Reply to: Benefits of cannabis use for metabolic disorders and survival in people living with HIV with or without hepatitis C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We appreciate the interest shown by Santos et al.[1] regarding our editorial review. We agree with them that numerous observational studies point towards the beneficial effects of cannabis on hepatic fibrosis in persons living with HIV/hepatitis C virus (HCV). However, there are discrepancies in the findings between earlier cross-sectional observational studies [2–4] and later prospective longitudinal evaluations and a meta-analysis of liver disease progression among persons with HIV/HCV infection [5,6]. These later studies and meta-analysis suggest that cannabis use did not increase the prevalence or progression of hepatic fibrosis and, in fact, was associated with reduced prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in cannabis users [5,6]. As suggested by Brunet et al.[5], earlier studies were biased by reverse causality, referring to the fact that patients modify their behaviour due to illness as the sicker, more symptomatic patients could be using more marijuana to relieve symptoms ad liver disease progresses. Difficulty in understanding whether cannabis has positive versus negative effects on different conditions likely relates to the fact that multiple factors affect the endocannabinoid system. Observational studies cannot control for all of these variables and multiple interactions between variables. Indeed, high-fat diet, alcohol intake and potentially obesity augment production of 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG) and arachidonyl ethanolamide which, in turn, activate CB1 and CB2 [7–9]. Furthermore, people with HIV and HIV/HCV on effective antiretroviral therapy have high rates of mood [10] and sleep disorders [11], neurocognitive aberrancies [12] and metabolic dysregulation [13], all of which are affected by the endocannabinoid system [14]. Therefore, it is plausible that the endocannabinoid system is dysregulated in people with HIV monoinfection and HIV/HCV coinfection, but this hypothesis has not yet been tested. Moreover, the impact of phytocannabinoids intake on the regulation of endocannabinoids during these infections remains unclear. Cannabinoid receptors are expressed on the gut epithelum. 2-AG, palmitoylethanolamide and N-arachidonoylethanolamine (anandamide) modulate epithelial barrier permeability and function, influencing microbial translocation into the bloodstream [15]. Given the central importance of gut dysfunctionality in HIV pathogenesis [16] and liver injury [17,18], one may hypothezie that the gut endocannabinoid system is disrupted in HIV and HIV/HCV infection. Altogether and going forward, efforts to better characterize the endocannabinoid system in health and in HIV and HIV/HCV infection, in addition to the effects of exogenous cannabinoid administration on the endocannabinoid system, are needed. Randomized controlled clinical trials, with biological specimens collected pre and post cannabinoid administration in clinically characterized human participants, will help us to understand the biology of the endocannabinoid system and pathways affected in gut-liver axis and in the context of hepatic fibrosis progression. These data will inform the design of therapeutic strategies to potentially slow or reverse the damage of HIV and HIV/HCV-associated liver disease and other comorbidities. Acknowledgements Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".