In 2017, a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report comprehensively evaluated the body of evidence regarding cannabis health effects through the year 2016. The objectives of this study are to identify and map the most recently (2016–2019) published literature across approved conditions for medical cannabis and to evaluate the quality of identified recent systematic reviews, published following the NASEM report. Following the literature search from 5 databases and consultation with experts, 11 conditions were identified for evidence compilation and evaluation: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism, cancer, chronic noncancer pain, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, glaucoma, human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson’s disease, and posttraumatic stress disorder. A total of 198 studies were included after screening for condition-specific relevance and after imposing the following exclusion criteria: preclinical focus, non-English language, abstracts only, editorials/commentary, case studies/series, and non-U.S. study setting. Data extracted from studies included: study design type, outcome definition, intervention definition, sample size, study setting, and reported effect size. Few completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Studies classified as systematic reviews were graded using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 tool to evaluate the quality of evidence. Few high-quality systematic reviews were available for most conditions, with the exceptions of MS (9 of 9 graded moderate/high quality; evidence for 2/9 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; evidence for 7/9 indicating cannabis inconclusive), epilepsy (3 of 4 graded moderate/high quality; 3 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; 1 indicating cannabis inconclusive), and chronic noncancer pain (12 of 13 graded moderate/high quality; evidence for 7/13 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; evidence from 6/7 indicating cannabis inconclusive). Among RCTs, we identified few studies of substantial rigor and quality to contribute to the evidence base. However, there are some conditions for which significant evidence suggests that select dosage forms and routes of administration likely have favorable risk-benefit ratios (i.e., epilepsy and chronic noncancer pain). The body of evidence for medical cannabis requires more rigorous evaluation before consideration as a treatment option for many conditions, and evidence necessary to inform policy and treatment guidelines is currently insufficient for many conditions.

Frailty is a geriatric syndrome represented by susceptibility to precipitating health events and reduced functional reserve. Frailty can be difficult to measure in clinical practice and research. One approach to approximate frailty is based on a deficit accumulation approach, which assesses a larger number of less specific measures such as the presence of comorbidities, physical or cognitive assessments, and lab tests, and summarizes these as a frailty index. The objective of this study was to develop such an index using the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) Study and evaluate the validity of the frailty measure derived based on baseline information via its association with the primary outcomes of the trial, namely major mobility disability (MMD) and persistent MMD (pMMD). Further, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the physical activity intervention among participants based on their baseline frailty score. Subjects in the LIFE Study were evaluated at baseline for demographics, clinical history, and a battery of physical and cognitive functioning assessments. In total, 75 possible deficits were scored either as present (yes/no) or based on each score’s quintiles for score-based assessments. The frailty index was measured as the total sum of deficits divided by the total number of possible deficits on a continuous scale between 0 and 100 (i.e., percent of deficits present). The frailty index was further divided into quintiles for comparison. A proportional hazards model was estimated for the MMD outcome controlling for other baseline information. A data driven approach was also used to determine relevant cut-offs in the frailty index where the trial intervention appeared to be modified. Among 1635 trial participants, the mean frailty index was 30.4 ± 6.6 and normally distributed. Over 2.5 years of average follow-up, 14.6%, 16.5%, 18.6%, 22.6%, and 27.6% of participants experienced MMD in quintiles 1–5, respectively. Each 1-unit increase in the frailty index increased the hazard of MMD by 4% (2–5%), and there was a nearly 2-fold increase in MMD between the highest and lowest frailty quintiles. Using log-rank criteria, a cut-point at the median was identified. Further, iterations tested for a frailty cut-off and indicated a subgroup beyond the 85th percentile wherein the physical activity intervention appeared to be no longer be effective. This internally derived deficit accumulation frailty index was uniquely able to identify individuals at higher risk of MMD and pMMD and showed that along the spectrum of frailty, the physical activity intervention remained effective for the majority of participants.

Background Pimavanserin is currently the only antipsychotic approved for Parkinson's disease (PD) psychosis, yet its relative safety compared with treatment alternatives has not been thoroughly assessed. Objectives This study aimed to compare hospitalization and mortality risk in Medicare beneficiaries with PD receiving new prescriptions of pimavanserin or quetiapine for PD psychosis. Methods The study identified new users of pimavanserin and quetiapine from a 15% national sample of Medicare fee‐for‐service claims collected between May 1, 2016, and December 30, 2018. All‐cause hospitalization and mortality were assessed in time‐to‐event regression models. Standardized mortality ratio weighting balanced pimavanserin and quetiapine users on baseline characteristics. Follow‐up was censored at discontinuation, switch, disenrollment, or the end of the study period. Results There were 844 new pimavanserin users and 2505 new quetiapine users. The adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for hospitalization at 30, 90, 180, and 365 days for pimavanserin versus quetiapine users were 0.59 (0.43–0.81), 0.56 (0.44–0.72), 0.63 (0.52–0.77), and 0.70 (0.60–0.83). The most common reasons for hospitalization were traumatic injury and sepsis. Hospitalizations for heart‐related issues were higher with pimavanserin (P < 0.05). The adjusted hazard ratios (95% CIs) for all‐cause mortality at 90, 180, and 365 days for pimavanserin versus quetiapine users were 0.73 (0.48–1.13), 0.80 (0.58–1.10), and 0.94 (0.74–1.19). Conclusions Risk of hospitalization was lower in pimavanserin users compared with quetiapine, and no difference in mortality was observed between pimavanserin and quetiapine. An active comparator analyses with treatment alternatives provided the most clinically relevant information for patients and physicians.