Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Adults With Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To guide clinicians, adults with cancer, caregivers, researchers, and oncology institutions on the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids, including synthetic cannabinoids and herbal cannabis derivatives; single, purified cannabinoids; combinations of cannabis ingredients; and full-spectrum cannabis. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies on the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids when used by adults with cancer. Outcomes of interest included antineoplastic effects, cancer treatment toxicity, symptoms, and quality of life. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to January 27, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The evidence base consisted of 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies (four RCTs and one cohort study). The certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low. RECOMMENDATIONS: Cannabis and/or cannabinoid access and use by adults with cancer has outpaced the science supporting their clinical use. This guideline provides strategies for open, nonjudgmental communication between clinicians and adults with cancer about the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids. Clinicians should recommend against using cannabis or cannabinoids as a cancer-directed treatment unless within the context of a clinical trial. Cannabis and/or cannabinoids may improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens. Whether cannabis and/or cannabinoids can improve other supportive care outcomes remains uncertain. This guideline also highlights the critical need for more cannabis and/or cannabinoid research.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Vaporized Cannabis versus Placebo for Acute Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Preclinical and retrospective studies suggest cannabinoids may be effective in migraine treatment. However, there have been no randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of cannabinoids for acute migraine. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, adults with migraine treated up to 4 separate migraine attacks, 1 each with vaporized 1) 6% Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-dominant); 2) 11% cannabidiol (CBD-dominant); 3) 6% THC+11% CBD; and 4) placebo cannabis flower in a randomized order. Washout period between treated attack was ≥1 week. The primary endpoint was pain relief and secondary endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom (MBS) freedom, all assessed at 2 hours post-vaporization. Results: Ninety-two participants were enrolled and randomized, and 247 migraine attacks were treated. THC+CBD was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%, Odds Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] 2.85 [1.22, 6.65], p=0.016), pain freedom (34.5% vs. 15.5%, 3.30 [1.24, 8.80], p=0.017) and MBS freedom (60.3% vs. 34.5%, 3.32 [1.45, 7.64], p=0.005) at 2 hours, as well as sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours. THC-dominant was superior to placebo for pain relief (68.9% vs. 46.6%, 3.14 [1.35, 7.30], p=0.008) but not pain freedom or MBS freedom at 2 hours. CBD-dominant was not superior to placebo for pain relief, pain freedom or MBS freedom at 2 hours. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: Acute migraine treatment with 6% THC+11% CBD was superior to placebo at 2 hours post-treatment with sustained benefits at 24 and 48 hours.

Biphasic effects of cannabis and cannabinoid therapy on pain severity, anxiety, and sleep disturbance: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Cannabinoids are being used by patients to help with chronic pain management and to address the 2 primary chronic pain comorbidities of anxiety and sleep disturbance. It is necessary to understand the biphasic effects of cannabinoids to improve treatment of this symptom triad. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify whether biphasic effects of cannabinoids on pain severity, anxiolysis, and sleep disturbance have been reported. The search included the Embase, Biosis, and Medline databases of clinical literature published between 1970 and 2021. The inclusion criteria were (1) adults more than 18 years of age, (2) data or discussion of dose effects associated with U-shaped or linear dose responses, and (3) measurements of pain and/or anxiety and/or sleep disturbance. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers (with a third reviewer used as a tiebreaker) and subjected to a thematic analysis. RESULTS: After the database search and study eligibility assessment, 44 publications met the final criteria for review. Eighteen publications that specifically provided information on dose response were included in the final synthesis: 9 related to pain outcomes, 7 measuring anxiety, and 2 reporting sleep effects. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review reports on biphasic effects of cannabinoids related to pain, sleep, and anxiety. Dose-response relationships are present, but we found gaps in the current literature with regard to biphasic effects of cannabinoids in humans. There is a lack of prospective research in humans exploring this specific relationship.

