Does medicinal cannabis affect depression, anxiety, and stress in people with cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies.

INTRODUCTION: Medicinal cannabis might have a role in supporting the mental health of people with cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis, compared with any control, as an intervention for depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms in people living with cancer. A secondary aim was to examine the effect of low versus high Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) dose on these outcomes. METHODS: Five databases were systematically searched, and complemented with a snowball search from inception to May 2023, for any type of interventional study that included humans of any age with any cancer type. Primary outcomes were incidence and severity of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. Secondary outcomes were mood, cognition, quality of life, appetite, nutrition status, gastrointestinal symptoms, and adverse events. Data were pooled using Review Manager. Evidence was appraised using Cochrane risk of bias tools. Confidence in the estimated effect of pooled outcomes was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Fifteen studies (n = 11 randomized trials, n = 4 non-randomized trials) of 18 interventions (N = 1898 total participants; 100 % ≥18 years of age) were included. Ten studies examined THC (70 % synthetic), two synthetic cannabidiol with or without THC, and six whole-plant extracts. No clinically significant effects of medicinal cannabis were found on primary outcomes. The likelihood of anxiety events increased with higher-dose synthetic THC compared with a lower dose (OR: 2.0; 95 % CI: 1.4, 2.9; p < 0.001; Confidence: very low). Medicinal cannabis (THC, cannabidiol, and whole-plant extract) increased the likelihood of improved appetite (OR: 12.3; 95 % CI: 3.5, 45.5; p < 0.001; n = 3 interventions; Confidence: moderate) and reduced severity of appetite loss (SMD: -0.4; 95 % CI: -0.8, -0.1; p = 0.009; Confidence: very low). There was very low confidence that higher doses of synthetic THC increased the likelihood of any adverse event (OR: 0.5; 95 % CI: 0.3, 0.7; p < 0.001). Medicinal cannabis had no effect on emotional functioning, mood changes, confusion, disorientation, quality of life, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Confidence in findings was limited by some studies having high or unclear risk of bias and imprecise pooled estimates. CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis as a therapeutic intervention for depression, anxiety, or stress in people with active cancer. Further research should explore whether medicinal cannabis might improve and maintain appetite and if high-dose synthetic THC might increase the incidence of side-effects, including anxiety. To inform clinical practice, well-powered and rigorously designed trials are warranted that evaluate the effects of medicinal cannabis prescribed to target anxiety, depression, and stress.

Cannabis Science and Therapeutics: An Overview for Clinicians.

Cannabis-based therapeutics have garnered increasing attention in recent years as patients seek alternative treatments for various medical conditions. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the science behind the medical use of cannabis, focusing on the medical evidence for commonly treated conditions. In addition, the review addresses the practical considerations of using cannabis as a therapeutic agent, offering insights into dosing strategies, variations in cannabinoid formulation, and individual patient responses. Precautions, adverse consequences, and drug interactions are also discussed, with a focus on patient safety and the potential risks associated with cannabis use.

UK Medical Cannabis Registry: An analysis of clinical outcomes of medicinal cannabis therapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

AIM: This study aims to analyze the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and safety outcomes in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients treated with cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs). METHODS: Patients were identified from the UK Medical Cannabis Registry. Primary outcomes were changes in the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months from baseline: EQ-5D-5L index value, generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire, and the single-item sleep quality score (SQS). Secondary outcomes assessed the incidence of adverse events. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.050. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. Significant improvements were identified in general HRQoL assessed by EQ-5D-5L index value at 1, 3, and 6 months (p < 0.050). Improvements were also identified in GAD-7 and SQS scores at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months (p < 0.010). 61 (89.71%) adverse events were recorded by 11 (16.18%) participants, of which most were moderate (n = 26, 38.24%). CONCLUSION: An association between CBMP treatment and improvements in anxiety, sleep quality, and general HRQoL was observed in patients with ADHD. Treatment was well tolerated at 12 months. Results must be interpreted with caution as a causative effect cannot be proven. These results, however, do provide additional support for future evaluation within randomized controlled trials.

