Family attitudes about and experiences with medical cannabis in children with cancer or epilepsy: an exploratory qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is legal for recreational and medical use in Canada. Our aim was to explore family experiences using medical cannabis for children with severe conditions in the context of legalization. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews between April and July 2019. Participants were parents of children attending BC Children's Hospital oncology or palliative care clinics, recruited through posters, emails or referral. Participants were included if they spoke English and their child used any type of cannabis for medical purposes. Interviews included open-ended questions about the child's cannabis use. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and thematic analysis was performed using qualitative description. RESULTS: Ten interviews were completed with 9 mothers and 1 mother-father pair. The age range of the children was 22 months to 16 years. The primary reasons for cannabis use were epilepsy (6 children) or chemotherapy management (4 children). Five major themes were identified. 1) Child and family context, and cannabis as a last resort: children were seen as severely ill; parents sought cannabis out of desperation and responsibility to their child. 2) Varied information sources informed decision-making: parents lacked resources from health care providers and sought support from social media, industry and other families. 3) Cannabis as an ambiguous medicine: cannabis was viewed as both a serious drug that doctors should prescribe and as a natural alternative health product, safe to pursue alone. 4) Perceived effects: parents perceived medical benefits with few concerns about adverse effects. 5) Legal and financial challenges: parents were willing to obtain cannabis despite high costs and uncertain legality. INTERPRETATION: Parents of children with severe conditions pursued medical cannabis despite obstacles and needed unbiased information to access alone. Scientific investigation is needed to develop pediatric medical guidelines to inform decisions.

Barriers in accessing medical cannabis for children with drug-resistant epilepsy in Canada: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The use of medical cannabis to treat drug-resistant epilepsy in children is increasing; however, there has been limited study of the experiences of parents with the current system of accessing medical cannabis for their children. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we used a patient-centered access to care framework to explore the barriers faced by parents of children with drug-resistant epilepsy when trying to access medical cannabis in Canada. We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 parents to elicit their experiences with medical cannabis. We analyzed the data according to five dimensions of access, namely approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability, and appropriateness. RESULTS: Parents sought medical cannabis as a treatment because of a perceived unmet need stemming from the failure of antiepileptic drugs to control their children's seizures. Medical cannabis was viewed as an acceptable treatment, especially compared with adding additional antiepileptic drugs. After learning about medical cannabis from the media, friends and family, or other parents, participants sought authorization for medical use. However, most encountered resistance from their child's neurologist to discuss and/or authorize medical cannabis, and many parents experienced difficulty in obtaining authorization from a member of the child's existing care team, leading them to seek authorization from a cannabis clinic. Participants described spending up to $2000 per month on medical cannabis, and most were frustrated that it was not eligible for reimbursement through public or private insurance programs. CONCLUSIONS: Parents pursue medical cannabis as a treatment for their children's drug-resistant epilepsy because of a perceived unmet need. However, parents encounter barriers in accessing medical cannabis in Canada, and strategies are needed to ensure that children using medical cannabis receive proper care from healthcare professionals with training in epilepsy care, antiepileptic drugs, and medical cannabis.

Exploring medicinal use of cannabis in a time of policy change in New Zealand.

AIMS: To explore patterns of medicinal cannabis use prior to implementation of the new Medicinal Cannabis Scheme (MCS) in New Zealand. METHODS: An anonymous online convenience survey of 3,634 last-year medicinal users of cannabis promoted via Facebook™ from May to August 2019. RESULTS: Fifty percent of the sample were female, 18% were Maori and the median age was 38 years. The medical conditions for which cannabis was most often used were pain (81%), sleep (66%) and mental health conditions (64%). Respondents perceived cannabis to be an effective therapy and reported reducing use of other pharmaceutical medicines. Fifty-two percent reported side effects from cannabis use, including increased appetite (29%), drowsiness (12%), eye irritation (11%), dependency (10%), memory impairment (10%) and lack of energy (9%). Smoking was the dominant route of administration. Nearly half (47%) had discussed their use of cannabis with a medical professional in the previous year, while 14% had requested a prescription and 5% accessed a prescribed cannabis-based product (mostly oral CBD). CONCLUSION: Respondents self-medicated with cannabis to treat a wide range of health complaints. Only half discussed medicinal cannabis use with their medical professional, and a minority requested a prescription and used a prescribed cannabis-based product.

[Cannabis-derived medicines for the treatment of chronic pain : Problems resulting from medical appraisals in the experience of the Medical Advisory Board of the Statutory Health Insurance Funds North]. / Cannabispräparate für die Therapie chronischer Schmerzen : Problemfelder bei medizinischen Begutachtungen aus der Erfahrung des MDK Nord.

