Trends in U.S. Medical Cannabis Registrations, Authorizing Clinicians, and Reasons for Use From 2020 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: As medical cannabis availability increases, up-to-date trends in medical cannabis licensure can inform clinical policy and care. OBJECTIVE: To describe current trends in medical cannabis licensure in the United States. DESIGN: Ecological study with repeated measures. SETTING: Publicly available state registry data from 2020 to 2022. PARTICIPANTS: People with medical cannabis licenses and clinicians authorizing cannabis licenses in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Total patient volume and prevalence per 10 000 persons in the total population, symptoms or conditions qualifying patients for licensure (that is, patient-reported qualifying conditions), and number of authorizing clinicians. RESULTS: In 2022, of 39 jurisdictions allowing medical cannabis use, 34 reported patient numbers, 19 reported patient-reported qualifying conditions, and 29 reported authorizing clinician numbers. Enrolled patients increased 33.3% from 2020 (3 099 096) to 2022 (4 132 098), with a corresponding 23.0% increase in the population prevalence of patients (175.0 per 10 000 in 2020 to 215.2 per 10 000 in 2022). However, 13 of 15 jurisdictions with nonmedical adult-use laws had decreased enrollment from 2020 to 2022. The proportion of patient-reported qualifying conditions with substantial or conclusive evidence of therapeutic value decreased from 70.4% (2020) to 53.8% (2022). Chronic pain was the most common patient-reported qualifying condition in 2022 (48.4%), followed by anxiety (14.2%) and posttraumatic stress disorder (13.0%). In 2022, the United States had 29 500 authorizing clinicians (7.7 per 1000 patients), 53.5% of whom were physicians. The most common specialties reported were internal or family medicine (63.4%), physical medicine and rehabilitation (9.1%), and anesthesia or pain (7.9%). LIMITATION: Missing data (for example, from California), descriptive analysis, lack of information on individual use patterns, and changing evidence base. CONCLUSION: Enrollment in medical cannabis programs increased overall but generally decreased in jurisdictions with nonmedical adult-use laws. Use for conditions or symptoms without a strong evidence basis continues to increase. Given these trends, more research is needed to better understand the risks and benefits of medical cannabis. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Perceptions and engagement of patients with chronic conditions on the use of medical cannabis: a scoping review.

CONTEXT: Studies generally focus on one type of chronic condition and the effect of medical cannabis (MC) on symptoms; little is known about the perceptions and engagement of patients living with chronic conditions regarding the use of MC. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aims to explore: (1) what are the dimensions addressed in studies on MC that deal with patients' perceptions of MC? and (2) how have patients been engaged in developing these studies and their methodologies? Through these objectives, we have identified areas for improving future research. METHODS: We searched five databases and applied exclusion criteria to select relevant articles. A thematic analysis approach was used to identify the main themes: (1) reasons to use, to stop using or not to use MC, (2) effects of MC on patients themselves and empowerment, (3) perspective and knowledge about MC, and (4) discussion with relatives and healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Of 53 articles, the main interest when assessing the perceptions of MC is to identify the reasons to use MC (n = 39), while few articles focused on the reasons leading to stop using MC (n = 13). The majority (85%) appraise the effects of MC as perceived by patients. Less than one third assessed patients' sense of empowerment. Articles determining the beliefs surrounding and knowledge of MC (n = 41) generally addressed the concerns about or the comfort level with respect to using MC. Only six articles assessed patients' stereotypes regarding cannabis. Concerns about stigma constituted the main topic while assessing relationships with relatives. Some articles included patients in the research, but none of them had co-created the data collection tool with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our review outlined that few studies considered chronic diseases as a whole and that few patients are involved in the co-construction of data collection tools as well. There is an evidence gap concerning the results in terms of methodological quality when engaging patients in their design. Future research should evaluate why cannabis' effectiveness varies between patients, and how access affects the decision to use or not to use MC, particularly regarding the relationship between patients and healthcare providers. Future research should consider age and gender while assessing perceptions and should take into consideration the legislation status of cannabis as these factors could in fact shape perception. To reduce stigma and stereotypes about MC users, better quality and accessible information on MC should be disseminated.

Cannabis Nursing.

Care for those seeking guidance in the therapeutic use of cannabis.

Stigma, risks, and benefits of medicinal cannabis use among Australians with cancer.