Challenges and considerations for treating PTSD with medicinal cannabis: the Australian clinician's perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Preclinical and experimental research have provided promising evidence that medicinal cannabis may be efficacious in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, implementation of medicinal cannabis into routine clinical therapies may not be straightforward. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we describe some of the clinical, practical, and safety challenges that must be addressed for cannabis-based treatment of PTSD to be feasible in a real-world setting. These issues are especially prevalent if medicinal cannabis is to be combined with trauma-focused psychotherapy. EXPERT OPINION: Future consideration of the clinical and practical considerations of cannabis use in PTSD therapy will be essential to both the efficacy and safety of the treatment protocols that are being developed. These issues include dose timing and titration, potential for addiction, product formulation, windows of intervention, and route of administration. In particular, exposure therapy for PTSD involves recall of intense emotions, and the interaction between cannabis use and reliving of trauma memories must be explored in terms of patient safety and impact on therapeutic outcomes.

The Place of Cannabinoids in the Treatment of Gynecological Pain.

Cannabis sativa (L), a plant with an extensive history of medicinal usage across numerous cultures, has received increased attention over recent years for its therapeutic potential for gynecological disorders such as endometriosis, chronic pelvic pain, and primary dysmenorrhea, due at least in part to shortcomings with current management options. Despite this growing interest, cannabis inhabits an unusual position in the modern medical pharmacopoeia, being a legal medicine, legal recreational drug, and an illicit drug, depending on jurisdiction. To date, the majority of studies investigating cannabis use have found that most people are using illicit cannabis, with numerous obstacles to medical cannabis adoption having been identified, including outdated drug-driving laws, workplace drug testing policies, the cost of quality-assured medical cannabis products, a lack of cannabis education for healthcare professionals, and significant and persistent stigma. Although currently lacking robust clinical trial data, a growing evidence base of retrospective data, cohort studies, and surveys does support potential use in gynecological pain conditions, with most evidence focusing on endometriosis. Cannabis consumers report substantial reductions in pelvic pain, as well as common comorbid symptoms such as gastrointestinal disturbances, mood disorders such as anxiety and depression, and poor sleep. Substitution effects were reported, with >50% reduction or cessation in opioid and/or non-opioid analgesics being the most common. However, a substantial minority report not disclosing cannabis consumption to their health professional. Therefore, while such deprescribing trends are potentially beneficial, the importance of medical supervision during this process is paramount given the possibility for withdrawal symptoms.

Cannabis, whether purchased illicitly, or obtained through legal means, is commonly used by those with chronic pelvic pain, especially people with endometriosis. People report several benefits from using cannabis, including being able to reduce their normal medications including opioid based painkillers, but often don't tell their health professional about this. This could lead to issues with withdrawal symptoms, so clinicians should be aware of the high prevalence of use of cannabis in this population.

History of Cannabis Regulation and Medicinal Therapeutics: It's Complicated.

The genus Cannabis has a complex history, with great variations in the genus itself, as well as in its current uses worldwide. Today, it is the most commonly used psychoactive substance, with 209 million users in 2020. The legalization of cannabis for medicinal or adult use is complex. From its origins as a therapeutic agent in 2800 bc China, to the current knowledge on cannabinoids and the cannabinoid system, to the complex status of cannabis regulation across continents-knowledge gained from the history of cannabis use can inform research on cannabis-based treatments for patients with medical conditions that remain challenging in 21st century medicine, warranting research and evidence-based policy options. Changes in cannabis-related policymaking, scientific advances, and perceptions may result in increasing patient inquiries about its medicinal usage, regardless of personal opinions, thus meriting education and training of clinicians. This commentary outlines the long history of cannabis use, its current therapeutic potential from a regulatory research perspective, and the continued challenges in research and regulation in the ever-changing era of modern cannabis use. It is crucial to understand the history and complexity of cannabis use as medicine to better understand its potential for clinical therapeutics and the effects of modern-day legalization on other health- and society-related issues.

Cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for adults with cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis). We found no studies using herbal cannabis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.