BACKGROUND: On March 10th 2017, the law amending narcotic and other regulations was expanded, thereby allowing physicians, irrespective of their specialization, to prescribe cannabis-derived medicines as magistral formulas or proprietary medicinal products at the expense of the German statutory health insurance (GKV). First prescription requires approval from the respective health insurance, which in turn commissions the Medical Advisory Board of the Statutory Health Insurance Funds (MDK) to prepare a medico-legal report. OBJECTIVES: Since § 31 Para. 6 of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V) came into effect, a multitude of imponderables have been reported regarding reimbursement. Based on the experience of the MDK Nord, problems within the fields of patients, physicians and cannabis-derived medicines are illustrated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Considering current literature, a retrospective review was conducted including approximately 2200 applications for reimbursement received in 2018 from patients residing in Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein. RESULTS: A relevant problem within the field of patients resulted from the lack of a specific definition of the term "severe (chronic) disease". Although this term is mentioned several times in SGB V, it is not put into concrete terms. Circumstances like multimorbidity are not taken into account. Another problem consisted in an irreproducible anticipation of treatment with cannabis-derived medicines. Within the field of physicians, a major problem was caused by missing, fragmentary or inconsistent information regarding disease and/or therapy. Hence, initially, almost one-third of all applications could not be appraised. Amongst various cannabis-derived medicines, dried flowers were found to be the most problematic regarding doses and effective levels. Notably, a marked increase in numbers of applications for reimbursement of therapy with pure cannabidiol was noted. DISCUSSION: Numerous problems reported elsewhere and relating to prescription of cannabis-derived medicines were also observed by the MDK Nord. Many prescriptions reflected an uncertainty regarding therapeutic use of cannabis-derived medicines. Thus, one should consider restricting the prescription of cannabis-derived medicines to selected specialists. It should be noted that, in individual cases, e.g., patients suffering from neuropathic pain, treatment with cannabis-derived medicines seems to be a reasonable therapeutic option taking into account the risks and benefits.

[High-dose dronabinol treatment vs. medicinal cannabis flowers]. / Hochdosisdronabinoltherapie vs. Medizinalcannabisblüten.

This article reports a case of pronounced, chronic lumboischialgia, which was not satisfactorily controlled by conventional analgesic treatment. The level of pain under high-dose dronabinol treatment with oral and inhalative administration as well as the way to reimburse the cost of medicinal cannabis flowers, the treatment success and criteria of the economic prescription procedure are presented.

Systematic Review of the Costs and Benefits of Prescribed Cannabis-Based Medicines for the Management of Chronic Illness: Lessons from Multiple Sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) may offer relief from symptoms of disease; however, their additional cost needs to be considered alongside their effectiveness. We sought to review the economic costs and benefits of prescribed CBMs in any chronic illness, and the frameworks used for their economic evaluation. METHODS: A systematic review of eight medical and economic databases, from inception to mid-December 2016, was undertaken. MeSH headings and text words relating to economic costs and benefits, and CBMs were combined. Study quality was assessed using relevant checklists and results were synthesised in narrative form. RESULTS: Of 2514 identified records, ten studies met the eligibility criteria, all for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS). Six contained economic evaluations, four studies reported utility-based quality of life, and one was a willingness-to-pay study. Four of five industry-sponsored cost-utility analyses for MS spasticity reported nabiximols as being cost-effective from a European health system perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for these five studies were £49,257 (UK); £10,891 (Wales); €11,214 (Germany); €4968 (Italy); and dominant (Spain). Nabiximols for the management of MS spasticity was not associated with statistically significant improvements in EQ-5D scores compared with standard care. Study quality was moderate overall, with limited inclusion of both relevant societal costs and discussions of potential bias. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribed CBMs are a potentially cost-effective add-on treatment for MS spasticity; however, this evidence is uncertain. Further investment in randomised trials with in-built economic evaluations is warranted for a wider range of clinical indications. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42014006370.

Medical cannabis access, use, and substitution for prescription opioids and other substances: A survey of authorized medical cannabis patients.

BACKGROUND: In 2014 Health Canada replaced the Marihuana for Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) with the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR). One of the primary changes in the new program has been to move from a single Licensed Producer (LP) of cannabis to multiple Licensed Producers. This is the first comprehensive survey of patients enrolled in the MMPR. METHODS: Patients registered to purchase cannabis from Tilray, a federally authorized Licenced Producer (LP) within the MMPR, were invited to complete an online survey consisting of 107 questions on demographics, patterns of use, and cannabis substitution effect. The survey was completed by 271 respondents. RESULTS: Cannabis is perceived to be an effective treatment for diverse conditions, with pain and mental health the most prominent. Findings include high self-reported use of cannabis as a substitute for prescription drugs (63%), particularly pharmaceutical opioids (30%), benzodiazepines (16%), and antidepressants (12%). Patients also reported substituting cannabis for alcohol (25%), cigarettes/tobacco (12%), and illicit drugs (3%). A significant percentage of patients (42%) reported accessing cannabis from illegal/unregulated sources in addition to access via LPs, and over half (55%) were charged to receive a medical recommendation to use cannabis, with nearly 25% paying $300 or more. CONCLUSION: The finding that patients report its use as a substitute for prescription drugs supports prior research on medical cannabis users; however, this study is the first to specify the classes of prescription drugs for which cannabis it is used as a substitute, and to match this substitution to specific diagnostic categories. The findings that some authorized patients purchase cannabis from unregulated sources and that a significant percentage of patients were charged for medical cannabis recommendations highlight ongoing policy challenges for this federal program.