State-level policies and receipt of CDC-informed opioid thresholds among commercially insured new chronic opioid users.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of state-level policies on receipt of opioid regimens informed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) morphine milligram equivalent (MME)/day recommendations. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of new chronic opioid users (NCOUs). SETTING: Commercially insured plans across the United States using IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics database with new chronic use between January 2014 and March 2015. PARTICIPANTS: NCOUs with ≥60-day coverage of opioids within a 90-day period with ≥30-day opioid-free period prior to the date of the first qualifying opioid prescription. INTERVENTIONS: State-level policies including Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) robustness and cannabis policies involving the presence of medical dispensaries and state-wide decriminalization. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NCOUs were placed in three-tiered risk-based average MME/day thresholds: low (>0 to <50), medium (≥50 to <90), and high (≥90). Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate the association of state-level policies with the thresholds while adjusting for relevant patient-specific factors. RESULTS: NCOUs in states with medium or high PDMP robustness had lower odds of receiving medium (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.74; 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.69) and high (AOR 0.74; 95 percent CI: 0.59-0.92) thresholds. With respect to cannabis policies, NCOUs in states with medical cannabis dispensaries had lower odds of receiving high (AOR 0.75; 95 percent CI: 0.60-0.93) thresholds, while cannabis decriminalization had higher odds of receiving high (AOR 1.24; 95 percent CI: 1.04-1.49) thresholds. CONCLUSION: States with highly robust PDMPs and medical cannabis dispensaries had lower odds of receiving higher opioid thresholds, while cannabis decriminalization correlated with higher odds of receiving high opioid thresholds.

Health Literacy and Demand for Medical Cannabis use among Colorectal Cancer Patients in Northern Thailand: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore health literacy and factors associated with demand for medical cannabis (MC) use among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients in Northern Thailand as a target group. METHODS: This cross-sectional analytical study administered multistage random sampling to recruit 439 CRC patients in northern Thailand. Ethical approval and signed written informed consents were obtained from the patients, prior to the study. A standardized, self-administered structured questionnaire was used to obtain the sociodemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, social support, attitudes toward MC, knowledge about MC, health literacy about MC, and questions on demand for MC use. The scores from all questionnaires were converted to percentages before analysis. RESULTS: A total of 146 (33.26%) of patients with CRC reported demand to use MC. The multivariable analysis revealed that factors associated with demand for MC among CRC patients included: had high levels of health literacy about MC (adj.OR = 7.71; 95% CI: 4.28 to 13.87), aged less than 45 years (adj.OR =5.09; 95% CI: 2.78 to 9.34), positive attitudes toward MC use (adj.OR = 4.66; 95% CI: 2.68 to 8.10), and higher levels of social support (adj.OR =4.14; 95% CI: 2.39 to 7.17) when controlling effect of other covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Health literacy is an important factor affecting the demand for MC use of CRC patients. Therefore, improving health literacy, social support, and attitudes about MC especially among younger CRC patients, could help increase demand for MC as a complementary and alternative medicine alongside cancer treatment.

Assessment of education in a community hospital on healthcare providers' knowledge of and attitudes toward medical marijuana.

INTRODUCTION: Although medical marijuana usage continues to become more socially acceptable and is increasingly regarded as a legitimate treatment alternative for certain medical conditions such as cancer and epilepsy, stigma remains. METHODS: This study examined whether offering an educational session addressing several key aspects of medical marijuana (e.g., pharmacology, legality) to healthcare providers in a community hospital setting improved knowledge about and/or altered attitudes toward marijuana use. This information was collected through administration of pre- and post-education session surveys. Multiple choice questions were utilized to assess knowledge of marijuana pharmacotherapy, pharmacodynamic interactions, and regulations, whereas descriptive analyses via Likert-scale questions determined attitudes toward medical marijuana. A secondary outcome entailed analysis of drug interactions with marijuana users via retrospective chart review. RESULTS: A total of 43 healthcare providers participated in the study. There were statistically significant increases in healthcare provider knowledge post-education session across multiple occupations (physician, P < .01; nurse, P < .001; pharmacist, P < .01; and nurse technician, P < .05). A total of 72 patients (83%) who self-reported marijuana use for medical or recreational purposes had a potential drug-drug interaction with marijuana. CONCLUSIONS: As both medical and recreational marijuana continue to become legalized across the United States, formal education surrounding marijuana use and laws becomes increasingly important for healthcare providers and can be highly effective in preventing misinformation.