ANTECEDENTES: El dolor es un síntoma común en las personas con cáncer; entre el 30% y el 50% de las personas con cáncer experimentarán dolor de moderado a intenso. Esto puede tener un gran impacto negativo en su calidad de vida. Los fármacos opiáceos (similares a la morfina) se utilizan habitualmente para tratar el dolor por cáncer moderado o intenso, y se recomiendan para este propósito en la escala de tratamiento del dolor de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). El dolor no se alivia lo suficiente con los medicamentos opiáceos en el 10% al 15% de las personas con cáncer. En las personas con un alivio insuficiente del dolor por cáncer, se necesitan nuevos analgésicos que complementen o sustituyan de forma eficaz y segura a los opiáceos. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales de los medicamentos con cannabis, incluido el cannabis medicinal, para tratar el dolor y otros síntomas en adultos con cáncer en comparación con placebo o cualquier otro analgésico establecido para el dolor por cáncer. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se utilizaron los métodos exhaustivos estándar de búsqueda de Cochrane. La última fecha de búsqueda fue el 26 de enero de 2023. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se seleccionaron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) doble ciego de cannabis medicinal, medicamentos derivados de plantas y sintéticos con cannabis versus placebo o cualquier otro tratamiento activo para el dolor por cáncer en adultos, con cualquier duración del tratamiento y al menos 10 participantes por grupo de tratamiento. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se utilizaron los métodos estándar de Cochrane. Los desenlaces principales fueron los siguientes: 1. proporción de participantes que declararon dolor leve; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) de mucha o muchísima mejoría y 3. retiros debido a eventos adversos. Los desenlaces secundarios fueron 4. número de participantes que declararon un alivio del dolor del 30% o superior y un consumo general de opiáceos reducido o estable; 5. número de participantes que declararon un alivio del dolor del 30% o superior, o del 50% o superior; 6. intensidad del dolor; 7. problemas de sueño; 8. depresión y ansiedad; 9. dosis diaria de opiáceos de mantenimiento y de inicio; 10. abandonos por falta de eficacia; 11. todos los eventos adversos del sistema nervioso central. Se utilizó el método GRADE para evaluar la calidad de la evidencia de cada desenlace. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se identificaron 14 estudios con 1823 participantes. Ningún estudio evaluó las proporciones de participantes que declararon un dolor no peor que leve a los 14 días de inicio del tratamiento. Se encontraron cinco ECA que evaluaron nabiximoles oromucosos (tetrahidrocannabinol [THC] y cannabidiol [CBD]) o THC solo, con 1539 participantes con dolor moderado o intenso a pesar del tratamiento con opiáceos. Los periodos doble ciego de los ECA variaron entre dos y cinco semanas. Para el metanálisis se dispuso de cuatro estudios con un diseño paralelo y 1333 participantes. Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo efectos beneficiosos clínicamente relevantes en las proporciones de PGIC de mucha o muchísima mejoría (diferencia de riesgos [DR] 0,06; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,01 a 0,12; número necesario a tratar para lograr un resultado beneficioso adicional [NNTB] 16; IC del 95%: 8 a 100). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo diferencias clínicamente relevantes en la proporción de retiros debido a eventos adversos (DR 0,04; IC del 95%: 0 a 0,08; número necesario a tratar para lograr un desenlace perjudicial adicional [NNTD] 25; IC del 95%: 16 a infinito). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo diferencias entre nabiximols o THC y placebo en la frecuencia de eventos adversos graves (DR 0,02; IC del 95%: ­0,03 a 0,07). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que los nabiximoles y el THC utilizados como tratamiento complementario para el dolor por cáncer refractario a los opiáceos no difirieron del placebo en cuanto a la reducción de la intensidad media del dolor (diferencia de medias estandarizada [DME] ­0,19; IC del 95%: ­0,40 a 0,02). Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que un análogo sintético del THC (nabilona) administrado durante ocho semanas no fue superior a placebo para reducir el dolor asociado con la quimioterapia o la radioquimioterapia en personas con cáncer de cabeza y cuello y cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (dos estudios, 89 participantes, análisis cualitativo). En estos estudios no fue posible realizar análisis de tolerabilidad y seguridad. Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que los análogos sintéticos del THC fueron superiores a placebo (DME ­0,98; IC del 95%: ­1,36 a ­0,60), pero no superiores a la codeína en dosis bajas (DME 0,03; IC del 95%: ­0,25 a 0,32; cinco ensayos de dosis única; 126 participantes) en cuanto a la reducción del dolor moderado a intenso por cáncer después de la interrupción del tratamiento analgésico previo durante tres a cuatro horas y media (dos ensayos de dosis única; 66 participantes). En estos estudios no fue posible realizar análisis de tolerabilidad y seguridad. Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que el aceite de CBD no agregó valor a los cuidados paliativos especializados solos en la reducción de la intensidad del dolor en personas con cáncer avanzado. No hubo diferencias en el número de abandonos debido a eventos adversos ni eventos adversos graves (un estudio, 144 participantes, análisis cualitativo). No se encontraron estudios que utilizaran la planta de cannabis. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Existe evidencia de certeza moderada de que los nabiximoles y el THC por vía oromucosa no son efectivos para aliviar el dolor de moderado a intenso por cáncer refractario a los opiáceos. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que la nabilona no es efectiva para reducir el dolor asociado con la radio­quimioterapia en personas con cáncer de cabeza y cuello y cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que una dosis única de análogos sintéticos del THC no es superior a una dosis única baja equivalente de morfina para reducir el dolor moderado a intenso por cáncer. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que el CBD no aporta valor a los cuidados paliativos especializados solos en la reducción del dolor en personas con cáncer avanzado.

