Sunil K. Aggarwal

Bio: Sunil K. Aggarwal is an academic researcher from University of Washington. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cannabis & Palliative care. The author has an hindex of 11, co-authored 22 publications receiving 522 citations. Previous affiliations of Sunil K. Aggarwal include New York University & Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine.

Medicinal use of cannabis in the United States: historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions.

Abstract: Cannabis (marijuana) has been used for medicinal purposes for millennia, said to be first noted by the Chinese in c. 2737 BCE. Medicinal cannabis arrived in the United States much later, burdened with a remarkably checkered, yet colorful, history. Despite early robust use, after the advent of opioids and aspirin, medicinal cannabis use faded. Cannabis was criminalized in the United States in 1937, against the advice of the American Medical Association submitted on record to Congress. The past few decades have seen renewed interest in medicinal cannabis, with the National Institutes of Health, the Institute of Medicine, and the American College of Physicians, all issuing statements of support for further research and development. The recently discovered endocannabinoid system has greatly increased our understanding of the actions of exogenous cannabis. Endocannabinoids appear to control pain, muscle tone, mood state, appetite, and inflammation, among other effects. Cannabis contains more than 100 different cannabinoids and has the capacity for analgesia through neuromodulation in ascending and descending pain pathways, neuroprotection, and anti-inflammatory mechanisms. This article reviews the current and emerging research on the physiological mechanisms of cannabinoids and their applications in managing chronic pain, muscle spasticity, cachexia, and other debilitating problems.

Characteristics of patients with chronic pain accessing treatment with medical cannabis in Washington State

Abstract: Objectives: This study was conducted to better understand the characteristics of chronic pain patients seeking treatment with medicinal cannabis (MC). Design: Retrospective chart reviews of 139 patients (87 males, median age 47 years; 52 females, median age 48 years); all were legally qualified for MC use in Washington State. Setting: Regional pain clinic staffed by university faculty. Participants: Inclusion criteria: age 18 years and older; having legally accessed MC treatment, with valid documentation in their medical records. All data were de-identified. Main Outcome Measures: Records were scored for multiple indicators, including time since initial MC authorization, qualifying condition(s), McGill Pain score, functional status, use of other analgesic modalities, including opioids, and patterns of use over time. Results: Of 139 patients, 15 (11 percent) had prior authorizations for MC before seeking care in this clinic. The sample contained 236.4 patientyears of authorized MC use. Time of authorized use ranged from 11 days to 8.31 years (median of 1.12 years). Most patients were male (63 percent) yet female patients averaged 0.18 years longer authorized use. There were no other gender-specific trends or factors. Most patients (n = 123, 88 percent) had more than one pain syndrome present. Myofascial pain syndrome was the most common diagnosis (n = 114, 82 percent), followed by neuropathic pain (n = 89, 64 percent), discogenic back pain (n = 72, 51.7 percent), and osteoarthritis (n = 37, 26.6 percent). Other diagnoses included diabetic neuropathy, central pain syndrome, phantom pain, spinal cord injury, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, HIV neuropathy, visceral pain, and malignant pain. In 51 (37 percent) patients, there were documented instances of major hurdles related to accessing MC, including prior physicians unwilling to authorize use, legal problems related to MC use, and difficulties in finding an affordable and consistent supply of MC. Conclusions: Data indicate that males and females access MC at approximately the same rate, with similar median authorization times. Although the majority of patient records documented significant symptom alleviation with MC, major treatment access and delivery barriers remain.

Cannabinergic pain medicine: a concise clinical primer and survey of randomized-controlled trial results.

Abstract: Objectives:This article attempts to cover pragmatic clinical considerations involved in the use of cannabinergic medicines in pain practice, including geographical and historical considerations, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse effects, drug interactions, indications, and contraindication

Cannabis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: hypothetical and practical applications, and a call for clinical trials.

Abstract: Significant advances have increased our understanding of the molecular mechanisms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), yet this has not translated into any greatly effective therapies. It appears that a number of abnormal physiological processes occur simultaneously in this devastating disease. Ideally, a multidrug regimen, including glutamate antagonists, antioxidants, a centrally acting anti-inflammatory agent, microglial cell modulators (including tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNF-alpha] inhibitors), an antiapoptotic agent, 1 or more neurotrophic growth factors, and a mitochondrial function-enhancing agent would be required to comprehensively address the known pathophysiology of ALS. Remarkably, cannabis appears to have activity in all of those areas. Preclinical data indicate that cannabis has powerful antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective effects. In the G93A-SOD1 ALS mouse, this has translated to prolonged neuronal cell survival, delayed onset, and slower progression of the disease. Cannabis also has properties applicable to symptom management of ALS, including analgesia, muscle relaxation, bronchodilation, saliva reduction, appetite stimulation, and sleep induction. With respect to the treatment of ALS, from both a disease modifying and symptom management viewpoint, clinical trials with cannabis are the next logical step. Based on the currently available scientific data, it is reasonable to think that cannabis might significantly slow the progression of ALS, potentially extending life expectancy and substantially reducing the overall burden of the disease.