Palliative Medicine Fellows' Discussions, Perceptions, and Training Regarding Medical Cannabis.

CONTEXT: Medical cannabis is increasingly considered for palliation of pain, nausea/vomiting, anorexia, and other symptoms. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether training in hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) adequately prepares fellows to counsel patients about medical cannabis. METHODS: A previously validated questionnaire was adapted for HPM fellows. Domains included fellows' practices recommending cannabis and their knowledge of its effectiveness and risks compared with standard treatments. U.S. HPM fellowships were sent surveys in 2022 and 2023. RESULTS: Forty six programs participated, 123 fellows responded (response rate of 42%) including 69% female; 55% White, and 28% Asian. Of respondents, 65% reported receiving formal training regarding medical cannabis; 57% reported discussing medical cannabis with over five patients; 23% recommended medical cannabis to more than five patients in the preceding year. Only 19%, however, felt sufficiently informed to issue cannabis-related recommendations. HPM fellows with prior training were not more likely to feel sufficiently informed to discuss cannabis (RR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.82-1.66) or to recommend cannabis to patients (RR: 2.05, 95% CI: 0.89-4.71). Fellows rate cannabis as equally or more effective than conventional treatments for the following symptoms: anorexia/cachexia (63%), nausea/vomiting (43%), pain (25%), and neuropathic pain (21%). CONCLUSION: Most HPM fellows report formal training in the use of medical cannabis. Over half of trainees reported discussing medical cannabis with patients, but few considered themselves sufficiently informed to make cannabis-related clinical recommendations. These results suggest both a need for expanded high-quality evidence for medical cannabis in palliative care and for improved formal education for HPM fellows.

Available but inaccessible: patient experiences during the first 2 years of a primary care-based medical cannabis program at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Medical cannabis use and public acceptance in the United States have increased over the past 25 years. However, access to medical cannabis remains limited, particularly for underserved populations. To understand how patients experience medical cannabis accessibility, we measured medical cannabis use and barriers to use after medical cannabis certification in an urban safety-net academic medical center. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients seen in Montefiore's Medical Cannabis Program (MMCP) from 2017 to 2019. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, as well purchase history of medical cannabis, were extracted from electronic medical records. We also administered a phone questionnaire to a subset of patients to assess usage patterns, effectiveness, and barriers to medical cannabis use. RESULTS: Among 562 patients who were newly certified for medical cannabis between 2017 and 2019, 45% purchased medical cannabis, while 55% did not. Patients who purchased medical cannabis were more likely to be white and have private insurance or Medicare. Unregulated cannabis use and current tobacco use were less common among those who purchased medical cannabis. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, unregulated cannabis use remained negatively associated with purchasing medical cannabis. Patients reported that affordability and dispensary accessibility were their main barriers to purchasing medical cannabis. CONCLUSION: Among patients certified for medical cannabis use, fewer than half purchased medical cannabis after certification. Improving access to medical cannabis is crucial for ensuring equitable access to regulated cannabis, and to reducing unregulated cannabis use.

Toward reducing racialized pain care disparities: Approaching cannabis research and access through the lens of equity and inclusion.

There is growing interest in cannabis use for cancer pain. This commentary aims to discuss the evidence surrounding cannabis use for cancer pain in the context of the long-racialized landscape of cannabis policies and the disparity in pain control among cancer patients holding minoritized racial identities. Much evidence surrounding both the benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer patients, and all patients in general, is lacking. Although drawing on the research in cancer that is available, it is also important to illustrate the broader context about how cannabis' deep roots in medical, political, and social history impact patient use and health care policies. There are lessons we can learn from the racialized disparities in opioid risk mitigation strategies, so they are not replicated in the settings of cannabis for cancer symptom management. Additionally, the authors intentionally use the term "cannabis" here rather than "marijuana.: In the early 1900s, the lay press and government popularized the use of the word "marijuana" instead of the more common "cannabis" to tie the drug to anti-Mexican prejudice.

Operationalizing the GRADE-equity criterion to inform guideline recommendations: application to a medical cannabis guideline.