Combination therapy with simultaneous delivery of spinal cord stimulation modalities: COMBO randomized controlled trial.

Aim: The Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of various spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities for chronic pain. Specifically, combination therapy (simultaneous use of customized sub-perception field and paresthesia-based SCS) versus monotherapy (paresthesia-based SCS) was evaluated. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled (key inclusion criterion: chronic pain for ≥6 months). Primary end point was the proportion with ≥50% pain reduction without increased opioids at the 3 month follow-up. Patients were followed for 2 years. Results: The primary end point was met (n = 89; p < 0.0001) in 88% of patients in the combination-therapy arm (n = 36/41) and 71% in the monotherapy arm (n = 34/48). Responder rates at 1 and 2 years (with available SCS modalities) were 84% and 85%, respectively. Sustained functional outcomes improvement was observed out to 2 years. Conclusion: SCS-based combination therapy can improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03689920 (ClinicalTrials.gov), Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes (COMBO).

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a device-based therapy for chronic pain that delivers electrical impulses to the spinal cord, disrupting pain signals to the brain. Pain relief can be achieved using different SCS techniques that use or do not use paresthesia (stimulation that produces a tingling sensation). These approaches affect patients in different ways, suggesting that different biological processes are involved in enabling pain relief. Research also suggests that better long-term results occur when patients can choose the therapy that is best for their own needs. This clinical study compared pain relief and other functional activities in those receiving combination therapy (simultaneous use of SCS that does and does not produce tingling sensation) against those receiving monotherapy (only SCS therapy producing tingling sensation) for 3 months. In the study, 88% of those receiving combination therapy and 71% with monotherapy alone reported a 50% (or greater) decrease in overall pain (the 'responder rate') without an increased dose of opioid drugs at 3 months after the start of therapy. This responder rate was found to be 84% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years (with all SCS therapy options available). Analysis of functional activities or disability showed that patients improved from 'severely disabled' at study start to 'moderately disabled' after 2 years, indicating that effective long-term (2 year) improvement can be achieved using SCS-based combination therapy for chronic pain.

Toward Composite Pain Biomarkers of Neuropathic Pain-Focus on Peripheral Neuropathic Pain.

Chronic pain affects ~10-20% of the U.S. population with an estimated annual cost of $600 billion, the most significant economic cost of any disease to-date. Neuropathic pain is a type of chronic pain that is particularly difficult to manage and leads to significant disability and poor quality of life. Pain biomarkers offer the possibility to develop objective pain-related indicators that may help diagnose, treat, and improve the understanding of neuropathic pain pathophysiology. We review neuropathic pain mechanisms related to opiates, inflammation, and endocannabinoids with the objective of identifying composite biomarkers of neuropathic pain. In the literature, pain biomarkers typically are divided into physiological non-imaging pain biomarkers and brain imaging pain biomarkers. We review both types of biomarker types with the goal of identifying composite pain biomarkers that may improve recognition and treatment of neuropathic pain.

Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for cervical spine (facet) joint pain from a multispecialty international working group.

BACKGROUND: The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. METHODS: In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4-5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. RESULTS: Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

The Management of Cancer Symptoms and Treatment-Induced Side Effects With Cannabis or Cannabinoids.

Cannabis and cannabinoids are increasingly being accessed and used by patients with advanced cancer for various symptoms and general quality of life. Specific symptoms of pain, nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite and cachexia, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and medical trauma are among those that have prompted patients with cancer to use cannabis. This conference report from the National Cancer Institute's "Cannabis, Cannabinoid and Cancer Research Symposium" on the topic of "Cancer Symptom/Treatment Side Effect Management" is an expert perspective of cannabis intervention for cancer and cancer treatment-related symptoms. The purpose of the symposium was to identify research gaps, describe the need for high-quality randomized prospective studies of medical cannabis for palliative care in patients with cancer, and evaluate the impact of medical cannabis on cancer survivors' quality of life. Further, education of clinicians and affiliated health-care providers in guiding cancer patients in using cannabis for cancer care would benefit patients. Together, these steps will further aid in refining the use of cannabis and cannabinoids for symptom palliation and improve safety and efficacy for patients.

Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for cervical spine (facet) joint pain from a multispecialty international working group.

BACKGROUND: The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. METHODS: In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4-5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. RESULTS: Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Effect of Pregabalin on the Median Effective Plasma Concentration of Intravenous Alfentanil in Capsaicin-Induced Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To apply the sequential up-down method to a human experimental pain model in order to examine the opioid-sparing effect of oral pregabalin on intravenous alfentanil. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, crossover. SETTING: Academic university medical center. SUBJECTS: Thirty-one healthy males. METHODS: The median effective plasma concentration of intravenous alfentanil was determined under two conditions: alfentanil alone (phase I) and alfentanil+ pregabalin (300 mg orally) (phase II). The alfentanil plasma level (after a computer-controlled infusion) producing a success criterion (at least 30% intradermal capsaicin-induced pain reduction compared with placebo) was used to determine higher or lower doses for each sequential subject. The median dose producing a success criterion and its confidence interval were determined. RESULTS: On the basis of the t test for a difference across phase and regression coefficients across groups, there was no opioid-sparing effect of pregabalin on alfentanil. Four subjects in phase I and five subjects in phase II did not complete the study. Two in phase I were technical failures, with the rest in both phases stopped because of side effects. Of the subjects who completed the study, six of 19 subjects in phase I and 11 of 12 subjects in phase II reported side effects. CONCLUSIONS: When the intradermal capsaicin-induced pain model was used in healthy volunteers, oral pregabalin had no opioid-sparing effects on intravenous alfentanil. This experimental model may be useful in studying analgesic interactions.

Cannabidiol as a Treatment for Chronic Pain: A Survey of Patients' Perspectives and Attitudes.

INTRODUCTION: Cannabis products have become easily available and accessible after decriminalization of cannabis for recreational and medicinal use in many states. Cannabidiol (CBD) has been of increasing interest to patients and is being used to self-medicate a variety of ailments. However, very limited information is available to patients and providers to form an educated opinion regarding its indicated use to treat the many conditions this substance has been implied to be helpful for. The aim of this survey was to learn about participants' attitudes and views towards cannabis-based medicine (CBM) with a focus on perception of "CBD" and its potential role for pain management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited survey participants from seven pain management clinics in Southern California to learn about their knowledge, beliefs, and personal experience with CBD products. After Institutional Review Board (IRB) review, an internet survey platform was utilized to administer the survey online. RESULTS: A total of 253 participants answered the survey. Participants were 45.4 ± 13.8 (Mean ± SD) years of age, the majority identified as white (56.1%), had an annual household income of less than $20,000, and were primarily insured by Medicare (22.5%) or Medicaid (43.9%). Among participants, 62.0% reported trying a CBD product [including products containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)]. The majority responded that these products have helped their pain (59.0%) and allowed them to reduce their pain medications (67.6%), including opioids (53.7%). They reported believing that CBD was a good treatment option (71.1%), not harmful (74.9%), and not addictive (65.3%). About half of participants (51.9%) report that they would be more comfortable with their physician prescribing CBD products. The overall attitude and experience of participants regarding CBD is reported as positive, while 91.9% of people expressed a desire to learn more about it. SUMMARY: In summary, most participants expressed a positive attitude about CBD products as a treatment option, reported positive outcomes when used for multiple different conditions, and would prefer to obtain information about and prescription for CBD from their physicians.

Responding to the Opioid Epidemic: Educational Competencies for Pain and Substance Use Disorder from the Medical Schools of the University of California.