PURPOSE: People with cancer who use medicinal cannabis do so despite risks associated with limited clinical evidence, legalities, and stigma. This study investigated how Australians with cancer rationalise their medicinal cannabis use despite its risks. METHODS: Ten adults (5 males and 5 females; mean age of 53.3) who used cannabis medicinally for their cancer were interviewed in 2021-2022 about how they used and accessed the substance, attitudes and beliefs underpinning their use, and conversations with others about medicinal cannabis. RESULTS: Participants had cancer of the bowel, skin, oesophagus, stomach, thyroid, breast, and Hodgkin lymphoma for which they were receiving treatment (n = 5) or under surveillance (n = 5), with most (n = 6) encountering metastatic disease. Cannabis was used to treat a variety of cancer-related symptoms such as pain, poor sleep, and low mood. Cannabis was perceived as natural and thus less risky than pharmaceuticals. Participants legitimised their medicinal cannabis use by emphasising its natural qualities and distancing themselves from problematic users or riskier substances. Cost barriers and a lack of healthcare professional communication impeded prescription access. Similarly, participants navigated medicinal cannabis use independently due to a lack of guidance from healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the need for robust data regarding the harms and efficacy of medicinal cannabis and dissemination of such information among healthcare professionals and to patients who choose to use the substance. Ensuring healthcare professionals are equipped to provide non-judgmental and evidence-based guidance may mitigate potential safety and legal risks.

Benzodiazepine use in medical cannabis authorization adult patients from 2013 to 2021: Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are a class of medications that are being frequently prescribed in Canada but carry significant risk of harm. There has been increasing clinical interest on the potential "sparing effects" of medical cannabis as one strategy to reduce benzodiazepine use. The objective of this study as to examine the association of medical cannabis authorization with benzodiazepine usage between 2013 and 2021 in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: A propensity score matched cohort study with patients on regular benzodiazepine treatment authorized to use medical cannabis compared to controls who do not have authorization for medical cannabis. A total of 9690 medically authorized cannabis patients were matched to controls. To assess the effect of medical cannabis use on daily average diazepam equivalence (DDE), interrupted time series (ITS) analysis was used to assess the change in the trend of DDE in the 12 months before and 12 months after the authorization of medical cannabis. RESULTS: Over the follow-up period after medical cannabis authorization, there was no overall change in the DDE use in authorized medical cannabis patients compared to matched controls (- 0.08 DDE, 95% CI: - 0.41 to 0.24). Likewise, the sensitivity analysis showed that, among patients consuming ≤5 mg baseline DDE, there was no change immediately after medical cannabis authorization compared to controls (level change, - 0.04 DDE, 95% CI: - 0.12 to 0.03) per patient as well as in the month-to-month trend change (0.002 DDE, 95% CI: - 0.009 to 0.12) per patient was noted. CONCLUSIONS: This short-term study found that medical cannabis authorization had minimal effects on benzodiazepine use. Our findings may contribute ongoing evidence for clinicians regarding the potential impact of medical cannabis to reduce benzodiazepine use. HIGHLIGHTS: • Medical cannabis authorization had little to no effect on benzodiazepine usage among patients prescribed regular benzodiazepine treatment in Alberta, Canada. • Further clinical research is needed to investigate the potential impact of medical cannabis as an alternative to benzodiazepine medication.

Health Literacy and Demand for Medical Cannabis use among Colorectal Cancer Patients in Northern Thailand: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore health literacy and factors associated with demand for medical cannabis (MC) use among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients in Northern Thailand as a target group. METHODS: This cross-sectional analytical study administered multistage random sampling to recruit 439 CRC patients in northern Thailand. Ethical approval and signed written informed consents were obtained from the patients, prior to the study. A standardized, self-administered structured questionnaire was used to obtain the sociodemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, social support, attitudes toward MC, knowledge about MC, health literacy about MC, and questions on demand for MC use. The scores from all questionnaires were converted to percentages before analysis. RESULTS: A total of 146 (33.26%) of patients with CRC reported demand to use MC. The multivariable analysis revealed that factors associated with demand for MC among CRC patients included: had high levels of health literacy about MC (adj.OR = 7.71; 95% CI: 4.28 to 13.87), aged less than 45 years (adj.OR =5.09; 95% CI: 2.78 to 9.34), positive attitudes toward MC use (adj.OR = 4.66; 95% CI: 2.68 to 8.10), and higher levels of social support (adj.OR =4.14; 95% CI: 2.39 to 7.17) when controlling effect of other covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Health literacy is an important factor affecting the demand for MC use of CRC patients. Therefore, improving health literacy, social support, and attitudes about MC especially among younger CRC patients, could help increase demand for MC as a complementary and alternative medicine alongside cancer treatment.

