Canadian Resources on Cannabis Use and Fertility, Pregnancy, and Lactation: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use among reproductive-aged Canadians is increasing, but our understanding of its impacts on fertility, pregnancy, and breast milk is still evolving. Despite the availability of many web-based resources, informed decision-making and patient counseling are challenging for expectant families and providers alike. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a scoping review of publicly available web-based Canadian resources to provide information on the effects of cannabis on fertility, pregnancy, and breast milk. METHODS: Following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), we systematically searched 8 databases between January 1, 2010, and November 30, 2020, and web pages of 71 Canadian obstetrical, government, and public health organizations. We included English resources discussing the effects of cannabis on fertility, pregnancy, breastfeeding, or the exposed fetus and infant. Epidemiological characteristics, readability, and content information were extracted and summarized. RESULTS: A total of 183 resources met our inclusion criteria. Resources included content for public audiences (163/183, 89.1%) and health care providers (HCPs; 31/183, 16.9%). The resources were authored by national-level (46/183, 25.1%), provincial or territorial (65/183, 35.5%), and regional (72/183, 39.3%) organizations. All provinces and territories had at least one resource attributed to them. The majority (125/183, 68.3%) were written at a >10 grade reading level, and a few (7/183, 3.8%) were available in languages other than English or French. The breadth of content on fertility (55/183, 30.1%), pregnancy (173/183, 94.5%), and breast milk or breastfeeding (133/183, 72.7%) varied across resources. Common themes included citing a need for more research into the effects of cannabis on reproductive health and recommending that patients avoid or discontinue cannabis use. Although resources for providers were consistent in recommending patient counseling, resources targeting the public were less likely to encourage seeking advice from HCPs (23/163, 14.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Canadian resources consistently identify that there is no known safe amount of cannabis that can be consumed in the context of fertility, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. Areas of improvement include increasing readability and language accessibility and encouraging bidirectional communication between HCPs and patients. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045006.

Canadian educational resources about cannabis use and fertility, pregnancy and breast feeding: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Cannabis use in Canada is becoming more prevalent across all demographic groups due to increases in accessibility and lowered perceptions of harm. These patterns are mirrored among women of reproductive age, including women who are pregnant. Given increasing evidence for detrimental short- and long-term impacts of cannabis exposure on fetal, newborn and child outcomes, there is a need for high-quality, accessible resources providing reliable guidance and recommendations on this topic for both the public and healthcare providers. We will conduct a scoping review to identify and characterise all publicly available online educational resources discussing cannabis use related to fertility, pregnancy and breastfeeding developed by Canadian organisations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology as a guide, we will search Medline (Ovid), Medline in Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ERIC (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Education Source (EBSCOhost). We will also conduct a grey literature search targeting the websites of national and independent Canadian obstetrical societies and networks, and government and public health offices that provide recommendations or guidance to individuals and their healthcare providers seeking information on cannabis use related to fertility, pregnancy or breastfeeding. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required for scoping review studies. We anticipate that this review's findings will be disseminated through traditional channels, including preprint and peer-reviewed publications and presentations at academic conferences. In addition, the resources and guidelines identified in the study will be gathered and made available online on a single comprehensive public repository. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/p24y5.

Potential biological therapies for severe preeclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preeclampsia remains a significant danger to both mother and child and current prevention and treatment management strategies are limited. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the current literature on evidence for the use of the regenerative capacity of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy, the anticoagulant activity of antithrombin (AT), or the free radical scavenging activity of alpha-1-microglobulin (A1M) as potential novel treatments for severe preeclampsia and Hemolysis, Elevated Liver enzymes, Low Platelet count (HELLP). METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of potential biological therapies for preeclampsia. We screened MEDLINE and Embase from inception through May 2017 for studies using AT, A1M or MSCs as potential treatments for preeclampsia and/or HELLP. A meta-analysis was performed to pool data from randomized control trials (RCTs) with homogenous outcomes using the inverse variance method. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs, and SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies were used to investigate potential bias of studies. RESULTS: The literature search retrieved a total of 1015 articles, however, only 17 studies met the selection criteria: AT (n = 9, 8 human and 1 animal); A1M (n = 4, 3 animal and 1 ex-vivo); and, MSCs (n = 4, 3 animal and 1 ex-vivo). A meta-analysis of AT therapy versus placebo and a meta-analysis for AT therapy with heparin versus heparin alone did not show significant differences between study groups. Animal and ex-vivo studies demonstrated significant benefits in relevant outcomes for A1M and MSCs versus control treatments. Most RCT studies were rated as having a low risk of bias across categories with some studies showing an unclear risk of bias in some categories. The two cohort studies both received a total of four out of nine stars (a rating of "poor" quality). Most animal studies had an unclear risk of bias across most categories, with some studies having a low risk of bias in some categories. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review are strengthened by rigorous systematic search and review of the literature. Results of our meta-analyses do not currently warrant further exploration of AT as a treatment of preeclampsia in human trials. Results of animal and ex-vivo studies of A1M and MSCs were encouraging and supportive of initiating human investigations.