OBJECTIVE: The University of California (UC) leadership sought to develop a robust educational response to the epidemic of opioid-related deaths. Because the contributors to this current crisis are multifactorial, a comprehensive response requires educating future physicians about safe and effective management of pain, safer opioid prescribing, and identification and treatment of substance use disorder (SUD). METHODS: The six UC medical schools appointed an opioid crisis workgroup to develop educational strategies and a coordinated response to the opioid epidemic. The workgroup had diverse specialty and disciplinary representation. This workgroup focused on developing a foundational set of educational competencies for adoption across all UC medical schools that address pain, SUD, and public health concerns related to the opioid crisis. RESULTS: The UC pain and SUD competencies were either newly created or adapted from existing competencies that addressed pain, SUD, and opioid and other prescription drug misuse. The final competencies covered three domains: pain, SUD, and public health issues related to the opioid crisis. CONCLUSIONS: The authors present a novel set of educational competencies as a response to the opioid crisis. These competencies emphasize the subject areas that are fundamental to the opioid crisis: pain management, the safe use of opioids, and understanding and treating SUD.

A Secondary Analysis from a Randomized Trial on the Effect of Plasma Tetrahydrocannabinol Levels on Pain Reduction in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

This report examines the association between tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) plasma levels and pain response in a secondary analysis of data from a recent diabetic neuropathy study that demonstrated a dose-dependent reduction in spontaneous and elicited pain at specific time points. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover study was conducted in sixteen patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Subjects participated in four sessions, separated by 2 weeks, during each of which they were exposed to one of four conditions: placebo, or 1%, 4%, or 7% THC dose of cannabis. Baseline assessments of spontaneous and evoked pain were performed. Subjects were then administered aerosolized cannabis or placebo and pain intensity and cognitive testing at specific time points for 4 hours. A blood sample was drawn from the left antecubital vein for plasma assay of total THC at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 150, and 240 minutes. Associations were made between pain intensity, cognitive impairment and THC plasma levels in this secondary analysis. Results suggested a U-shaped relation whereby pain ratings are greatest at extreme (low and high) levels of THC. The therapeutic window appeared to fall between 16 ng/mL and 31 ng/mL THC plasma level. There was a significant linear effect of THC on only one out of the three cognitive tests. These findings stress the importance of measuring cannabinoid plasma levels when performing future research. Perspective: This analysis correlating plasma THC levels and pain reduction in diabetic neuropathy suggest a therapeutic window. Low and high THC levels had a negative association (no reduction) and THC levels within the window had a positive association (reduction). There was a minor negative linear effect of THC on cognitive function.

Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for lumbar facet joint pain from a multispecialty, international working group.

BACKGROUND: The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of lumbar facet blocks and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat low back pain (LBP), yet nearly all aspects of the procedures remain controversial. METHODS: After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, letters were sent to a dozen pain societies, as well as representatives from the US Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense. A steering committee was convened to select preliminary questions, which were revised by the full committee. Questions were assigned to 4-5 person modules, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and Committee Chair on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee. We used a modified Delphi method, whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chair, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. RESULTS: 17 questions were selected for guideline development, with 100% consensus achieved by committee members on all topics. All societies except for one approved every recommendation, with one society dissenting on two questions (number of blocks and cut-off for a positive block before RFA), but approving the document. Specific questions that were addressed included the value of history and physical examination in selecting patients for blocks, the value of imaging in patient selection, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for block performance, the diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks (MBB) and intra-articular (IA) injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for a prognostic block, how many blocks should be performed before RFA, how electrodes should be oriented, the evidence for larger lesions, whether stimulation should be used before RFA, ways to mitigate complications, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and clinical trials and the evidence for repeating RFA (see table 12 for summary). CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar medial branch RFA may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with MBB being more predictive than IA injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of more false-negatives. Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Test-Retest and Inter-Examiner Reliability of a Novel Bedside Quantitative Sensory Testing Battery in Postherpetic Neuralgia Patients.