Outsiders Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.

Abstract: This 1966 paperback edition of a publication which first appeared in 1963 has by now been widely reviewed as a worthy contribution to the sociological study of deviant behavior. Its current appearance as a paperback is a testimonial both to the quality of the work and to the prominence of deviant behavior in this generation. In general the author places deviance in perspective, identifies types of deviant behavior, considers the role of rule makers and enforcers, and some of the problems in studying deviance. In addition, he develops a sequential model of deviance relying on the concept of career, a concept originally developed in studies of occupations. In his study of a particular kind of deviance, the use of marihuana, the author posits and tests systematically an hypothesis about the genesis of marihuana use for pleasure. The hypothesis traces the sequence of changes in individual attitude

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Abstract: Clinical question What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? New recommendation Increased attention on ivermectin as a potential treatment for covid-19 triggered this recommendation. The panel made a recommendation against ivermectin in patients with covid-19 regardless of disease severity, except in the context of a clinical trial. Prior recommendations (a) a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (b) a strong recommendation against the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (c) a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19; (d) a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19, and (e) a conditional recommendation against remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19. How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development group (GDG) of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation There is insufficient evidence to be clear to what extent, if any, ivermectin is helpful or harmful in treating covid-19. There was a large degree of uncertainty in the evidence about ivermectin on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes. There is potential for harm with an increased risk of adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation. Applying pre-determined values and preferences, the panel inferred that almost all well informed patients would want to receive ivermectin only in the context of a randomised trial, given that the evidence left a very high degree of uncertainty on important effects. Updates This is a living guideline. It replaces earlier versions (4 September, 20 November, and 17 December 2020) and supersedes the BMJ Rapid Recommendations on remdesivir published on 2 July 2020. The previous versions can be found as data supplements. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Readers note This is the fourth version (update 3) of the living guideline (BMJ 2020;370:m3379). When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Abstract: Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 2021 were included in the analysis. Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. Results 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. Conclusion Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fourth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Medical Marijuana for Treatment of Chronic Pain and Other Medical and Psychiatric Problems: A Clinical Review

Abstract: Importance As of March 2015, 23 states and the District of Columbia had medical marijuana laws in place. Physicians should know both the scientific rationale and the practical implications for medical marijuana laws. Objective To review the pharmacology, indications, and laws related to medical marijuana use. Evidence Review The medical literature on medical marijuana was reviewed from 1948 to March 2015 via MEDLINE with an emphasis on 28 randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids as pharmacotherapy for indications other than those for which there are 2 US Food and Drug Administration–approved cannabinoids (dronabinol and nabilone), which include nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy and appetite stimulation in wasting illnesses. Findings Use of marijuana for chronic pain, neuropathic pain, and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis is supported by high-quality evidence. Six trials that included 325 patients examined chronic pain, 6 trials that included 396 patients investigated neuropathic pain, and 12 trials that included 1600 patients focused on multiple sclerosis. Several of these trials had positive results, suggesting that marijuana or cannabinoids may be efficacious for these indications. Conclusions and Relevance Medical marijuana is used to treat a host of indications, a few of which have evidence to support treatment with marijuana and many that do not. Physicians should educate patients about medical marijuana to ensure that it is used appropriately and that patients will benefit from its use.

The Pharmacologic and Clinical Effects of Medical Cannabis

Abstract: Cannabis, or marijuana, has been used for medicinal purposes for many years. Several types of cannabinoid medicines are available in the United States and Canada. Dronabinol (schedule III), nabilone (schedule II), and nabiximols (not U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved) are cannabis-derived pharmaceuticals. Medical cannabis or medical marijuana, a leafy plant cultivated for the production of its leaves and flowering tops, is a schedule I drug, but patients obtain it through cannabis dispensaries and statewide programs. The effect that cannabinoid compounds have on the cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2) found in the brain can create varying pharmacologic responses based on formulation and patient characteristics. The cannabinoid Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol has been determined to have the primary psychoactive effects; the effects of several other key cannabinoid compounds have yet to be fully elucidated. Dronabinol and nabilone are indicated for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy and of anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. However, pain and muscle spasms are the most common reasons that medical cannabis is being recommended. Studies of medical cannabis show significant improvement in various types of pain and muscle spasticity. Reported adverse effects are typically not serious, with the most common being dizziness. Safety concerns regarding cannabis include the increased risk of developing schizophrenia with adolescent use, impairments in memory and cognition, accidental pediatric ingestions, and lack of safety packaging for medical cannabis formulations. This article will describe the pharmacology of cannabis, effects of various dosage formulations, therapeutics benefits and risks of cannabis for pain and muscle spasm, and safety concerns of medical cannabis use.