Cannabidiol Safety Data: A Systematic Mapping Study.

Robust assessment of potential adverse outcomes is needed to determine a safe cannabidiol (CBD) intake level for consumer use. To assist in identifying knowledge gaps and inform future decision making regarding systematic development of health-based benchmarks, we have developed the first systematic map of the safety-related information available for CBD in the peer-reviewed literature. Literature searching conducted according to a published protocol yielded a total of 4186 unique titles and abstracts published through 2020. These were screened using DistillerSR for studies that evaluated at least one potential health outcome following exposure to CBD and/or other hemp-derived substances. Additional categorization was conducted for a subset of 1001 studies in which CBD was administered alone. Studies that investigated CBD most frequently reported on neurological outcomes (532), carcinogenic outcomes (129), and pharmacokinetics (118). Less frequently studied categories included developmental and reproductive, hepatic, and gastrointestinal outcomes. The primary outcomes associated with the most adverse events reported in the literature were neurological (13) and developmental and reproductive (12). Based on the studies identified, reproductive and developmental toxicity was identified as a data gap that warrants conducting a well-designed, guideline-compliant reproductive toxicity study on CBD. In addition, immune outcomes were noted as a potential emerging research area for CBD. This systematic map provides an important baseline from which to identify topics that may be suitable for further research related to the safe use of CBD. Implications for future potential work and limitations of the mapping exercise are discussed.

Use of acceptable daily intake (ADI) as a health-based benchmark in nutrition research studies that consider the safety of low-calorie sweeteners (LCS): a systematic map.

BACKGROUND: It is well-recognized that consumers face many challenges in understanding and applying nutritional guidance for low-calorie sweeteners (LCS). Thus, this research aims to (1) assess how benchmarks for safe levels of consumption of LCS are utilized by researchers, and (2) understand how varying use of such benchmarks may contribute to challenges in understanding and applying nutritional guidance for LCS consumption. METHODS: A systematic mapping exercise was employed to characterize when and how acceptable daily intake (ADI) values are used as health-based benchmarks in nutrition research studies that consider the safety of LCS. RESULTS: Based on results from charting 121 studies, our findings demonstrate that comparisons of LCS intake to an ADI derived by an authoritative body have been made in a diverse set of published literature, varying widely in their objectives, approaches, and populations of interest. The majority of studies compared the ADI to intake in a population under study; these represent the type of comparison that is most consistent with the intent of the ADI. Other applications of the ADI included use as a benchmark in experimental studies, risk-benefit analyses, and metabolism studies. CONCLUSION: Although most instances of ADI use were reasonable within the context of the individual studies' objectives, the diversity in use by original-study authors amplifies the continued need for development of "best practices" regarding the use and interpretation of the ADIs in current research. Using comparisons to the ADI can be a helpful way to provide context to research findings. However, in doing so, it is important that researchers utilize the value in a manner specific with its intent, as the ADI is a metric that represents an estimate of the amount of a substance that can be consumed daily over a lifetime without presenting an appreciable risk to health.

The North Carolina Community Preceptor Experience: Third Study of Trends Over 12 Years.

PURPOSE: To measure community-based preceptors' overall satisfaction and motivations, the influence of students on preceptors' practices, and compare with 2005 and 2011 studies. METHOD: North Carolina primary care preceptors across disciplines (physicians, pharmacists, advanced practice nurses, physician assistants) received survey invitations via e-mail, fax, postcard, and/or full paper survey. Most questions in 2017 were the same as questions used in prior years, including satisfaction with precepting, likelihood to continue precepting, perceived influence of teaching students in their practice, and incentives for precepting. A brief survey or phone interview was conducted with 62 nonresponders. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences across discipline groups and to compare group responses over time. RESULTS: Of the 2,786 preceptors contacted, 893 (32.1%) completed questionnaires. Satisfaction (816/890; 91.7%) and likelihood of continuing to precept (778/890; 87.4%) remained unchanged from 2005 and 2011. However, more preceptors reported a negative influence for patient flow (422/888; 47.5%) in 2017 than in 2011 (452/1,266; 35.7%) and 2005 (496/1,379; 36.0%) (P < .0001), and work hours (392/889; 44.1%) in 2017 than in 2011 (416/1,268; 32.8%) and 2005 (463/1,392; 33.3%) (P < .0001). Importance of receiving payment for teaching increased from 32.2% (371/1,152) in 2011 to 46.4% (366/789) in 2017 (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: This 2017 survey suggests preceptor satisfaction and likelihood to continue precepting have remained unchanged from prior years. However, increased reporting of negative influence of students on practice and growing value of receiving payment highlight growing concerns about preceptors' time and finances and present a call to action.

Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cefepime is a widely used antibiotic with neurotoxicity attributed to its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exhibit concentration-dependent ϒ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) antagonism. Neurotoxic symptoms include depressed consciousness, encephalopathy, aphasia, myoclonus, seizures, and coma. Data suggest that up to 15% of ICU patients treated with cefepime may experience these adverse effects. Risk factors include renal dysfunction, excessive dosing, preexisting brain injury, and elevated serum cefepime concentrations. We aimed to characterize the clinical course of cefepime neurotoxicity and response to interventions. METHODS: A librarian-assisted search identified publications describing cefepime-associated neurotoxicity from January 1980 to February 2016 using the CINAHL and MEDLINE databases. Search terms included cefepime, neurotoxicity, encephalopathy, seizures, delirium, coma, non-convulsive status epilepticus, myoclonus, confusion, aphasia, agitation, and death. Two reviewers independently assessed identified articles for eligibility and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) for data reporting. RESULTS: Of the 123 citations identified, 37 (representing 135 patient cases) were included. Patients had a median age of 69 years, commonly had renal dysfunction (80%) and required intensive care (81% of patients with a reported location). All patients exhibited altered mental status, with reduced consciousness (47%), myoclonus (42%), and confusion (42%) being the most common symptoms. All 98 patients (73% of cohort) with electroencephalography had abnormalities, including non-convulsive status epilepticus (25%), myoclonic status epilepticus (7%), triphasic waves (40%), and focal sharp waves (39%). As per Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dosing guidance, 48% of patients were overdosed; however, 26% experienced neurotoxicity despite appropriate dosing. Median cefepime serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations were 45 mg/L (n = 21) and 13 mg/L (n = 4), respectively. Symptom improvement occurred in 89% of patients, and 87% survived to hospital discharge. The median delay from starting the drug to symptom onset was 4 days, and resolution occurred a median of 2 days after the intervention, which included cefepime discontinuation, antiepileptic administration, or hemodialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity is challenging to recognize in the critically ill due to widely varying symptoms that are common in ICU patients. This adverse reaction can occur despite appropriate dosing, usually resolves with drug interruption, but may require additional interventions such as antiepileptic drug administration or dialysis.