Enhanced cannabis timeline followback (EC-TLFB): Comprehensive assessment of cannabis use including standard THC units and validation through biological measures.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to present an enhanced cannabis timeline followback (EC-TLFB) enabling comprehensive assessment of cannabis use measures, including standard tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) units, and to validate these against objectively indexed urinary 11-nor-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH) concentrations. DESIGN: We used cross-sectional baseline data from the 'CannTeen' observational longitudinal study. SETTING: The study was conducted in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 147 participants who used cannabis regularly took part in the study (n = 71 female, n = 76 male; mean age = 21.90, standard deviation = 5.32). MEASUREMENTS: The EC-TLFB was used to calculate frequency of cannabis use, method of administration, including co-administration with tobacco, amount of cannabis used (measured with unaided self-report and also using pictorial aided self-report) and type of cannabis product (flower, hash) which was used to estimate THC concentration (both from published data on THC concentration of products and analysis of cannabis samples donated by participants in this study). We calculated total weekly standard THC units (i.e. 5 mg THC for all cannabis products and methods of administration) using the EC-TLFB. The outcome variable for validation of past week EC-TLFB assessments was creatinine-normalized carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH) in urine. FINDINGS: All measures of cannabis exposure included in this analysis were positively correlated with levels of THC-COOH in urine (r = 0.41-0.52). Standard THC units, calculated with average concentrations of THC in cannabis in the UK and unaided self-report measures of amount of cannabis used in grams showed the strongest correlation with THC-COOH in urine (r = 0.52, 95% bias-corrected and accelerated = 0.26-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The enhanced cannabis timeline followback (EC-TLFB) can provide a valid assessment of a comprehensive set of cannabis use measures including standard tetrahydrocannabinol units as well as and traditional TLFB assessments (e.g. frequency of use and grams of cannabis use).

The International Cannabis Toolkit (iCannToolkit): a multidisciplinary expert consensus on minimum standards for measuring cannabis use.

BACKGROUND: The lack of an agreed international minimum approach to measuring cannabis use hinders the integration of multidisciplinary evidence on the psychosocial, neurocognitive, clinical and public health consequences of cannabis use. METHODS: A group of 25 international expert cannabis researchers convened to discuss a multidisciplinary framework for minimum standards to measure cannabis use globally in diverse settings. RESULTS: The expert-based consensus agreed upon a three-layered hierarchical framework. Each layer-universal measures, detailed self-report and biological measures-reflected different research priorities and minimum standards, costs and ease of implementation. Additional work is needed to develop valid and precise assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent use of the proposed framework across research, public health, clinical practice and medical settings would facilitate harmonisation of international evidence on cannabis consumption, related harms and approaches to their mitigation.

Medical cannabis in the UK: From principle to practice.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, medical cannabis was approved in November 2018, leading many patients to believe that the medicine would now be available on the NHS. Yet, to date, there have been only 12 NHS prescriptions and less than 60 prescriptions in total. In marked contrast, a recent patient survey by the Centre for Medical Cannabis (Couch, 2020) found 1.4 m people are using illicit cannabis for medical problems. AIMS: Such a mismatch between demand and supply is rare in medicine. This article outlines some of the current controversies about medical cannabis that underpin this disparity, beginning by contrasting current medical evidence from research studies with patient-reported outcomes. OUTCOMES: Although definite scientific evidence is scarce for most conditions, there is significant patient demand for access to medical cannabis. This disparity poses a challenge for prescribers, and there are many concerns of physicians when deciding if, and how, to prescribe medical cannabis which still need to be addressed. Potential solutions are outlined as to how the medical profession and regulators could respond to the strong demand from patients and families for access to medical cannabis to treat chronic illnesses when there is often a limited scientific evidence base on whether and how to use it in many of these conditions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to maximise both clinical research and patient benefit, in a safe, cautious and ethical manner, so that those patients for whom cannabis is shown to be effective can access it. We hope our discussion and outlines for future progress offer a contribution to this process.