clinical and research settings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare electronic and conventional pain-related data collection methods with respect to pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability between methods. METHODS: We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from database inception until November 2019. We included all peer-reviewed studies that compared electronic (any modality) and conventional (paper-, telephone-, or in-person-based) data capture methods for patient-reported pain data on one of the following outcomes: pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability. We used random effects models to combine score equivalence data across studies that reported correlations or measures of agreement between electronic and conventional pain assessment methods. RESULTS: A total of 53 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pain scores reported electronically were congruent with those reported using conventional modalities, with the majority of studies (36/44, 82%) that reported on pain scores demonstrating this relationship. The weighted summary correlation coefficient of pain score equivalence from our meta-analysis was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95). Studies on data completeness, patient- or provider-reported ease of use, and efficiency generally indicated that electronic data capture methods were equivalent or superior to conventional methods. Most (19/23, 83%) studies that directly surveyed patients reported that the electronic format was the preferred data collection method. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic pain-related data capture methods are comparable with conventional methods in terms of score equivalence, data completeness, ease, efficiency, and acceptability and, if the appropriate psychometric evaluations are in place, are a feasible means to collect pain data in clinical and research settings.

Diagnosis and treatment of pruritus.

OBJECTIVE: To describe an approach that allows for a streamlined assessment and accurate differentiation of most patients with itch in primary care and to provide an update on the available nonpharmacologic, topical, and systemic therapies. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: MEDLINE (Ovid) and PubMed were searched for the key words itch or pruritus. Searches were refined for each cause and treatment by adding appropriate key words, and subsequent hand searches of the references of retrieved literature were performed. MAIN MESSAGE: A good body of evidence from high-quality trials does not exist for treatment of pruritus, and the treatments that do exist are inconsistent in their success. The dominant causes of generalized itch are xerosis and eczema. Most patients will improve with nonpharmacologic therapy including frequent moisturization. If this avenue fails, further investigations are warranted to help guide subsequent treatment with any of the many cause-specific topical and systemic approaches available. CONCLUSION: Chronic itch can be debilitating for patients. The approach described allows for a streamlined assessment and accurate differentiation of most patients with itch in primary care.