Cannabidiol - therapeutic and legal aspects.

Cannabidiol (CBD) is an alkaloid present in Cannabis sativa, along with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and more than 100 other substances belonging to a group of compounds called cannabinoids. Whereas the legal status and medical use of Cannabis is a controversial issue in many countries, inconsistent legislation makes CBD status even more complicated. Some CBD products are legal in some countries, while banned in other countries, further compounding the confusion. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first CBD containing medical product, Epidiolex®, for the treatment of paediatric seizures. Currently, several clinical trials are in progress for the potential treatment of neurologic and behavioural disorders. CBD's current legal and regulatory status is a continuously evolving issue; the current review is presenting historical and present information regarding the use of CBD products worldwide.

Understanding Cannabis-Based Therapeutics in Sports Medicine.

CONTEXT: With increased use of cannabis-based products by the public for both recreational and medical use, sports medicine clinicians should be informed of historical context, current legal considerations, and existing evidence with regard to efficacy, safety, and risks in the athletic community. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A review of ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from 2015 to present was conducted with emphasis on the most recent literature using search terms, cannabis, nabiximols, cannabinoids, pain management, THC, CBD, and marijuana. Bibliographies based on original search were utilized to pursue further literature search. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. RESULTS: At present, limited high-quality studies exist for use of cannabinoids for acute pain, chronic pain, or concussion. None of the trials involving cannabinoids included the athletic population. Thus, results from this clinical review are extrapolated to conditions of the sports medicine population. For acute pain, 2 small-randomized double-blinded crossover trials concluded no immediate effect of cannabinoid therapy. More robust evidence exists for treatment of chronic pain conditions through meta-analysis and systemic reviews. Cannabinoid therapy exhibits moderate efficacy as a treatment for some chronic pain conditions. Investigations included a broad spectrum of chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic, musculoskeletal, inflammatory, and central pain conditions, and reveal reduction in pain and improvement of quality of life with limited adverse effects. For concussion, evidence is based on preclinical in vitro and animal models revealing possible neuroprotective effects as well as 2 clinical studies involving the presence of cannabinoids for concussion (some sports-related), but there are no high-quality trials evaluating efficacy for treatment with cannabinoids at this time. CONCLUSION: Although various biochemical explanations exist on the use of cannabinoid therapy through modulation of the endocannabinoid system for several medical issues affecting athletes, recommendations from clinicians must be extrapolated from a majority of research done in the nonathletic population. Lack of strong-quality clinical evidence, coupled with inconsistent federal and state law as well as purity issues with cannabis-based products, make it difficult for the sports medicine clinician to widely recommend cannabinoid therapeutics at present. Future larger, higher quality clinical research studies with standardized pure extracts will better guide appropriate medical use going forward. At present, evidence for a multitude of therapeutic applications is emerging for cannabinoid treatment approaches. With emphasis placed on patient-centered clinical decisions, cannabinoids hold promise of treatment for athletes with chronic pain conditions. Clinicians who treat the athletic community must consider legal and ethical issues when discussing and recommending the use of cannabinoids, with acknowledgment of inconsistencies in purity of various formulations and concerns of drug testing.

Drug Legalization and Decriminalization Beliefs Among Substance-using and Nonusing Individuals.

OBJECTIVES: There has been advocacy for legalization of abusable substances, but systematic data on societal beliefs regarding such legalization are limited. People who use substances may have unique beliefs about legalization, and this study assessed whether they would be in favor of drug legalization/decriminalization. It was hypothesized that those who use particular drugs (especially marijuana) would support its legalization/decriminalization, but that this would not be the case across all classes (especially opioids and stimulants). METHODS: A nationwide sample of 506 adults were surveyed online to assess demographic characteristics, substance misuse, and beliefs regarding drug legalization/decriminalization. Legalization/decriminalization beliefs for specific drugs were assessed on an 11-point scale (0, strongly disagree; 10, strongly agree). RESULTS: For persons with opioid misuse (15.4%), when asked about their agreement with: "heroin should be legalized," the mean score was 4.6 (SEE = 0.4; neutral). For persons with stimulant misuse (12.1%), when asked about their agreement with: "cocaine should be legalized," the score was 4.2 (0.5). However, for persons with marijuana misuse (34.0%), when asked about their agreement with: "medical marijuana should be legalized" the score was 8.2 (0.3; indicating agreement), and for "recreational marijuana" the score was also 8.2 (0.3). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that persons who used marijuana strongly support the legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana, whereas persons who primarily have opioid or stimulant misuse have less strongly held beliefs about legalization of substances within those respective categories. By including those who misuse drugs, these data assist in framing discussions of drug legalization and have the potential to inform drug policy considerations.