In health and disease, the somatosensory system has been interrogated with standardized research techniques, collectively referred to as quantitative sensory testing (QST). In neuropathic pain, QST has been used to characterize multiple sensory derangements. However, the use of QST outside the lab has been limited by several factors, including a lack of standardization, variability in procedural technique, and duration of testing that would be unacceptable for clinic. To address these shortcomings, the Neuropathic Pain Research Consortium designed an easy and low-cost "bedside" QST procedure. To test the hypothesis that this procedure would be clinically reliable over time and across different examiners, a multisite, blinded study was performed in subjects with postherpetic neuralgia. Generally, agreement between 2 examiners and over 2 study visits with 1 examiner was high. Additionally, intraclass correlation coefficients and Kappa statistics calculated showed that the battery of QST tests included were highly reliable. Interestingly, mechanical modalities (light brush, pinprick, pressure, and vibration) showed the highest reliability. The least reliable modalities were cool (room temperature) and warmth (38°C). These data demonstrate that the Neuropathic Pain Research Consortium beside QST protocol is reliable across examiner and over time, providing a validated QST tool for use in clinical practice and clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: This blinded, multicenter trial in 32 patients with postherpetic neuralgia demonstrates bedside QST is reliable and suitable as a clinical trial outcome. The novel bedside battery could be used in clinical trials or in clinical practice over time given the reliability data presented in this article.

Medical and non-medical cannabis use and risk of prescription opioid use disorder: Findings from propensity score matching.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Previous research suggested that cannabis use was associated with increased risks of prescription opioid misuse and use disorder. This study examined whether these associations differed by cannabis use purpose. DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of cross-sectional surveys with propensity score matching. Medical cannabis users (N = 1295), cannabis dual users with both medical and non-medical purposes (N = 707) and non-medical cannabis users (N = 18 666) were compared with cannabis non-users (N = 57 196) in the pooled 2013-2016 US nationally representative National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Propensity score models were applied to match cannabis non-users to cannabis users with different purposes with respect to potential confounders in individual socioeconomic characteristics, other substance use disorders and health conditions. In a matched sample, logistic regressions were used to assess associations. RESULTS: Propensity score matching considerably improved the balance of the potential confounders between cannabis non-users and users. In a matched sample, non-medical cannabis use was associated with increased risks of prescription opioid misuse (OR = 3.15, 95%CI: 2.89-3.44) and use disorder (OR = 2.52, 95%CI: 2.06-3.10). Cannabis dual use and medical cannabis use were associated with increased risks of prescription opioid misuse (OR = 2.55, 95%CI: 1.78-3.65; OR = 2.15, 95%CI: 1.58-2.91, respectively), but they were not associated with prescription opioid use disorder. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Medical and non-medical cannabis use both were both associated with increased risks of prescription opioid misuse. Medical cannabis use, however, was not associated with prescription opioid use disorder, and non-medical cannabis was. There appeared to be differential associations between cannabis use and prescription opioid use disorder by cannabis use purpose.

A Cost-Effectiveness Model for Adjunctive Smoked Cannabis in the Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Pain.

Background: A recent meta-analysis affirmed the benefit of medicinal cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain, a disabling and difficult-to-treat condition. As medicinal cannabis use is becoming increasingly prevalent among Americans, an exploration of its economic feasibility is warranted. We present this cost-effectiveness analysis of adjunctive cannabis pharmacotherapy for chronic peripheral neuropathy. Materials and Methods: A published Markov model comparing conventional therapies for painful diabetic neuropathy was modified to include arms for augmenting first-line, second-line (if first-line failed), or third-line (if first- and second-line failed) therapies with smoked cannabis. Microsimulation of 1,000,000 patients compared the cost (2017 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) of usual care with and without adjunctive cannabis using a composite of third-party and out-of-pocket costs. Model efficacy inputs for cannabis were adapted from clinical trial data. Adverse event rates were derived from a prospective study of cannabis for chronic noncancer pain and applied to probability inputs for conventional therapies. Cannabis cost was derived from retail market pricing. Parameter uncertainty was addressed with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: Adding cannabis to first-line therapy was incrementally less effective and costlier than adding cannabis to second-line and third-line therapies. Third-line adjunctive cannabis was subject to extended dominance, that is, the second-line strategy was more effective with a more favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $48,594 per QALY gained, and therefore, third-line adjunctive cannabis was not as cost-effective. At a modest willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained, second-line adjunctive cannabis was the strategy most likely to be cost-effective. Conclusion: As recently proposed willingness-to-pay thresholds for the United States health marketplace range from $110,000 to $300,000 per QALY, cannabis appears cost-effective when augmenting second-line treatment for painful neuropathy. Further research is warranted to explore the long-term benefit of smoked cannabis and standardization of its dosing for chronic neuropathic pain.