OBJECTIVES: Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline. RESULTS: We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions. CONCLUSION: Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments.

The potential for medicinal cannabis to help manage challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disability: A perspective review.

BACKGROUND: Around 2% of the population have intellectual disabilities. Over one-third people with intellectual disabilities (PwID) present with 'challenging behaviour', which nosologically and diagnostically is an abstract concept. Challenging behaviour is influenced by a range of bio-psycho-social factors in a population, which is unable to suitably comprehend and/or communicate concerns. This predisposes to poor health and social outcomes. There is no evidence-based treatments for managing challenging behaviour. Cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are being trialled for a range of disorders, which are over-represented in PwID and provoke challenging behaviours, such as severe epilepsy, spasticity, post-traumatic stress disorder, social phobia, pain, etc. METHODS: This perspective review explores the different conditions, which benefit from medicinal CBD/THC preparations, by analysing recent literature from neurobiological, pre-clinical and clinical studies related to the topic. The evidence is synthesised to build an argument of the therapeutic benefits and challenges of medicinal cannabis to manage severe challenging behaviour in PwID. RESULTS: There is developing evidence of medicinal CBD/THC improving psychiatric and behavioural presentations in general. In particular, there is emergent proof in certain key areas of influence of medicinal CBD/THC positively supporting challenging behaviour, for example in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. However, there are significant challenges in employing such treatments in vulnerable populations such as PwID. CONCLUSION: Further clinical research for the considered use of medicinal CBD/THC for challenging behaviour management in PwID is needed. Strong co-production with experts with lived experience is needed for further testing to be done in this exciting new area.

"It's a big added stress on top of being so ill": The challenges facing people prescribed cannabis in the UK.

BACKGROUND: This paper reports on the first qualitative study to interview people prescribed cannabis in the UK. Cannabis is a class B controlled substance under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs (MoD) Act, but a 2018 change to UK regulations provided for the prescription of cannabis for medical purposes. Relatively few people have been able to access a prescription, despite this policy change. This paper examines their experiences. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 people with a prescription for cannabis, or their carers. Data was analysed using a reflextive thematic analysis approach. The findings are discussed using a zemiology (social harms) perspective which provides a language for critical reflection on the current cannabis policy context. RESULTS: All participants reported that cannabis had significantly improved their mental and/or physical health, across a broad range of conditions. Many had been able to reduce their use of conventional medicines and reported that cannabis had relatively few side effects. Despite the potentially life-enhancing benefits of cannabis medicine, patients in the UK face multiple barriers to access. These include a lack of funding streams, bureaucratic supply problems, and a lack of training for doctors and police. Even for the few people able to obtain a prescription, the ongoing criminalisation of cannabis in the UK contributed to their experiences of stigmatisation. This often made it difficult and anxiety-inducing to take their medicine in public spaces. CONCLUSION: The UK government's lack of implementation of medical cannabis legalisation, combined with their ongoing prohibition position, is producing multiple harms to people who need cannabis medicine. The policy context is perpetuating stigmatising attitudes to cannabis which, as we demonstrate, contribute to social harms. We make recommendations on equality of patient access, and highlight the importance of education and policy change as means of combatting stigma.

Marijuana and Cannabidiol Use Prevalence and Symptom Management Among Patients with Cancer.

Symptoms such as pain, nausea, and anxiety are common in individuals with cancer. Treatment of these issues is often challenging. Cannabis products may be helpful in reducing the severity of these symptoms. While some studies include data on the prevalence of cannabis use among patients with cancer, detailed data remain limited, and none have reported the prevalence of cannabidiol (CBD) use in this population. Adult patients with cancer attending eight clinics at a large, NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center completed a detailed, cannabis-focused questionnaire between 2021 and 2022. Eligible participants were diagnosed with invasive cancer and treated in the past 12 months. Summary statistics were calculated to describe the sample regarding cannabis use. Approximately 15% (n = 142) of consented patients (n = 934) reported current cannabis use (defined as use within the past 12 months). Among which, 75% reported cannabis use in the past week. Among current cannabis users, 39% (n = 56; 6% overall) used CBD products. Current users reported using cannabis a median of 4.5 (interquartile range: 0.6­7.0) days/week, 2.0 (1.0­3.0) times per use/day, and for 3 years (0.8­30.0). Use patterns varied by route of administration. Patients reported moderate to high relief of symptoms with cannabis use. This study is the most detailed to date in terms of cannabis measurement and provides information about the current state of cannabis use in active cancer. Future studies should include complete assessments of cannabis product use, multiple recruitment sites, and diverse patient populations. SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians should be aware that patients are using cannabis products and perceive symptom relief with its use.

