Cannabinoids Used for Medical Purposes in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Cannabinoids are increasingly used for medical purposes in children. Evidence of the safety of cannabinoids in this context is sparse, creating a need for reliable information to close this knowledge gap. Objective: To study the adverse event profile of cannabinoids used for medical purposes in children and adolescents. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized clinical trials published from database inception to March 1, 2024, for subject terms and keywords focused on cannabis and children and adolescents. Search results were restricted to human studies in French or English. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently performed the title, abstract, and full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment. Included studies enrolled at least 1 individual 18 years or younger, had a natural or pharmaceutical cannabinoid used as an intervention to manage any medical condition, and had an active comparator or placebo. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment independently. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline and PRISMA-S guideline were used. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of withdrawals, withdrawals due to adverse events, overall adverse events, and serious adverse events in the cannabinoid and control arms. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of specific serious adverse events and adverse events based on organ system involvement. Results: Of 39 175 citations, 23 RCTs with 3612 participants were included (635 [17.6%] female and 2071 [57.3%] male; data not available from 2 trials); 11 trials (47.8%) included children and adolescents only, and the other 12 trials (52.2%) included children, adolescents, and adults. Interventions included purified cannabidiol (11 [47.8%]), nabilone (4 [17.4%]), tetrahydrocannabinol (3 [13.0%]), cannabis herbal extract (3 [13.0%]), and dexanabinol (2 [8.7%]). The most common indications were epilepsy (9 [39.1%]) and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (7 [30.4%]). Compared with the control, cannabinoids were associated with an overall increased risk of adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16; I2 = 54%; 12 trials), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.73-5.43; I2 = 0%; 14 trials), and serious adverse events (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.21-2.71; I2 = 59%; 11 trials). Cannabinoid-associated adverse events with higher RRs were diarrhea (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.30-2.54; I2 = 35%; 10 trials), increased serum levels of aspartate aminotransferase (RR, 5.69; 95% CI, 1.74-18.64; I2 = 0%; 5 trials) and alanine aminotransferase (RR, 5.67; 95% CI, 2.23-14.39; I2 = 0%; 6 trials), and somnolence (RR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.83-2.85; I2 = 8%; 14 trials). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, cannabinoids used for medical purposes in children and adolescents in RCTs were associated with an increased risk of adverse events. The findings suggest that long-term safety studies, including those exploring cannabinoid-related drug interactions and tools that improve adverse event reporting, are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".