Does acute cannabidiol (CBD) use impair performance? A meta-analysis and comparison with placebo and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

Cannabidiol (CBD) is widely used and believed to be non-intoxicating, lacking acute performance effects (e.g., non-impairing). However, a synthesis of data has not evaluated this. This meta-analysis synthesized data from controlled human laboratory studies that evaluated if acute CBD use impairs performance. Performance on objective and subjective measures of cognitive and psychomotor function were used as markers for potential performance changes and impairment. Studies were identified through systematic database searches. Adult clinical trials measuring acute CBD effects (within 0-8 h of administration) were included. The primary outcome was the peak mean difference in performance measures between CBD and placebo. A secondary analysis utilizing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) as a positive control for comparison to CBD was completed. Pooled Hedges' g estimates were calculated using robust variance estimation (RVE) meta-regression. The omnibus RVE meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant, but small effect size (Hedge's g < 0.2) for impaired performance following acute CBD consumption compared to placebo (N = 16 trials, Hedges' g = 0.122, 95% CI: 0.023-0.221, p = 0.019). Measure type was a significant moderator with larger mean differences between CBD and placebo when subjective measures, specifically self-reported sedation, were used versus objective performance tasks (Hedges' gSubjective = 0.288 versus Hedges' gObjective = 0.048). Δ9-THC had a significantly greater magnitude of impairment compared to CBD (N = 8, Hedges' g = 0.416, 95% CI: 0.017-0.816, p = 0.043). In summary, acute CBD consumption was associated with a small increase in subjective ratings of sedation, but no difference from placebo was observed across multiple domains of objectively assessed cognitive or psychomotor performance. These findings suggest that acute CBD alone is unlikely to significantly impair daily functioning or workplace performance.

Cannabis vaporisation: Understanding products, devices and risks.

ISSUES: Vaporisation is a common method of cannabis administration. Inconsistent terminology and jargon regarding vaporisation has led to confusion. The increasing public interest and access to cannabis, combined with possible safety concerns associated with certain cannabis vaping products, warrants improved consumer and public and health care professional knowledge. APPROACH: To improve this knowledge, we conducted a review of the common terminology, regulatory status, products and device types related to cannabis vaporisation. KEY FINDINGS: Cannabis vaporisation devices can be separated into nine types. While vaporisation reduces respiratory risks associated with cannabis combustion, not all vaping products and device types carry the same level of safety. Metered dose inhalers and dried product vaporisers present the lowest safety risk due to a lower risk of toxin exposure and the use of lower tetrahydrocannabinol potency products. IMPLICATIONS: As both vaping and cannabis use increase in popularity, focusing on accurate health education will help facilitate health promotion to encourage lower risk use. The current lack of understanding on risk differences between types of cannabis vaporisation is a missed opportunity for harm reduction. Increased opportunities for public health and health care professional education on different cannabis vaporisation devices and associated risks are warranted. Improvements to health warning labelling may also be beneficial. CONCLUSION: Not all cannabis vaporisation devices and products carry the same level of risk. A better understanding of risk differentiation is needed among consumers and health professionals. Continued research, policy development and health education can lead to safer cannabis vaporisation.

A Clinical Framework for Evaluating Cannabis Product Quality and Safety.

Increase in medical cannabis use, along with available products, warrants the need for clinicians to be knowledgeable in evaluating the quality of any cannabis product presented in clinical practice. Determining whether a product is regulated within the region is key in assessing overall quality and safety. Regulated products are held to a higher standard including independent testing, contamination mitigation, and concentration limits. Here, we present a clinical framework in evaluating cannabis products to ascertain the quality and regulation level of the product. Evaluation includes assessing the source company, reviewing product details (e.g., type, cannabinoid content, and labeling), and assessing quality control variables such as manufacturing and decontamination processes. The quality of products patients use is an important part of mitigating cannabis-related harms, especially in medically vulnerable patients. Currently, there is a great need to implement widespread standardization and regulations to ensure product quality and safety.

Therapeutic use of psilocybin: Practical considerations for dosing and administration.

The interest in psilocybin as a therapeutic approach has grown exponentially in recent years. Despite increasing access, there remains a lack of practical guidance on the topic for health care professionals. This is particularly concerning given the medical complexity and vulnerable nature of patients for whom psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy may be considered. This article aims to provide health care professionals with an overview of practical considerations for psilocybin therapy, rooted in a patient safety focus. Within this piece we will review basic psilocybin pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, indications, practical therapeutic strategies (e.g., dosing, administration, monitoring) and safety considerations (e.g., contraindications, adverse events, and drug interactions). With this information, our goal is to increase the knowledge and comfort of health care professionals to discuss and counsel their patients on psilocybin therapy, ultimately improving patient care and safety.

A Clinical Framework for Assessing Cannabis-Related Impairment Risk.

Clinicians play an important role in promoting safe and responsible medical cannabis use. One essential component to safe use is considering a patient's risk of neurocognitive impairment. However, there remains a lack of practical guidance on how clinicians can evaluate this risk for medical cannabis patients. Here, a practical framework is presented for clinicians to assess and stratify cannabis-associated impairment risk. The proposed framework is intended to practically guide healthcare providers in gaining a more comprehensive review of a patient's impairment-related factors. This framework can be used to assess impairment risk for patients currently using or considering medical cannabis and is recommended for all patients who perform safety-sensitive duties. Healthcare providers (HCP) managing patient's medical cannabis or those conducting assessments to determine risk of impairment for safety-sensitive workplaces can utilize this framework to stratify patients' risk of impairment. Such assessments can inform patient-specific needs for support, education, and guidance, to ensure cannabis is used safely and responsibly.