Exploring the Impact of Adult-use Cannabis Legalization on Legal System Referrals to Treatment for Cannabis Use: Do Age and Race Have a Moderating Effect?

PURPOSE: Despite the progression of recreational cannabis legalization, the legal system remains the largest source of referral to treatment for cannabis use. The legal system's continued practice of requiring participation in cannabis treatment programs raises questions regarding the extent to which individuals who interact with the legal system are monitored for cannabis use post-legalization. This article presents trends in justice-system referrals to treatment for cannabis use in legal and nonlegal states for 2007-2019. The relationship between legalization and justice system treatment referrals for black, Hispanic/Latino, and white adults and juveniles was explored. Given that minority and youth populations are subject to disproportionate levels of cannabis enforcement, legalization is expected to have a weaker relationship with justice-system referral rates in white juveniles and black and Hispanic/Latino adults and juveniles compared to white adults. METHODS: Using 2007-2019 data from the Treatment Episode Data Set-Admissions (TEDS-A), variables were created for state-level rates of legal system-referred treatment admissions for cannabis use in black, Hispanic/Latino, and white adults and juveniles. Rate trends were compared across populations and staggered difference-in-difference and event analyses were conducted to determine whether legalization is associated with a decline in justice-system referrals to treatment for cannabis use . FINDINGS: For the study period, the mean rate of legal system-referred admissions in the total population was 2.75 per 10,000 residents. Black juveniles had the highest mean rate (20.16), followed by Hispanic/Latino juveniles (12.35), black adults (9.18), white juveniles (7.58), Hispanic/Latino adults (3.42), and white adults (1.66). Legalization did not have a significant impact on treatment-referral rates in any population of study. Events analyses indicated significant rate increases in black juveniles in legalized states compared to controls at 2 and 6 years after policy change, and in black and Hispanic/Latino adults at 6 years after policy change (all, P < 0.05). While racial/ethnic disparities in referral rates declined in absolute terms, the relative size of these disparities increased in legalized states. IMPLICATIONS: TEDS-A captures only publicly funded treatment admissions and relies on the quality of individual-state reporting. Individual-level factors that may impact decisions regarding treatment referrals for cannabis use could not be controlled for. Despite limitations, the present findings suggest that for individuals who interact with the criminal legal system, cannabis use may still result in legal monitoring after reform. The upward trend in legal system referrals for black (but not white) adults and juveniles several years after states legalize cannabis warrants further examination and may reflect continued disparate treatment of these populations at multiple points along the legal-system continuum.

Cannabis dispensary staff approaches to counseling on potential contraindications to cannabis use: insights from a national self-report survey.

BACKGROUND: Legal cannabis is available in more than half of the United States. Health care professionals (HCPs) rarely give recommendations on dosing or safety of cannabis due to limits imposed by policy and lack of knowledge. Customer-facing cannabis dispensary staff, including clinicians (pharmacists, nurses, physician's assistants), communicate these recommendations in the absence of HCP recommendations. Little is known about how dispensary staff approach individuals with complex medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Using responses from a national survey, we describe how cannabis dispensary staff counsel customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities on cannabis use and examine whether state-specific cannabis policy is associated with advice given to customers. METHODS: National, cross-sectional online survey study from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 of dispensary staff at dispensaries that sell delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol containing products. Measures include responses to survey questions about how they approach customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities; state medicalization score (scale 0-100; higher score indicates more similarity to regulation of traditional pharmacies); legalized adult-use cannabis (yes/no). We conducted multiple mixed effects multivariable logistic regression analyses to understand relationships between state medicalization and dispensary employees' perspectives. RESULTS: Of 434 eligible respondents, most were budtenders (40%) or managers (32%), and a minority were clinicians (18%). State medicalization score was not associated with responses to most survey questions. It was associated with increased odds of encouraging customers with medical comorbidities to inform their traditional HCP of cannabis use (Odds ratio [OR]=1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.4, p=0.03) and reduced odds of recommending cannabis for individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) (OR=0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, p=0.04). Working in a state with legalized adult-use cannabis was associated with recommending traditional health care instead of cannabis in those with serious mental illness (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p=0.04). Less than half of respondents believed they had encountered CUD (49%), and over a quarter did not believe cannabis is addictive (26%). CONCLUSIONS: When managing cannabis dosing and safety in customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidity, dispensary staff preferred involving individuals' traditional HCPs. Dispensary staff were skeptical of cannabis being addictive. While state regulations of dispensaries may impact the products individuals have access to, they were not associated with recommendations that dispensary staff gave to customers. Alternative explanations for dispensary recommendations may include regional or store-level variation not captured in this analysis.