Cannabis use among adults undergoing cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risks and benefits of cannabis use in the context of cancer care. This study characterized the prevalence, reasons for use, and perceived benefits of cannabis and compared symptoms and perceived risks between those who reported past 30-day cannabis use and those who did not. METHODS: Adults undergoing cancer treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center completed measures of sociodemographic characteristics, cannabis use, use modalities, reasons for use, perceived harms/benefits of use, physical and psychological symptoms, and other substance/medication use. Analyses compared patients who used or did not use cannabis in the past 30 days. RESULTS: Participants (N = 267) were 58 years old on average, primarily female (70%), and predominantly White (88%). Over a quarter of respondents (26%) reported past 30-day cannabis use, and among those, 4.5% screened positive for cannabis use disorder. Participants who used cannabis most often used edibles (65%) or smoked cannabis (51%), and they were younger and more likely to be male, Black, and disabled, and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than participants who did not use cannabis. Those who used cannabis reported more severe symptoms and perceived cannabis as less harmful than those who did not use cannabis. The most common medical reasons for cannabis use were pain, cancer, sleep problems, anxiety, nausea/vomiting, and poor appetite. Participants reported the greatest cannabis-related symptom relief from sleep problems, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer who used cannabis perceived benefits for many symptoms, although they showed worse overall symptomatology. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Among adults undergoing cancer treatment, 26% reported cannabis use in the past 30 days. Those who used cannabis were more likely to be male and disabled and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than those who did not use cannabis. Participants most commonly reported using cannabis for pain, cancer, sleep, anxiety, and nausea/vomiting and reported the greatest perceived benefits for sleep, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety, yet participants who used cannabis also reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared to those who did not use cannabis. Participants who used cannabis were more likely to report that cannabis was less risky to their health than alcohol, smoking, and opioids than those who did not use cannabis.

Medical Cannabis in the Treatment of Parkinson's Disease.