Cohort study of medical cannabis authorisation and healthcare utilisation in 2014-2017 in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The impact of medical cannabis on healthcare utilisation between 2014 and 2017 in Ontario, Canada. With cannabis legalisation in Canada and some states in the USA, high-quality longitudinal cohort research studies are of urgent need to assess the impact of cannabis use on healthcare utilisation. METHODS: A matched cohort study of 9925 medical cannabis authorised adult patients (inhaled (smoked or vaporised) or orally consumed (oils)) at specialised cannabis clinics, and inclusion of 17 732 controls (not authorised) between 24 April 2014 and 31 March 2017 from Ontario, Canada. Interrupted time series and multivariate Poisson regression analyses were conducted. Medical cannabis impact on healthcare utilisation was measured over 6 months: all-cause physician visits, all-cause hospitalisation, ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC)-related hospitalisations, all-cause emergency department (ED) visits and ACSC-related ED visits. RESULTS: For medical cannabis patients compared with controls, there was an initial (within the first month) increase in physician visits (additional 4330 visits per 10 000 patients). However, a numerical reduction was noted over the 6-month follow-up, and no statistical difference was observed (p=0.126). Likewise, in hospitalisations and ACSC ED visits, there was an initial increase (44 per 10 000 people, p<0.05) but no statistical difference after follow-up (p=0.34). Conversely, no initial increase in all-cause ED visits was observed with a slight decrease (19 visits per 10 000 patients, p=0.014) in follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: An initial increase (within first month) in healthcare utilisation may be expected among medical cannabis users that appears to wane over time. Proactive follow-up of patients using medical cannabis is warranted to minimise initial risks to patients and actively assess potential benefits/harms of ongoing use.

State-level marijuana policies and marijuana use and marijuana use disorder among a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States, 2015-2017: Sexual identity and gender matter.

BACKGROUND: Research demonstrates an association between state-level medical marijuana laws (MMLs) and increased marijuana use (MU) and MU disorder (MUD) among adults, but has yet to explore this association among lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals, including gender differences. METHODS: We pooled the 2015-2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data for adults (n = 126,463) and used gender-stratified adjusted multivariable logistic regression to model the odds of past-year MU, past-year medical MU, daily/near-daily MU, and MUD; we also tested the interaction between MML state residence and sexual identity. RESULTS: Bisexual women had higher past-year MU (40% versus 10.3%; aOR = 2.9[2.4-3.4]), daily/near-daily MU (9.8% versus 1.5%; aOR = 4.6[3.3-6.2]), and medical MU ((5.5% versus 1.2%) aOR = 5.5[3.8-8.1]) than heterosexual women. Gay/lesbian women also had higher past-year MU (26.1% versus 10.3%; aOR = 2.8[2.2-3.7]), daily/near-daily MU (5.6% versus 1.5%; aOR = 2.9[1.8-4.6]), and medical MU (4.7% versus 1.2%; aOR = 3.0(1.4-6.6]) than heterosexual women. Bisexual women in MML states had higher past-year MU ((44.4% vs. 34.1%); aOR = 1.8[1.5-2.1]) and medical use (7.1% vs. 3.3% (aOR = 2.5[1.5-3.9]) than bisexual women in non-MML states. The odds of any past-year medical MU for bisexual versus heterosexual women was different in MML versus non-MML states (Exponentiated ß = 0.53, p = 0.01). Gay men in MML states had higher past year MU (31.2% versus 25.7%; aOR = 1.6[1.1-2.5] and medical MU (6.4% vs 1.7%; aOR = 5.0[4.2-6.1]) than gay men in non-MML states. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that MMLs may differentially impact MU for sexual minority individuals-particularly bisexual women. Findings demonstrate the need for states enacting MMLs to consider potential differential impacts on LGB populations.