Assessment of Medical Cannabis and Health-Related Quality of Life.

Importance: The use of cannabis as a medicine is becoming increasingly prevalent. Given the diverse range of conditions being treated with medical cannabis, as well as the vast array of products and dose forms available, clinical evidence incorporating patient-reported outcomes may help determine safety and efficacy. Objective: To assess whether patients using medical cannabis report improvements in health-related quality of life over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective case series study was conducted at a network of specialist medical clinics (Emerald Clinics) located across Australia. Participants were patients who received treatment for any indication at any point between December 2018 and May 2022. Patients were followed up every mean (SD) 44.6 (30.1) days. Data for up to 15 follow-ups were reported. Statistical analysis was conducted from August to September 2022. Exposure: Medical cannabis. Product types and cannabinoid content varied over time in accordance with the treating physician's clinical judgement. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome measure was health-related quality of life as assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. Results: In this case series of 3148 patients, 1688 (53.6%) were female; 820 (30.2%) were employed; and the mean (SD) age was 55.9 (18.7) years at baseline before treatment. Chronic noncancer pain was the most common indication for treatment (68.6% [2160 of 3148]), followed by cancer pain (6.0% [190 of 3148]), insomnia (4.8% [152 of 3148]), and anxiety (4.2% [132 of 3148]). After commencing treatment with medical cannabis, patients reported significant improvements relative to baseline on all 8 domains of the SF-36, and these improvements were mostly sustained over time. After controlling for potential confounders in a regression model, treatment with medical cannabis was associated with an improvement of 6.60 (95% CI, 4.57-8.63) points to 18.31 (95% CI, 15.86-20.77) points in SF-36 scores, depending on the domain (all P < .001). Effect sizes (Cohen d) ranged from 0.21 to 0.72. A total of 2919 adverse events were reported, including 2 that were considered serious. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series study, patients using medical cannabis reported improvements in health-related quality of life, which were mostly sustained over time. Adverse events were rarely serious but common, highlighting the need for caution with prescribing medical cannabis.

Institutional policy consideration for medical cannabis.

With expanding legalization and cultural acceptance of cannabis, consumption among older adults in institutional care settings is increasing. State-by-state regulations vary widely and are evolving rapidly, adding layers of complexity to institutional policy and transitions of care. Owing to its current federal legal status, physicians cannot prescribe or dispense medical cannabis-they may only issue a recommendation for medical cannabis consumption. Furthermore, owing to the federally illicit status of cannabis, institutions accredited through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) may risk their CMS contracts if they accept cannabis in their facilities. Institutions should clarify their policy around the specific cannabis formulations approved for on-site storage and administration, including safe handling and appropriate storage. Inhalation dosage forms of cannabis require additional considerations in institutional settings, such as secondhand exposure prevention and adequate ventilation. As with other controlled substances, institutional policies to prevent diversion are essential, such as secure storage, staff procedures, and inventory documentation. Cannabis consumption should be included in patient medical histories, medication reconciliation, medication therapy management, and other evidence-based methods to reduce the risk of potential medication-cannabis interactions during transitions of care.

[Medical Cannabis Program in the province of Jujuy, Argentina. A comprehensive model of public management]. / Programa de Cannabis Medicinal en la provincia de Jujuy, Argentina. Un modelo integral de gestión pública.