OBJECTIVES: Medical cannabis (MC) has recently garnered interest as a potential treatment for neurologic diseases, including Parkinson's disease (PD). A retrospective chart review was conducted to explore the impact of MC on the symptomatic treatment of patients with PD. METHODS: Patients with PD treated with MC in the normal course of clinical practice were included (n = 69). Data collected from patient charts included MC ratio/formulation changes, PD symptom changes after initiation of MC, and adverse events (AEs) from MC use. Information regarding changes in concomitant medications after MC initiation, including opioids, benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, and PD medications, was also collected. RESULTS: Most patients were initially certified for a 1:1 (∆ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol) tincture. Eight-seven percent of patients (n = 60) were noted to exhibit an improvement in any PD symptom after starting MC. Symptoms with the highest incidence of improvement included cramping/dystonia, pain, spasticity, lack of appetite, dyskinesia, and tremor. After starting MC, 56% of opioid users (n = 14) were able to decrease or discontinue opioid use with an average daily morphine milligram equivalent change from 31 at baseline to 22 at the last follow-up visit. The MC was well-tolerated with no severe AEs reported and low rate of MC discontinuation due to AEs (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: The MC may improve motor and nonmotor symptoms in patients with PD and may allow for reduction of concomitant opioid medication use. Large, placebo-controlled, randomized studies of MC use in patients with PD are required.

Can we predict the treatment doses of THC and CBD and does it matter?

INTRODUCTION: Medical cannabis is an increasingly prevalent treatment for a wide variety of indications, yet there is still no uniformly accepted protocol for the titration of cannabinoid doses. We aimed to develop a model to predict the stable THC and CBD dosages after six months of treatment using available baseline patient characteristics. METHODS: In this prospective study, we included all consecutive adult patients (age 18 and above) who exclusively used a single method of cannabis delivery. Telephone interviews were conducted six months post-treatment initiation to assess changes in symptoms and side effects. We prospectively analyzed THC and CBD dosages with respect to demographic variables and patient characteristics in two main groups divided according to cannabis administration method - inhalation or sublingual oil. RESULTS: A total of 3,554 patients were included in the study (2,724 exclusively inhaled cannabis and 830 exclusively consumed cannabis as sublingual oil). The daily THC and CBD doses were significantly higher in the inhalation group than in the sublingual group (p<.001). None of the four models predicting THC and CBD doses in the two groups had satisfactory prediction ability (adjusted R-squared between 0.007 and 0.09). Male gender, unemployed status, tobacco smoking and a lack of concern about cannabis treatment were associated with a higher inhaled THC dose (p<.001). CONCLUSION: Models based on patient characteristics failed to accurately predict the final titration doses of CBD and THC for both inhalation and sublingual administration. Clinical guidelines should maintain a highly individual approach for cannabinoid dosing.

Medical Marijuana Legalization and Opioid- and Pain-Related Outcomes Among Patients Newly Diagnosed With Cancer Receiving Anticancer Treatment.

Importance: The past decade saw rapid declines in opioids dispensed to patients with active cancer, with a concurrent increase in marijuana use among cancer survivors possibly associated with state medical marijuana legalization. Objective: To assess the associations between medical marijuana legalization and opioid-related and pain-related outcomes for adult patients receiving cancer treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 2012 to 2017 national commercial claims data and a difference-in-differences design to estimate the associations of interest for patients residing in 34 states without medical marijuana legalization by January 1, 2012. Secondary analysis differentiated between medical marijuana legalization with and without legal allowances for retail dispensaries. Data analysis was conducted between December 2021 and August 2022. Study samples included privately insured patients aged 18 to 64 years who received anticancer treatment during the 6 months after a new breast (in women), colorectal, or lung cancer diagnosis. Exposures: State medical marijuana legalization that took effect between 2012 and 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Having 1 or more days of opioids, 1 or more days of long-acting opioids, total morphine milligram equivalents of any opioid dispensed to patients with 1 or more opioid days, and 1 or more pain-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations (hereafter, hospital events) during the 6 months after a new cancer diagnosis. Interaction terms were included between each policy indicator and an indicator of recent opioids, defined as having 1 or more opioid prescriptions during the 12 months before the new cancer diagnosis. Logistic models were estimated for dichotomous outcomes, and generalized linear models were estimated for morphine milligram equivalents. Results: The analysis included 38 189 patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer (38 189 women [100%]), 12 816 with colorectal cancer (7100 men [55.4%]), and 7190 with lung cancer (3674 women [51.1%]). Medical marijuana legalization was associated with a reduction in the rate of 1 or more opioid days from 90.1% to 84.4% (difference, 5.6 [95% CI, 2.2-9.0] percentage points; P = .001) among patients with breast cancer with recent opioids, from 89.4% to 84.4% (difference, 4.9 [95% CI, 0.5-9.4] percentage points; P = .03) among patients with colorectal cancer with recent opioids, and from 33.8% to 27.2% (difference, 6.5 [95% CI, 1.2-11.9] percentage points; P = .02) among patients with lung cancer without recent opioids. Medical marijuana legalization was associated with a reduction in the rate of 1 or more pain-related hospital events from 19.3% to 13.0% (difference, 6.3 [95% CI, 0.7-12.0] percentage points; P = .03) among patients with lung cancer with recent opioids. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that medical marijuana legalization implemented from 2012 to 2017 was associated with a lower rate of opioid dispensing and pain-related hospital events among some adults receiving treatment for newly diagnosed cancer. The nature of these associations and their implications for patient safety and quality of life need to be further investigated.