Dissociation between the growing opioid demands and drug policy directions among the U.S. older adults with degenerative joint diseases.

We aim to examine temporal trends of orthopedic operations and opioid-related hospital stays among seniors in the nation and states of Oregon and Washington where marijuana legalization was accepted earlier than any others.As aging society advances in the United States (U.S.), orthopedic operations and opioid-related hospital stays among seniors increase in the nation.A serial cross-sectional cohort study using the healthcare cost and utilization project fast stats from 2006 through 2015 measured annual rate per 100,000 populations of orthopedic operations by age groups (45-64 vs 65 and older) as well as annual rate per 100,000 populations of opioid-related hospital stays among 65 and older in the nation, Oregon and Washington states from 2008 through 2017. Orthopedic operations (knee arthroplasty, total or partial hip replacement, spinal fusion or laminectomy) and opioid-related hospital stays were measured. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) was used to quantify temporal trends of orthopedic operations by age groups as well as opioid-related hospital stays and was tested by Rao-Scott correction of χ for categorical variables.The CAGR (4.06%) of orthopedic operations among age 65 and older increased (P < .001) unlike the unchanged rate among age 45 to 64. The CAGRs of opioid-related hospital stays among age 65 and older were upward trends among seniors in general (6.79%) and in Oregon (10.32%) and Washington (15.48%) in particular (all P < .001).Orthopedic operations and opioid-related hospital stays among seniors increased over time in the U.S. Marijuana legalization might have played a role of gateway drug to opioid among seniors.

Cannabis medicinal en Argentina: perspectiva desde la salud pública / Medicinal cannabis in Argentina: a public health perspective

Esta revisión analiza la situación actual de la utilización del como herramienta terapéutica dentro del ámbito de la salud en Argentina, haciendo referencia a los distintos actores involucrados y dilemas futuros que pueden presentarse. Paracomprender en su totalidad el marco social, cultural e histórico, se desarrollan distintos aspectos, como la descripción química y biológica del , evolución del consumo a través de la historia, las repercusiones del consumo y las distintas aplicaciones que tiene en el campo de la medicina. También se describen las diferentes realidades que hay en el mundo, así como las legislaciones de otros países y la comparación de estas con la que tenemos en nuestro país. Finalmente se mencionan los desafíos pendientes y sus posibles abordajes.(AU)

This review analyzes the current situation of the use of cannabis as a therapeutic tool in the field of health in Argentina,referring to the different actors involved and future dilemmas that may arise. To fully understand the social, cultural andhistorical framework, different aspects can be defined, such as the chemical and biological description of cannabis, theevolution of consumption throughout history, the repercussions of recreational consumption and the different applicationsthat it has on the medical field. It also describes the different realities that exist in the world, as well as the laws of othercountries and the comparison of these with the one we have in our country. Finally, the pending challenges and theirpossible approaches, are mentioned.(AU)

Old Herb, 'New' Purpose: A Preliminary Analysis of Marijuana as a Medicine in Barbados / Hierba vieja, 'propósito nuevo': un análisis preliminar de la marihuana como medicina en Barbados

ABSTRACT Barbadians, like their Caribbean neighbours, are not newcomers to using herbs for medicinal purposes. It has been suggested that prior to the 1930s and beyond, the herb Cannabis sativa was being used for various ailments. Much of the present debate in Barbados revolves around the increasing recognition that the condemned plant seen as injurious to society, especially the youth, represents a potential treatment for several illnesses. This article specifically examines the social construction of marijuana as a drug or substance of abuse versus its use as a medicine and the impact of the present prohibitionist policy on its use especially as a medicine.