The scientific, technological, and economic development of medicinal cannabis requires the evolution of public regulations and policies that address the phenomenon of the rediscovery of the scientific and therapeutic power of medicinal cannabis of pharmaceutical quality. To address the problem of the non-existence of cannabisderived products from the national industry with health approval, the Government of Jujuy decided to implement a comprehensive state approach to public health. In this article we develop the central axes of a management model, which includes the creation of a legal and institutional framework, the implementation of a health program that includes professional training, research and the preparation of scientific evidence of high quality, within the framework of a program for the public production of pharmaceutical-grade cannabis that covers the entire production chain, from cultivation to pharmaceutical preparation and subsequent distribution in pharmacies under international standards of good practice. The program has been in force since 2017, focusing on the challenges of a developing national regulatory landscape that coexists with the stigmatization of the cannabis plant in the social and medical framework, the difficulties of financing and the scarce world evidence in effective health plans of medical cannabis. Our experience can collaborate with other health administrators, with similar or different socio-demographics and regulatory environment, to resolve barriers to access to medical cannabis and improve the conditions of patients who require it.

El desarrollo científico, tecnológico y económico del cannabis medicinal requiere la evolución de las normas y políticas públicas que abordan el fenómeno del redescubrimiento de la potencia científica y terapéutica del cannabis medicinal de calidad farmacéutica. Para encarar la problemática de la inexistencia de productos derivados de cannabis de industria nacional con aprobación sanitaria, el Gobierno de Jujuy decidió implementar un abordaje estatal integral de salud pública. En este artículo desarrollamos los ejes centrales de un modelo de gestión que comprende la creación de un marco legal e institucional, la implementación de un programa sanitario que incluye la capacitación profesional, la investigación y la elaboración de evidencia científica de alta calidad, en el marco de un programa de producción pública de cannabis de grado farmacéutico que abarca toda la cadena productiva, desde el cultivo hasta la ela boración farmacéutica y la posterior distribución en farmacias bajo normas internacionales de buenas prácticas. El programa se encuentra en vigencia desde 2017, dentro de un panorama regulatorio nacional en desarrollo que convive con la estigmatización de la planta de cannabis en el marco social y médico, las dificultades de financiación y la escasa evidencia mundial en planes sanitarios efectivos de cannabis medicinal. Nuestra experiencia puede colaborar con otros administradores de salud, con semejante o diferente socio-demografía y entorno regulatorio, para resolver las barreras de acceso al cannabis medicinal y mejorar las condiciones de los pacientes que lo requieran.

UK medical cannabis registry: assessment of clinical outcomes in patients with headache disorders.

OBJECTIVES: Headache disorders are a common cause of disability and reduced health-related quality of life globally. Growing evidence supports the use of cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) for chronic pain; however, a paucity of research specifically focuses on CBMPs' efficacy and safety in headache disorders. This study aims to assess changes in validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with headaches prescribed CBMPs and investigate the clinical safety in this population. METHODS: A case series of the UK Medical Cannabis Registry was conducted. Primary outcomes were changes from baseline in PROMs (Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), EQ-5D-5L, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire and Single-Item Sleep Quality Scale (SQS)) at 1-, 3-, and 6-months follow-up. P-values <0.050 were deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were identified for inclusion. Improvements in HIT-6, MIDAS, EQ-5D-5L and SQS were observed at 1-, 3-, and 6-months (p < 0.005) follow-up. GAD-7 improved at 1- and 3-months (p < 0.050). Seventeen (17.5%) patients experienced a total of 113 (116.5%) adverse events. CONCLUSION: Improvements in headache/migraine-specific PROMs and general health-related quality of life were associated with the initiation of CBMPs in patients with headache disorders. Cautious interpretation of results is necessary, and randomized control trials are required to ascertain causality.