The prevalence of cannabis use disorders in people who use medicinal cannabis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of cannabis use disorders (CUDs) in people who use cannabis recreationally has been estimated at 22%, yet there is a dearth of literature exploring CUDs among people who use medicinal cannabis. We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis. METHODS: In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we followed PRISMA guidelines and searched three databases (PsychInfo, Embase and PubMed) to identify studies examining the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis. Meta-analyses were calculated on the prevalence of CUDs. Prevalence estimates were pooled across different prevalence periods using the DSM-IV and DSM-5. RESULTS: We conducted a systematic review of 14 eligible publications, assessing the prevalence of CUDs, providing data for 3681 participants from five different countries. The systematic review demonstrated that demographic factors, mental health disorders and the management of chronic pain with medicinal cannabis were associated with an elevated risk of CUDs. Meta-analyses were conducted on the prevalence of CUDs. For individuals using medicinal cannabis in the past 6-12 months, the prevalence of CUDs was 29% (95% CI: 21-38%) as per DSM-5 criteria. Similar prevalence was observed using DSM-IV (24%, CI: 14-38%) for the same period. When including all prevalence periods and using the DSM-5, the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis was estimated at 25% (CI: 18-33%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis is substantial and comparable to people who use cannabis for recreational reasons, emphasizing the need for ongoing research to monitor the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis.

Older Canadians' Perceptions of the Safety, Effectiveness and Accessibility of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cannabis use is increasing among older adults, with use primarily for medicinal purposes. Much of the evidence on perceptions of cannabis is derived from younger populations and current users of cannabis. The purpose of this study was to describe community-dwelling older Canadians' perceptions of cannabis effectiveness, safety and accessibility for medicinal purposes and to identify factors influencing cannabis perceptions. METHODS: An online survey of older adults' perceptions, knowledge and experiences with cannabis was completed between February and September 2022. The survey was open to English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians aged 50 years and older regardless of their cannabis use history. RESULTS: A total of 1615 Canadians completed the survey. Respondents identified primarily as men (49.7%) or women (48.5%) of Caucasian decent. The majority of participants viewed cannabis as a reasonable alternative (65.8%) and an effective (70.5%) treatment modality for symptom management in older adults. Few respondents (16.4%) felt that older adults compared to younger adults were at a higher risk of side effects and 34.5% felt that cannabis is safe to use with most medicines. Cannabis perceptions were influenced by gender, cannabis use history (prior use vs current use) and reasons for cannabis use (recreational purposes vs medicinal purposes vs both purposes). CONCLUSIONS: Older Canadians have a positive view of the role of cannabis in symptom management. The perceptions of cannabis safety and effectiveness were influenced by gender, cannabis use history and reasons for cannabis use. Healthcare professionals should leverage these perceptions when discussing cannabis with their older patient populations.

Planting the seeds for success: A qualitative study exploring primary healthcare providers' perceptions about medical cannabis.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, cannabis legalization altered the way that the public can access cannabis for medical purposes. However, Canadians still struggle with finding healthcare professionals (HCPs) who are involved in medical cannabis counselling and authorization. This raises questions about the barriers that are causing this breakdown in care. Our study explored the perceptions of primary care providers regarding cannabis in their practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted by Zoom with HCPs in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) to discuss their experiences with medical and non-medical cannabis in practice. Family physicians and nurse practitioners who were practicing in primary care in NL were included. The interview guide and coding template were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). A thematic analysis across the TDF was then conducted. RESULTS: Twelve participants with diverse demographic backgrounds and experience levels were interviewed. Five main themes emerged including, knowledge acquisition, internal influences, patient influences, external HCP influences, and systemic influences. The TDF domain resulting in the greatest representation of codes was environmental context and resources. INTERPRETATION: The findings suggested that HCPs have significant knowledge gaps in authorizing medical cannabis, which limited their practice competence and confidence in this area. Referring patients to cannabis clinics, while enforcing harm-reduction strategies, was an interim option for patients to access cannabis for medical purposes. However, developing practice guidelines and educational resources were suggested as prominent facilitators to promote medical cannabis authorization within the healthcare system.

