MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390192939 · doi:10.1002/alz.080273

Effect of the combination of tetrahydrocannabinol and melatonin (IGC‐AD1) on blood pressure variability in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s Disease

2023· article· en· W4390192939 on OpenAlexaff
David Silva‐García, Evelyn Gutiérrez, Laura Tatiana Sanchez, María Juanita Arbelaez, María Alejandra Tangarife, Laura Delgado‐Murillo, Diego Rodriguez‐Soacha, Saadia S Shahnawaz, Varduhi Ghazaryan, María Paula Naranjo, Margarita Venegas, Karen Y Pujals, William Julio De Jesus, Claudia Grimaldi, Krista L. Lanctôt, L. Elliot Hong, Ram Mukunda

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortBlood pressureTolerabilityInternal medicinePlaceboAdverse effectPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Medications, such as atypical antipsychotics used to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) common in AD, contribute to altering BP. Here we present preliminary data on the use of IGC‐AD1, a combination intervention of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and melatonin, on BP and BPV. Method Participants with hypertension (n = 12) and mild (15.38%) to moderate (84.6%) AD (NIA‐criteria, 10‐active, 2‐placebo, 81.5±5.5yrs, 69.2% women) were enrolled in a three‐Cohort Phase‐1, MAD, safety and tolerability trial (IND146069, NCT04749563). In Cohort‐1, Cohort‐2 and Cohort‐3, one ml QD, BID, and TID of IGC‐AD1 were administered respectively for 14‐days with a minimum of 4‐days washout between Cohorts. For all Cohorts, BP was recorded daily. Coefficients of variation (CV), ∆DBP and ∆SBP (diastolic and systolic blood pressure) were calculated to assess SBP‐variability for each Cohort. A chi‐square was performed to verify whether the difference between controlled and uncontrolled SBP (>140mmHg in more than 20% of values per participant) was related to IGC‐AD1. SBP‐CV difference among Cohorts was determined with a one‐way ANOVA. The difference between active and placebo for each Cohort was assessed with independent t‐tests (dplr R‐Studio). BP‐associated adverse events (AEs) were evaluated daily. Result Variability measures fell within the normal range (∆DVP = 45.0±13.5 mmHg, ∆SBP = 66.44±22.9 mmHg, CV = 7.6±5.3 mmHg) for all three Cohorts. Cohort‐1 (mmHg): ∆SBP = 42.3±15.56, ∆DVP = 25.6±8.86, CV = 10.14±3.84; Cohort‐2 (mmHg): ∆SBP = 41.9±11.73, ∆DVP = 23±9.7, CV = 8.95±1.96; Cohort‐3 (mmHg): ∆SBP = 39.6±11.76, ∆DVP = 23.6±7.82, CV = 8.84±7.83. IGC‐AD1 had no statistically significant effect between controlled and uncontrolled SBP (X2(2) = 1.15, p = 0.562). There was no SBP‐CV mean‐difference among Cohorts (F (2,27) = 0.589, p = 0.562). No differences were detected between placebo and active (Cohort‐1: t(1.64) = 0.315, p = 0.788, Cohort‐2: t(1.31) = ‐0.225, p = 0.85, Cohort‐3: t(3.53) = 1.63, p = 0.188). While BP related AEs were reported, none were deemed, by the PI, to be associated with IGC‐AD1. Conclusion Preliminary data indicate that IGC‐AD1, a cannabis‐based formulation, in trials to treat NPS did not statistically affect BP or BPV in a MAD study indicating that it may not contribute as a risk factor for AD; warranting a larger placebo‐controlled trial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→