Patients' perspectives on prescription cannabinoid therapies: a cross-sectional, exploratory, anonymous, one-time web-based survey among German patients.

Introduction: Since cannabinoids were partially legalized as prescription medicines in Germany in 2017, they are mostly used when conventional therapies do not suffice. Ambiguities remain regarding use, benefits and risks. This web-based survey explored the perspectives of patients whose experiences are not well enough known to date. Methods: In an anonymous, exploratory, cross-sectional, one-time web-based observational study, participants receiving cannabinoid therapy on prescription documented aspects of their medical history, diagnoses, attitudes toward cannabinoids, physical symptoms, and emotional states. Participants completed the questionnaires twice here: first regarding the time of the survey and then, retrospectively, for the time before their cannabinoid therapy. Participants were recruited in a stratified manner in three German federal states. Results: N = 216 participants (48.1% female, aged 51.8 ± 14.0) completed the survey, most of which (72%, n = 155) reported pain as their main reason for cannabinoid therapy. When comparing the current state with the retrospectively assessed state, participants reported greater satisfaction with their overall medical therapy (TSQM II: +47.9 ± 36.5, p < 0.001); improved well-being (WHO-5: +7.8 ± 5.9, p < 0.001) and fewer problems in PROMIS subscales (all p < 0.001). Patients suffering primarily from pain (72%, n = 155) reported a reduction of daily pain (NRS: -3.2 ± 2.0, p < 0.001), while participants suffering mainly from spasticity (8%, n = 17) stated decreased muscle spasticity (MSSS: -1.5 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) and better physical mobility (-0.8 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). Data suggests clinically relevant effects for most scores. Participants' attitudes toward cannabinoids (on a 5-point scale) improved (+1.1 ± 1.1, p < 0.001). Most patients (n = 146, 69%) did not report major difficulties with the cannabinoid prescription process, while (n = 27; 19%) had their cannabinoid therapy changed due to side effects. Discussion: Most participants experienced their therapy with cannabinoids as more effective than their previous therapy. There are extensive limitations to this cross-sectional study: the originally intended representativeness of the dataset was not reached, partly due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic; the sample has a larger proportion of privately insured and self-paying patients. Results does not suggest that cannabinoid patients belong to a particular clientele. Effect sizes observed for pain reduction, quality of life, social participation, and other outcomes suggest a therapeutic potential, particularly in the treatment of chronic pain.

[Dronabinol in geriatric pain and palliative care patients : A retrospective evaluation of statutory-health-insurance-covered outpatient medical treatment]. / Dronabinol bei geriatrischen Schmerz- und Palliativpatienten : Eine retrospektive Auswertung der ambulanten kassenärztlichen Therapie.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric patients often suffer from a long history of pain and have a limited life expectancy. Cannabinoid receptor agonists like dronabinol may be an effective, low-risk treatment option for geriatric patients with chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness and side effects of dronabinol therapy in geriatric patients are analyzed. The effects of the approval requirement are presented. METHODS: In our retrospective monocentric cohort study, the study population comprised all geriatric patients over the age of 80 years who were treated in our office since the cannabis law came into effect on 10 March 2017 until 17 July 2018 (evaluation date). Geriatric, nonpalliative pain patients (group A) and geriatric palliative patients (group B) were investigated. The basis of the evaluation was a questionnaire sheet that we use in our office with details of dosages, pain intensity, treatment effects and side effects from dronabinol therapy. RESULTS: By using dronabinol, 21 of the 40 geriatric patients (52.5%) achieved pain relief of more than 30%, 10% of the patients of more than 50%. On average, about four symptoms or side effects related to previous treatment were positively influenced. 26% of patients reported side effects. The rejection rates on the part of the health insurances were 38.7% (group A) and 10.3% (group B). CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the few analyses of the use of Dronabinol in geriatric patients. We show that cannabis-based drugs (in this case dronabinol) are an effective, low-risk treatment option that should be considered early in therapy. Regarding the indication spectrum, further clinical studies and an approval-free test phase are necessary.

[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.

Outpatients on mechanical circulatory support.

BACKGROUND: As waiting periods for heart transplantation have lengthened, the application of long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has become more common in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock. Anticipating increased long-term MCS, a policy to discharge patients home has been instituted. This study compares the results of outpatient on MCS to a group of patients remaining hospitalized. METHODS: We report our 10-year experience with 108 patients on MCS, who were supported for more than 3 months. Group A consisted of 38 patients (25 Novacor, 13 Berlin Heart) who underwent assist implantation from 1996 to 2001. They had a mean support time of 454 days (range 100 to 1074 days) and spent a mean of 326 days (range 20 to 769 days) at home. Group B consisted of 70 patients (24 Novacor, 46 Berlin Heart) who underwent assist implantation between 1991 and 2000. They had a mean support time of 234 days (range 95 to 795 days) and were not discharged. The patients were monitored for complications, hospital readmissions, and causes of death including infections and thromboembolic and bleeding events during the MCS time. RESULTS: Group A total mortality was 16% (6/38). Two patients died from cerebral embolism, one from cerebral hemorrhage, two from systemic infection, and one from multiorgan failure. Thirty-two patients (84%) required 95 readmissions to the hospital due to cerebral embolism (n = 9), bleeding (n = 1), wound infections (n = 23), coagulation disorder (n = 13) for heart transplantation (n = 5), and (n = 44). In group B the mortality was 43% (30/70) for noncardiac reasons and thus significant higher (p = 0.004, chi2 test). Causes of death were cerebral embolism (n = 5), cerebral hemorrhage (n = 7), systemic infection (n = 14, significantly higher, p = 0.04, chi2 test), and multiorgan failure (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience demonstrates that MCS can be used in outpatients without increased mortality and with an acceptable rate of readmissions (2.8/patient). It ensures the survival of the patient, enables recovery from multiorgan failure, and offers an acceptable quality of life.