RESUMEN Los barbadenses, al igual que sus vecinos caribeños, no son advenedizos en cuanto al uso de hierbas con propósitos medicinales. Se ha sugerido que antes y después de la década de 1930, la hierba Cannabis sativa era ya utilizada para tratar varias dolencias. Gran parte del actual debate en Barbados gira en torno al creciente reconocimiento de que dicha planta - condenada por considerársele perjudicial para la sociedad y especialmente para la juventud - representa hoy un tratamiento potencial de varias enfermedades. Este artículo examina específicamente la construcción social de la marihuana como droga o sustancia de abuso, frente a su uso como medicamento. Asimismo, se aborda el impacto de la políticas prohibicionistas actuales sobre su uso, especialmente como medicamento.

An update on cannabis use disorder with comment on the impact of policy related to therapeutic and recreational cannabis use.

Confusion and controversy related to the potential for cannabis use to cause harm, or alternatively to provide benefit, continues globally. This issue has grown in intensity and importance with the increased recognition of the public health implications related to the escalation of the legalization of cannabis and cannabinoid products. This selective overview and commentary attempt to succinctly convey what is known about one potential consequence of cannabis use, the development of cannabis use disorder (CUD). Such knowledge may help guide a reasonable and objective public health perspective on the potential impact of cannabis use and CUD. Current scientific data and clinical observation strongly support the contention that cannabis use, like the use of other substances such as alcohol, opioids, stimulants, and tobacco, can develop into a use disorder (addiction) with important clinical consequences. Epidemiological data indicate that the majority of those who use cannabis do not have problems related to their use, but a substantial subset (10-30%) do report experiencing symptoms and consequences consistent with a CUD. Treatment seeking for CUD comprises a substantial proportion of all substance use treatment admissions, yet treatment response rates show much room for improvement. Changing cannabis policies related to its therapeutic and recreational use are likely to impact the development of CUD and its course; however, definitive data on such effects are not yet available. Clearly, the development of more effective prevention and treatment strategies is needed for those vulnerable to developing a CUD and for those with a CUD.

Cannabis Legalization Does Not Influence Patient Compliance with Opioid Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid use and opioid related deaths continue to increase nationwide. Several states have adopted legislation allowing for recreational use of cannabis. Little is known about how recreational cannabis laws impact compliance in chronic pain patients who have been prescribed opioid therapy. The goals of this study were to (1) retrospectively assess the effect of cannabis use on compliance with opioid therapy in a high-risk patient population and (2) determine the impact of legalization of recreational cannabis on patients prescribed therapeutic opioids. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on results from a "high-risk" urine drug testing panel. Results from 1 year before and 1 year after initiation of recreational cannabis legislation were analyzed. This testing panel included qualitative assays for cannabinoids and 9 other common drugs of abuse in addition to a quantitative LC-MS/MS assay for 23 different opioids and metabolites. Opioid compliance was assigned by reviewing pathologists' interpretations. RESULTS: In the pre-legalization period, 1776 panels were performed, and in the post-legalization, 1648 panels were performed. An increase (6%) in the rate of positive cannabinoids screening results was observed after legalization of recreational cannabis; however, the overall compliance rate was consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that legalization of recreational cannabis does not affect compliance rate in patients treated with opioid therapy for chronic pain.

Marijuana Use in the Era of Changing Cannabis Laws: What Are the Risks? Who is Most at Risk?

We review recent findings on medical aspects of marijuana use in order to identify those who are at greatest risk of marijuana-related medical problems. We analyze the impact of medical marijuana laws on health, in particular the disproportionate effects on adolescents and children. Chronic marijuana use predominantly affects certain areas of the brain that overlap the default mode network, linked hubs in the brain that play a supervisory role in critical thought processes such as attention, memory, and social interactions. Disruption of the default mode network areas has been documented in schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease, illnesses with symptoms and brain changes that parallel findings in marijuana abusers. These findings counter the claim that marijuana is a harmless drug and are a cause for alarm in persons with cannabis dependence.

