Releases Saturday 7 July 2001
No 7303 Volume 323

Please remember to credit the BMJ as source when publicising an
article and to tell your readers that they can read its full text on the
journal's web site (http://bmj.com).

If your story is posted on a website please include a link back to
the source BMJ article (URL's are given under titles).



(1) CANNABINOIDS GIVE NO MORE PAIN RELIEF
THAN CODEINE TABLETS

(2) CANNABINOIDS MAY PREVENT CHEMOTHERAPY
RELATED SICKNESS

(3) RESUSCITATION TRAINING NOT COMPULSORY IN
SOME UK MEDICAL SCHOOLS

(4) TREATMENT FOR MENSTRUAL PROBLEMS MAY BE
MISDIRECTED

(5) MORE SENIOR DOCTORS NEEDED TO IMPROVE UK
EMERGENCY CARE



(1) CANNABINOIDS GIVE NO MORE PAIN RELIEF
THAN CODEINE TABLETS

(Are cannabinoids an effective and safe treatment option in the
management of pain? A qualitative systematic review)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7303/13

(Editorial: Cannabinoids for pain and nausea)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7303/2

Cannabinoids (the active substances in cannabis) are no more
effective than conventional analgesics in controlling pain and
have undesirable side effects, concludes a study in this week's
BMJ. Their introduction into mainstream clinical practice for
pain management is therefore undesirable, report the authors.

Campbell and colleagues reviewed nine trials, involving over
200 patients, to establish whether cannabinoids are an
effective and safe treatment option in the treatment of acute or
long-term (chronic) pain. In all trials, cannabinoids were given
as tablets or by intramuscular injection. The authors found no
studies on smoked cannabis.

In eight of the nine trials, cannabinoids were no more effective
than codeine tablets in controlling acute and chronic pain.
Furthermore, side effects associated with the cannabinoids
were common and sometimes severe.

In acute postoperative pain, cannabinoids are unlikely to be
useful, but may be effective in chronic non-cancer pain, say
the authors. Cannabis is clearly unlikely to usurp existing
effective treatments for postoperative pain, they conclude.

Contact:

Fiona Campbell, Consultant in Anaesthetics and Pain
Management, Pain Management Centre, Queen's Medical
Centre, Nottingham, UK
Email: fiona.campbell@mail.qmcuh-tr.trent.nhs.uk

(2) CANNABINOIDS MAY PREVENT CHEMOTHERAPY
RELATED SICKNESS

(Cannabinoids for control of chemotherapy induced nausea
and vomiting: quantitative systematic review)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7303/16

(Editorial: Cannabinoids for pain and nausea)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7303/2

Cannabinoids (the active substances in cannabis) are more
effective than conventional drugs at preventing nausea and
vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and patients
prefer them, finds a study in this week's BMJ. However,
potentially serious side effects, even when taken short term,
are likely to limit their widespread use, conclude the authors.

Thirty trials, involving over 1300 patients, were analysed to
quantify the effectiveness and safety of cannabis in preventing
sickness induced by chemotherapy. Three different
cannabinoids were given either as tablets or by intramuscular
injection.

Across all trials, cannabinoids were more effective than
conventional anti-sickness drugs, although no difference was
found for patients receiving very low or very high levels of
chemotherapy. Most patients also preferred cannabinoids for
future chemotherapy cycles. Patients reported more side
effects with cannabinoids than with conventional drugs.
Although some were potentially beneficial (euphoria, "high",
sedation or drowsiness), others were harmful (dizziness,
depression, hallucinations).

These results offer arguments both for and against the use of
cannabinoids in chemotherapy patients, say the authors. They
suggest that, in selected patients, cannabinoids may be useful
as mood enhancing aids for controlling chemotherapy related
sickness.

Contact:

Martin Tramer, Staff Anaesthetist. Departement
d'Anaesthesiologie, Hopitaux Universitaires, Geneve,
Switzerland
Email: martin.tramer@hcuge.ch

(3) RESUSCITATION TRAINING NOT COMPULSORY IN
SOME UK MEDICAL SCHOOLS

(Training in basic and advanced life support in UK medical
schools: questionnaire study)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7303/22

Researchers in this week's BMJ find that some UK medical
schools do not provide compulsory resuscitation training and
that the extent of training in other schools is variable, even
though newly qualified doctors are expected to take part in
resuscitation from their first day.

