Oral cannabinoids in people living with HIV on effective antiretroviral therapy: CTN PT028—study protocol for a pilot randomised trial to assess safety, tolerability and effect on immune activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite antiretroviral therapy (ART), people living with HIV have higher rates of non-infectious chronic diseases. These conditions are driven by relatively high levels of inflammation persisting on ART compared with uninfected individuals. Chronic inflammation also contributes to HIV persistence during ART. Cannabis when taken orally may represent a way to reduce inflammation and strengthen immune responses. Before planning large interventional studies, it is important to ensure that cannabis taken orally is safe and well tolerated in people living with HIV. We propose to conduct a pilot randomised trial to examine the safety and tolerability of cannabis oils containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) consumed orally in people living with HIV. We will also measure inflammatory markers, markers of HIV persistence in peripheral blood cells and changes in the gastrointestinal microbiome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Twenty-six people living with HIV having undetectable viral load for at least 3 years will be randomised to receive TN-TC11LM (THC:CBD in 1:1 ratio) or TN-TC19LM (THC:CBD in 1:9 ratio) capsules daily for 12 weeks. Safety and tolerability of these capsules will be assessed through haematological, hepatic and renal blood tests, face-to-face interviews and questionnaires. Proportions of participants without any signs of significant toxicity (grades 0-2 scores on the WHO toxicity scale) and who complete the study, as well as scores on quality of life and mood will be examined using descriptive statistics. The effects on inflammatory markers, markers of peripheral blood reservoir size and effect on the composition of the gastrointestinal microbiome will be assessed before and after study completion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. A Data Safety Monitor will review safety information at regular intervals. The final manuscript will be submitted to an open-access journal within 6 months of study completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03550352.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".