Comparing medical and recreational cannabis use among employees: associations with health and work-related outcomes.

Nearly one in five US employees reports having used cannabis in the past year. As policies and laws regarding cannabis use rapidly change, concerns have arisen over employees' use of cannabis, for both medical and recreational purposes. While extant workplace research has not distinguished between types of cannabis users, other studies have found that medical users are clinically and socio-demographically different from non-medical users. This study utilized a sample of employed National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) respondents to examine differences in workplace characteristics and health outcomes among employed medical, recreational, and mixed-use cannabis users. While some differences were initially seen when examining health and work-related outcomes between the groups, several changed after controlling for other important health-related factors. One key difference between the user groups is the higher percentages of medical and mixed-use cannabis users in the construction and mining industries. This study discusses future research needs, as well as practical implications for workers and employers.

Legalization of Medicinal Marijuana Has Minimal Impact on Use Patterns in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Background: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have reported use of marijuana to treat symptoms of the disease, yet its classification as a Schedule 1 substance by the federal government has restricted its use. In 2012, Massachusetts legalized medicinal marijuana. We aimed to assess the impact of legalization on use in IBD. Methods: Consecutive patients with IBD, cared for at a tertiary care center in Boston, were surveyed regarding use of marijuana, including its perceived benefits and attitudes. Data were then compared with results of a similar survey study conducted at our center in 2012, before marijuana's legalization. Results: The survey was completed by 302 patients. There was a significant increase in marijuana use overall from 12.3% in 2012 to 22.8% in 2017 (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant increase in medicinal use from 2012 to 2017. On bivariate analysis, severe disease, as assessed by SIBDQ score, prior hospitalization, biologic therapy use, prior surgery, and chronic abdominal pain, was found to be more predictive of medicinal use now than in 2012. Among patients surveyed who have never used marijuana, 39.4% reported being interested in using medicinal marijuana, and 54.3% indicated that legalization did not affect their likelihood of using medicinal marijuana. Conclusions: In an IBD tertiary care center, we identified an overall upward trend in marijuana use but no significant change in medicinal use since its legalization in 2012. Our data suggests that the legalization of medical marijuana has resulted in an insignificant change in medicinal marijuana use in this population. 10.1093/ibd/izy141_video1izy141.video15786500236001.

Medical Marijuana Update.

The majority of states now allow medical marijuana, and recent court decisions could influence workplace practice concerning its use.

Oversold? Has Cannabis Oil Been Overhyped in Texas?

Will cannabis oil live up to its hype for epilepsy patients in Texas?

Marijuana Use and Organ Transplantation: a Review and Implications for Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Physicians of all disciplines must rapidly adjust their clinical practices following the expansion of marijuana legalization across the country. Organ transplantation teams are uniquely struggling in this gray zone with eight states having passed laws explicitly banning the denial of transplant listing based on a patient's use of medical marijuana. In this review, we examine the clinical evidence of marijuana use in transplant patients to enable psychiatric providers to meaningfully contribute to the relevant medical and psychiatric aspects of this issue in a unique patient population. RECENT FINDINGS: There is no consensus among experts regarding marijuana use in transplantation patients. There are extant case reports of post-transplant complications attributed to marijuana use including membranous glomerulonephritis, ventricular tachycardia, and tacrolimus toxicity. However, recent studies suggest that the overall survival rates in kidney, liver, lung, and heart transplant patients using marijuana are equivalent to non-users. Transplant teams should not de facto exclude marijuana users from transplant listing but instead holistically evaluate a patient's candidacy, integrating meaningful medical, psychiatric, and social variables into the complex decision-making process. Psychiatric providers can play a key role in this process. Appropriate stewardship over donor organs, a limited and precious resource, will require a balance of high-clinical standards with inclusive efforts to treat as many patients as possible.