Both the General Medical Council and The Royal College of
Physicians recommend training during the undergraduate
course, but there is no obligation on medical schools or trusts
to provide a defined standard of resuscitation training.

A survey was devised in consultation with BMA student
representatives of all 27 UK medical schools. Completed
questionnaires were received from 23 schools and results
were sent to the deans of all 27 schools. Three schools failed
to respond both to postal reminders and to the mailings sent to
the deans.

The results show that most medical schools provide some
form of compulsory advanced life support training. However,
two (8%) of the medical schools do not provide any
compulsory training, and it is possible that the three schools
that failed to respond also provide no training. Once students
qualify, their time for training is limited and they have no
allocated study budget until after their first year, explain the
authors. Those who attend advanced life support courses
usually do so in their own time and with their own money.

The authors believe that training in advanced life support
should become a standardised and mandatory component of
all medical school undergraduate curriculums, but more work
needs to be done in evaluating the right level of training for
medical students.

The launch of a one-day immediate life support course by the
UK Resuscitation Council later this year may provide optimal
standardised resuscitation training for medical students,
conclude the authors.

Contact:

Seamus Phillips, Senior House Officer, London
Email: seamusphillips@hotmail.com

(4) TREATMENT FOR MENSTRUAL PROBLEMS MAY BE
MISDIRECTED

(Referral for menstrual problems: cross sectional survey of
symptoms, reasons for referral, and management)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7303/24

Many women who seek help for menstrual problems are
referred to gynaecology clinics for treatment of menorrhagia
(excessive blood loss during menstruation) when actually they
have pain or broader problems with their period. This may
result in women receiving inappropriate care, conclude the
study authors in this week's BMJ.

A research team in Scotland surveyed 952 women, newly
referred for menstrual complaints to gynaecology clinics in
Glasgow and Edinburgh, about their menstrual experience and
their main reason for seeking help. Responses were compared
to reasons for referral extracted from general practitioners'
letters.

Only 38% of women reported excessive menstrual loss as a
severe problem. However, 76% of general practitioners gave
it as the predominant reason for referral. Overall, of the 725
women referred for excessive bleeding, less than half had
reported it as a reason for seeking help.

This tendency for women's menstrual complaints to be
interpreted as excessive bleeding at referral and during
treatment is a concern because treatment typically involves
potent drugs or invasive surgery, with 60% of women having
hysterectomy within 5 years. It may also explain the finding in
other studies that the majority of women referred with
menorrhagia have a normal volume of blood loss. Assessment
of menstrual complaints needs to be reviewed, conclude the
authors.

Contact:

Pamela Warner, Lecturer in Medical Statistics, Department of
Community Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh Medical
School, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Email: p.warner@ed.ac.uk

(5) MORE SENIOR DOCTORS NEEDED TO IMPROVE UK
EMERGENCY CARE

(Improving care in accident and emergency departments)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7303/39

A study in this week's BMJ finds that most care in accident
and emergency departments in the United Kingdom is
delivered by junior medical staff, often in their first
post-registration job. As a result, many patients attending
these departments could be managed better.

Researchers at Derriford Hospital in Plymouth analysed 56
studies published between 1996 and 2000 that were critical of
accident and emergency care in the UK. Problems were found
in 35 different areas. Doctors bore the criticism in about half
of the studies. Other criticisms were directed at various
aspects of service provision, and almost all the studies made
some recommendations for improvement.

The authors conclude that more middle and senior grade
doctors are needed to improve the standard of care. This
would allow more experienced doctors to participate in the
care of most or all patients and would also allow junior staff to
spend an introductory period shadowing a more experienced
doctor, before starting clinical work.

The UK government believes that there must be a "guarantee
of excellence for all patients." Most doctors would agree with
this aim, but the cost must be acknowledged, write the
authors. An excellent service is not achievable when an
emergency department is staffed mainly by senior house
officers, they add.

Contact:

Lee Wallis, Accident and Emergency Department, Derriford
Hospital, Plymouth, UK.


FOR ACCREDITED JOURNALISTS

Embargoed press releases and articles are available from:

Public Affairs Division
BMA House
Tavistock Square
London WC1H 9JR
(contact: pressoffice@bma.org.uk)

and from:

the EurekAlert website, run by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science
(http://www.eurekalert.org)