'What price do you put on your health?': Medical cannabis, financial toxicity and patient perspectives on medication access in advanced cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Following 2016 legislation permitting limited access to cannabis for research and medicinal purposes, the number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of medicinal cannabis (MC) on symptom burden relief in cancer contexts has increased in Australia. This study aimed to understand the perceptions, hopes and concerns of people with advanced cancer regarding the future availability and regulation of MC in Australia. METHODS: This qualitative study draws on semistructured interviews conducted between February 2019 and October 2020 in Brisbane, Australia, as part of an MC RCT substudy. Interviews were undertaken on 48 patients with advanced cancer in palliative care eligible to participate in an MC trial (n = 26 participated in an RCT; n = 2 participated in a pilot study; n = 20 declined). Interviews included a discussion of patients' decision-making regarding trial participation, concerns about MC and perceptions of future availability, including cost. Transcribed interviews were analysed inductively and abductively, informed by constructivist thematic analysis conventions. RESULTS: Overall, participants supported making MC legally accessible as a prescription-only medication. Fear of financial toxicity, however, compromised this pathway. Steep posttrial costs of accessing MC prompted several people to decline trial participation, and others to predict-if found effective-that many would either access MC through alternative pathways or reduce their prescribed dosage to enable affordable access. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that-despite a relatively robust universal healthcare system-Australians are potentially vulnerable to and fearful of financial toxicity. Prevalent in the United States, financial toxicity occurs when disadvantaged cancer patients access necessary but expensive medications with lasting consequences: bankruptcy, ongoing anxiety and cancer worry. Interview transcripts indicate that financial fears-and the systems sustaining them-may pose a threat to RCT completion and to equitable access to legal MC. Such findings support calls for embedding qualitative substudies and community partnerships within RCTs, while also suggesting the importance of subsidisation to overcoming injustices. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient advisory committee informed RCT design. This qualitative substudy foregrounds patients' decision-making, perceptions and experiences.

The kids aren't alright: The effects of medical marijuana market size on adolescents.

We exploit shocks to US federal enforcement policy to assess how legal medical marijuana market size affects youth marijuana use and consequences for youth traffic-related fatalities. Using hand-collected data on state medical marijuana patient rates to develop a novel measure of market size, we find that legal market growth increases youth marijuana use. Likely mechanisms are lower prices and easier access. Youth die more frequently from alcohol-involved car accidents, suggesting complementarities for youths. The consequences of marijuana legalization for youth are not immediate, but depend on how supply-side regulations affect production and prices.

Adult Medical Cannabinoid Use and Changes in Prescription Controlled Substance Use.

Introduction: Nonopioid-based strategies for managing chronic noncancer pain are needed to help reduce overdose deaths. Although lab studies and population-level data suggest that cannabinoids could provide opioid-sparing effects, among medical cannabis participants they may also impact overdose risk by modifying other controlled substance use such as sedative hypnotics. However, no study has combined observational data at the individual level to empirically address interactions between the use of cannabinoids and prescribed controlled substances. Methods: Electronic health records, including prescription drug monitoring program data, from a large multisite medical cannabis program in New York State were abstracted for all participants with noncancer pain and recently prescribed noncannabinoid controlled substances who completed a new intake visit from April 15, 2018-April 14, 2019 and who remained actively in treatment for >180 days. Participants were partitioned into two samples: those with recent opioid use and those with active opioid use and co-use of sedative hypnotics. A patient-month level analysis assessed total average equivalent milligrams by class of drug (i.e., cannabinoid distinguishing tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] vs. cannabidiol [CBD], opioids, and sedative-hypnotics) received as a time-varying outcome measure across each 30-day "month" period postintake for at least 6 months for all participants. Results: Sample 1 of 285 opioid users were 61.1 years of age (±13.5), 57.5% female, and using an average of 49.7 (±98.5) morphine equivalents daily at intake. Unadjusted analyses found a modest decline in morphine equivalents to 43.9 mg (±94.1 mg) from 49.7 (±98.5) in month 1 (p=0.047) while receiving relatively low doses of THC (2.93 mg/day) and CBD (2.15 mg/day). Sample 2 of 95 opioid and sedative-hypnotic users were 60.9 years of age (±13.1), 63.2% female, and using an average of 86.6 (±136.2) morphine equivalents daily, and an average of 4.3 (±5.6) lorazepam equivalents. Unadjusted analyses did not find significant changes in either morphine equivalents (p=0.81) or lorazepam equivalents (p=0.980), and patients similarly received relatively low doses of THC (2.32 mg/day) and CBD (2.24 mg/day). Conclusions: Findings demonstrated minimal to no change in either opioids or sedative hypnotics over the 6 months of medical cannabis use but may be limited by low retention rates, external generalizability, and an inability to account for nonprescribed substance use.