Clinical Outcome Data of Children Treated with Cannabis-Based Medicinal Products for Treatment Resistant Epilepsy-Analysis from the UK Medical Cannabis Registry.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of high-quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of cannabis-based medicinal products in treatment of treatment-resistant epilepsy (TRE) in children. METHODS: A case series of children (<18 years old) with TRE from the UK Medical Cannabis Registry was analyzed. Primary outcomes were ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency, changes in the Impact of Pediatric Epilepsy Score (IPES), and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included in the analysis. Patients were prescribed during their treatment with the following: CBD isolate oils (n = 19), CBD broad-spectrum oils (n = 17), and CBD/Δ9-THC combination therapy (n = 17). Twenty-three (65.7%) patients achieved a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency. 94.1% (n = 16) of patients treated with CBD and Δ9-THC observed a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to 31.6% (n = 6) and 17.6% (n = 3) of patients treated with CBD isolates and broad-spectrum CBD products, respectively (p< 0.001). Twenty-six (74.3%) adverse events were reported by 16 patients (45.7%). The majority of these were mild (n = 12; 34.2%) and moderate (n = 10; 28.6%). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate a positive signal of improved seizure frequency in children treated with Cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) for TRE. Moreover, the results suggest that CBMPs are well-tolerated in the short term. The limitations mean causation cannot be determined in this open-label, case series.

[Medicinal cannabis: beyond the myth, just another (herbal) drug]. / Cannabis medicinal: más allá del mito, solo otra droga (vegetal).

This editorial briefly explores some of the distinctions between drugs and pharmaceuticals, alongside definitions regarding Cannabis sativa and its use in the context of a newly legal industry. Furthermore, medical cannabis is considered with regard to its toxicity, its social uses, its pharmacological activity, its legal paradoxes, and the scientific revolution sparked by the study of the endocannabinoid system, which has gained a great deal of relevance for modern physiology and pharmacology.

En este editorial, se propone un breve recorrido por algunas distinciones entre drogas y fármacos y definiciones sobre Cannabis sativa y su uso en una nueva industria legal. Por otro lado, se aborda la toxicidad del cannabis medicinal, sus usos sociales, la acción farmacológica, las paradojas legales, y la revolución científica que ha generado el estudio del sistema endocannabinoide y que ha sido de gran relevancia para la fisiología y la farmacología moderna.

Observational study of medical marijuana as a treatment for treatment-resistant epilepsies.