Associations between cannabis policies and state-level specialty cannabis use disorder treatment in the United States, 2004-2019.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder (CUD) treatment prevalence decreased in the US between 2002 and 2019, yet structural mechanisms for this decrease are poorly understood. We tested associations between cannabis laws becoming effective and self-reported CUD treatment. METHODS: Restricted-use 2004-2019 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health included people ages 12+ classified as needing CUD treatment (i.e., past-year DSM-5-proxy CUD or last/current specialty treatment for cannabis). Time-varying indicators of medical cannabis laws (MCL) with/without cannabis dispensary provisions differentiated state-years before/after laws using effective dates. Multi-level logistic regressions with random state intercepts estimated individual- and state-adjusted CUD treatment odds by MCLs and model-based changes in specialty CUD treatment state-level prevalence. Secondary analyses tested associations between CUD treatment and MCL or recreational cannabis laws (RCL). RESULTS: Using a broad treatment need sample definition in 2004-2014, specialty CUD treatment prevalence decreased by 1.35 (95 % CI = -2.51, -0.18) points after MCL without dispensaries and by 2.15 points (95 % CI = -3.29, -1.00) after MCL with dispensaries provisions became effective, compared to before MCL. Among people with CUD in 2004-2014, specialty treatment decreased only in MCL states with dispensary provisions (aPD = -0.91, 95 % CI = -1.68, -0.13). MCL were not associated with CUD treatment use in 2015-2019. RCL were associated with lower CUD treatment among people classified as needing CUD treatment, but not among people with past-year CUD. CONCLUSIONS: Policy-related reductions in specialty CUD treatment were concentrated in states with cannabis dispensary provisions in 2004-2014, but not 2015-2019, and partly driven by reductions among people without past-year CUD. Other mechanisms (e.g., CUD symptom identification, criminal-legal referrals) could contribute to decreasing treatment trends.

Simultaneous Cannabis and Alcohol Use among Medical Cannabis Patients.

Background: During the past two decades of cannabis legalization, the prevalence of medical cannabis (MC) use has increased and there has also been an upward trend in alcohol consumption. As less restricted cannabis laws generate more adult cannabis users, there is concern that more individuals may be simultaneously using medical cannabis with alcohol. A few studies have examined simultaneous use of medical cannabis with alcohol, but none of those studies also assessed patients' current or previous non-medical cannabis use. This paper explores simultaneous alcohol and medical cannabis use among medical cannabis patients with a specific focus on previous history of cannabis use and current non-medical cannabis use. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of MC patients (N = 319) from four dispensaries located in New York. Bivariate chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression are used to estimate the extent to which sociodemographic and other factors were associated with simultaneous use. Results: Approximately 29% of the sample engaged in simultaneous use and a large share of these users report previous (44%) or current (66%) use of cannabis for non-medical purposes. MC patients who either previously or currently use cannabis non-medicinally, men, and patients using MC to treat a pain-related condition, were significantly more likely to report simultaneous alcohol/MC use. Conclusions: Findings indicate that there may be differential risks related to alcohol/MC use, which should be considered by cannabis regulatory policies and prevention/treatment programs. If patients are using cannabis and/or alcohol to manage pain, clinicians should screen for both alcohol and cannabis use risk factors.

Medical students' attitudes and perceived competence regarding medical cannabis and its suggestibility.

INTRODUCTION: The global trend of legalizing medical cannabis (MC) is on the rise. In Germany, physicians have prescribed MC at the expense of health insurers since 2017. However, the teaching on MC has been scant in medical training. This study investigates medical students' attitudes and perceived competence regarding MC and evaluates how varying materials (videos/articles) impact their opinions. METHODS: Fourth-year medical students were invited to participate in the cross-sectional study. During an online session, students viewed a video featuring a patient with somatoform pain discussing her medical history, plus one of four randomly assigned MC-related materials (each an article and a video depicting a positive or negative perspective on MC). Students' opinions were measured at the beginning [T0] and the end of the course [T1] using a standardized questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale. We assessed the influence of the material on the students' opinions using paired-sample t-tests. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey post-hoc tests were conducted to compare the four groups. Pearson correlations assessed correlations. RESULTS: 150 students participated in the course, the response rate being 75.3% [T0] and 72.7% [T1]. At T0, students felt a little competent regarding MC therapy (M = 1.80 ± 0.82). At T1, students in groups 1 (positive video) and 3 (positive article) rated themselves as more capable in managing MC therapy [Formula: see text], and students in groups 3 (positive article) and 4 (negative article) felt more skilled in treating patients with chronic pain [Formula: see text]. Compared to the other groups, group 2 students (negative video) felt significantly less competent. They perceived cannabis as addictive, hazardous and unsuitable for medical prescription. DISCUSSION: This study showed that medical students lack knowledge and perceived competence in MC therapy. Material influences their opinions in different ways, and they seek more training on MC. This underlines that integrating MC education into medical curricula is crucial to address this knowledge gap.