Recreational marijuana legalization and prescription opioids received by Medicaid enrollees.

OBJECTIVES: Medical marijuana use may substitute prescription opioid use, whereas nonmedical marijuana use may be a risk factor of prescription opioid misuse. This study examined the associations between recreational marijuana legalization and prescription opioids received by Medicaid enrollees. METHODS: State-level quarterly prescription drug utilization records for Medicaid enrollees during 2010-2017 were obtained from Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data. The primary outcome, opioid prescriptions received, was measured in three population-adjusted variables: number of opioid prescriptions, total doses of opioid prescriptions in morphine milligram equivalents, and related Medicaid spending, per quarter per 100 enrollees. Two difference-in-difference models were used to test the associations: eight states and DC that legalized recreational marijuana during the study period were first compared among themselves, then compared to six states with medical marijuana legalized before the study period. Schedule II and III opioids were analyzed separately. RESULTS: In models comparing eight states and DC, legalization was not associated with Schedule II opioid outcomes; having recreational marijuana legalization effective in 2015 was associated with reductions in number of prescriptions, total doses, and spending of Schedule III opioids by 32% (95% CI: (-49%, -15%), p = 0.003), 30% ((-55%, -4.4%), p = 0.027), and 31% ((-59%, -3.6%), p = 0.031), respectively. In models comparing eight states and DC to six states with medical marijuana legalization, recreational marijuana legalization was not associated with any opioid outcome. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence suggested that recreational marijuana legalization increased prescription opioids received by Medicaid enrollees. There was some evidence in some states for reduced Schedule III opioids following the legalization.

An Integrated Quantitative Index for Measuring Chronic Multisite Pain: The Multiple Areas of Pain (MAP) Study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the high prevalence of chronic multisite pain, there is little consensus on methods to characterize it. Commonly used assessments report only one dimension of pain, that is, intensity, thus ignoring the spatial aspect of pain. We developed a novel pain quantification index, the Integrated Pain Quantification Index (IPQI), on a scale of 0 to 1 that integrates multiple distinct pain measures into a single value, thus representing multidimensional pain information with a single value. DESIGN: Single-visit, noninterventional, epidemiological study. SETTING: Fourteen outpatient multidisciplinary pain management programs. PATIENTS: Patients with chronic pain of the trunk and/or limbs for at least six months with average overall pain intensity of at least 5 on the numeric rating scale. METHODS: Development of IPQI was performed in a large population (N = 810) of chronic pain patients from the Multiple Areas of Pain (MAP) study. RESULTS: Prevalence of two or more noncontiguous painful areas was at 88.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86-0.90), with a mean of 6.3 areas (SD = 5.57 areas). Prevalence of more than 10% body area in pain was at 52.8% (95% CI = 0.49-0.56), with a mean at 16.1% (17.16%). On average, IPQI values were near the middle of the scale, with mean and median IPQI at 0.52 (SD = 0.13) and 0.55, respectively. The IPQI was generalizable and clinically relevant across all domains recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. CONCLUSIONS: IPQI provided a single pain score for representing complex, multidimensional pain information on one scale and has implications for comparing pain populations across longitudinal clinical trials.