OBJECTIVES: Medical cannabis formulations with cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are widely used to treat epilepsy. We studied the safety and efficacy of two formulations. METHODS: We prospectively observed 29 subjects (12 to 46 years old) with treatment-resistant epilepsies (11 Lennox-Gastaut syndrome; 15 with focal or multifocal epilepsy; three generalized epilepsy) were treated with medical cannabis (1THC:20CBD and/or 1THC:50CBD; maximum of 6 mg THC/day) for ≥24 weeks. The primary outcome was change in convulsive seizure frequency from the pre-treatment baseline to the stable optimal dose phase. RESULTS: There were no significant differences during treatment on stable maximal doses for convulsive seizure frequency, seizure duration, postictal duration, or use of rescue medications compared to baseline. No benefits were seen for behavioral disorders or sleep duration; there was a trend for more frequent bowel movements compared to baseline. Ten adverse events occurred in 6/29 patients, all were transient and most unrelated to study medication. No serious adverse events were related to study medication. INTERPRETATION: Our prospective observational study of two high-CBD/low-THC formulations found no evidence of efficacy in reducing seizures, seizure duration, postictal duration, or rescue medication use. Behavioral disorders or sleep duration was unchanged. Study medication was generally well tolerated. The doses of CBD used were lower than prior studies. Randomized trials with larger cohorts are needed, but we found no evidence of efficacy for two CBD:THC products in treating epilepsy, sleep, or behavior in our population.

The Effectiveness of Common Cannabis Products for Treatment of Nausea.

GOALS: We measure for the first time how a wide range of cannabis products affect nausea intensity in actual time. BACKGROUND: Even though the Cannabis plant has been used to treat nausea for millennia, few studies have measured real-time effects of common and commercially available cannabis-based products. STUDY: Using the Releaf App, 886 people completed 2220 cannabis self-administration sessions intended to treat nausea between June 6, 2016 and July 8, 2019. They recorded the characteristics of self-administered cannabis products and baseline symptom intensity levels before tracking real-time changes in the intensity of their nausea. RESULTS: By 1 hour postconsumption, 96.4% of people had experienced symptom relief with an average symptom intensity reduction of -3.85 points on a 0 to 10 visual analog scale (SD=2.45, d=1.85, P<0.001). Symptom relief was statistically significant at 5 minutes and increased with time. Among product characteristics, flower and concentrates yielded the strongest, yet similar results; products labeled as Cannabis indica underperformed those labeled as Cannabis sativa or hybrid; and joints were associated with greater symptom relief than pipes or vaporizers. In sessions using flower, higher tetrahydrocannbinol and lower cannabidiol were generally associated with greater symptom relief (eg, within 5 min). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the vast majority of patients self-selecting into cannabis use for treatment of nausea likely experience relief within a relative short duration of time, but the level of antiemetic effect varies with the characteristics of the cannabis products consumed in vivo. Future research should focus on longer term symptom relief, including nausea-free intervals and dosing frequency; the risks of consumption of medical cannabis, especially among high-risk populations, such as pregnant women and children; and potential interactions between cannabis, conventional antiemetics, other medications, food, tobacco, alcohol, and street drugs among specific patient populations.

Cannabis, Cannabinoids and Cannabis-Based Medicines in Cancer Care.

As medical cannabis becomes legal in more states, cancer patients are increasingly interested in the potential utility of the ancient botanical in their treatment regimen. Although eager to discuss cannabis use with their oncologist, patients often find that their provider reports that they do not have adequate information to be helpful. Oncologists, so dependent on evidence-based data to guide their treatment plans, are dismayed by the lack of published literature on the benefits of medical cannabis. This results largely from the significant barriers that have existed to effectively thwart the ability to conduct trials investigating the potential therapeutic efficacy of the plant. This is a narrative review aimed at clinicians, summarizing cannabis phytochemistry, trials in the areas of nausea and vomiting, appetite, pain and anticancer activity, including assessment of case reports of antitumor use, with reflective assessments of the quality and quantity of evidence. Despite preclinical evidence and social media claims, the utility of cannabis, cannabinoids or cannabis-based medicines in the treatment of cancer remains to be convincingly demonstrated. With an acceptable safety profile, cannabis and its congeners may be useful in managing symptoms related to cancer or its treatment. Further clinical trials should be conducted to evaluate whether the preclinical antitumor effects translate into benefit for cancer patients. Oncologists should familiarize themselves with the available database to be able to better advise their patients on the potential uses of this complementary botanical therapy.

Chronic Pain Clinical and Prescriptive Practices in the Cannabis Era.

BACKGROUND: To explore how health care providers in the United States are adapting clinical recommendations and prescriptive practices in response to patient use of medical cannabis (MC) for chronic pain symptoms. DESIGN: Literature searches queried MeSH/Subject terms "chronic pain," "clinician," "cannabis," and Boolean text words "practice" and "analgesics" in EBSCOHost, EMBASE, PubMed, and Scopus, published 2010-2021 in the United States. Twenty-one primary, peer-reviewed studies met criteria. METHODS: Studies are synthesized under major headings: recommending MC for chronic pain; MC and prescription opioids; and harm reduction of MC. RESULTS: MC is increasingly utilized by patients for chronic pain symptoms. Clinical recommendations for or against MC are influenced by scopes of practice, state or federal laws, institutional policies, education, potential patient harm (or indirect harm of others), and perceived confidence. Epidemiologic and cohort studies show downward trajectories of opioid prescribing and consumption in states with legal cannabis. However, clinicians' recommendations and prescription practices are nonuniform. Impacts of cannabis laws are clear between nongovernmental and governmental institutions. Strategies addressing MC and opioid use include frequent visits, and, to reduce harm, suggesting alternative therapies and treating substance use disorders. CONCLUSIONS: MC use for chronic pain is increasing with cannabis legalization. Provider practices are heterogenous, demonstrating a balance of treating chronic pain using available evidence, while being aware of potential harms associated with MC and opioids.

Epilepsy and cannabis: so near, yet so far.

Following media attention on children with refractory epilepsies reportedly deriving benefit from cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs), the UK government changed the law in 2018 so that CBMPs could be legally prescribed. Subsequently, a pure cannabidiol (CBD) product has been licensed for two epilepsy syndromes. However, despite pressure from campaign groups and allied politicians, almost no children have received unlicensed CBMPs under the UK NHS. This review explores the science behind CBMPs in paediatric epilepsies and highlights the areas that warrant further research. It identifies a lack of level I evidence for efficacy and safety as, currently, the major obstacle to prescribing. Unlicensed medicines are often used in paediatrics but almost all are used 'off-label', with supporting evidence of efficacy and safety derived either from other age-groups or from disease conditions. CBMPs, except for pure CBD, are unique in that they are currently both unlicensed and fall outside the 'off-label' category. The review acknowledges the treatment gap in refractory epilepsies and the potential use of CBMPs. However, it argues against exceptionally circumventing the usual standard of evidence required by regulatory prescribing authorities and warns against allowing vulnerable children to become the 'trojan horse' for deregulation of the commercial cannabis market.

The Long-Term, Prospective, Therapeutic Impact of Cannabis on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Introduction: Given the increasing availability and use of cannabis among individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the addition of PTSD as an eligible diagnosis in several U.S. medical cannabis programs, the efficacy of dispensary-obtained cannabis needs to be thoroughly examined. Materials and Methods: This prospective study assessed PTSD symptoms and functioning every 3 months over the course of a year in two samples of participants diagnosed with PTSD: (1) those with PTSD using dispensary-obtained cannabis (cannabis users) and (2) those with PTSD, who do not use cannabis (controls). Linear mixed-effects models and generalized estimating equations tested whether trajectories of symptoms differed between the two subsamples. Results: A total of 150 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 50.67 [15.26] years; 73% male) were enrolled in the study. Over the course of 1 year, the cannabis users reported a greater decrease in PTSD symptom severity over time compared to controls [group×time interaction=-0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.59 to -0.05, R2=0.13; t=-2.35, p=0.02). Participants who used cannabis were 2.57 times more likely to no longer meet DSM-5 criteria for PTSD at the end of the study observation period compared to participants who did not use cannabis (95% CI=1.12-6.07; p=0.03). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that the types of cannabis available in recreational and medical cannabis dispensaries might hold promise as an alternative treatment for PTSD. Randomized placebo-controlled trials are needed to assess safety and determine how different preparations of cannabis impact PTSD and functioning.