Medical cannabis and its effect on oncological outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer treated with PARP inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) play a pivotal role in ovarian cancer management. With medical cannabis emerging as a novel component of supportive care, this study investigated the impact of medical cannabis use on oncological outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer undergoing PARPi therapy. METHODS: The study included patients from a single institution database treated for ovarian cancer between January 2014 and January 2020 who received PARPi maintenance therapy in a first-line or recurrent disease setting after a confirmed response to platinum-based treatment. The study categorized patients as cannabis users and cannabis-naïve. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to assess the effects of medical cannabis use on the duration of PARPi therapy, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Among the eligible patients (n=93), most were cannabis-naïve (69%, n=64) while the rest used medical cannabis (31%, n=29). Medical cannabis use rates were comparable for patients receiving PARPi therapy post-primary treatment or for recurrence (42%, n=9, vs 27%, n=20; p=0.1). Both groups exhibited similar median duration for PARPi therapy (12.1 vs 9.5 months; p=0.89) and progression-free survival (20 vs 21 months; p=0.83). Kaplan-Meier analysis detected no differences in progression-free survival associated with cannabis use. Although cannabis users had an extended overall survival compared with the cannabis-naïve group (129.3 vs 99 months; p=0.03), cannabis use was insignificant for overall survival on multivariate analysis (p=0.10). Multivariate analysis showed stage IV at diagnosis (p=0.02) to be the sole factor associated with progression-free survival (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Medical cannabis usage in patients receiving PARPi treatment showed no association with duration of PARPi therapy, progression-free survival, or overall survival.

Bibliometric Analysis of Cannabis sativa Research: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions.

Introduction: The use of medical Cannabis remains unregulated in several countries due to the scarcity of clinical studies with high scientific evidence that establish safety and efficacy of Cannabis products. This study aimed to comprehensively analyze how knowledge has been created in this field, as well as perform a bibliographic mapping to identify knowledge gaps, and investigate key authors and journals that have significantly contributed to advancing our understanding of Cannabis. Method: The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (CRD42020223084). A systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Lilacs, Google Scholar, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The bibliographic analysis and mapping were registered using the VOSviewer, Sci2tool, CiteSpace, and PoP software. Results: The systematic search identified 27,597 records, with 17,020 duplicates, resulting in a total of 10,577 articles included. The authors who published the most were Marilyn Ann Huestis (n=108) and Sagnik Bhattacharyya (n=71), while Elisaldo A. Carlini and Raphael Mechoulam published 8 and 22 articles, respectively. The journals Drug and Alcohol Dependence (n=297), Psychopharmacology (n=159) and Addictive Behaviors (n=150) were the ones that published the most on Cannabis. The journals suggest that the articles are correlated with the adverse and toxicological effects of recreational Cannabis use; however, most articles focus on medical Cannabis. The peak of publications was in 2021 (n=1,481). The countries that published the most were the United States (n=9,735), while Brazil occupied the 11th position (n=422). Most publications were carried out in "Pharmacology and Pharmacy" (11.31%), followed by "Psychiatry" (7.66%) and "Medicine" (5.80%). The areas of "Neurosciences" (1.59%), "Biochemistry," "Genetics," and "Molecular Biology" (0.79%) were little explored. Conclusion: This study captured the characteristics of publications about Cannabis and clinical studies in the scientific literature, yielding >10,000 articles, representing a large literature review, to date. Therefore, the most productive countries included the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, while the most productive authors were Marilyn Ann Huestis and Sagnik Bhattacharyya, with a peak of publications in 2021. Finally, the most chosen journals were Drug and Alcohol Dependence and Psychopharmacology.

Recreational and Medical Cannabis Legalization and Opioid Prescriptions and Mortality.

Importance: While some have argued that cannabis legalization has helped to reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality in the US, evidence has been mixed. Moreover, existing studies did not account for biases that could arise when policy effects vary over time or across states or when multiple policies are assessed at the same time, as in the case of recreational and medical cannabis legalization. Objective: To quantify changes in opioid prescriptions and opioid overdose deaths associated with recreational and medical cannabis legalization in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quasiexperimental, generalized difference-in-differences analysis used annual state-level data between January 2006 and December 2020 to compare states that legalized recreational or medical cannabis vs those that did not. Intervention: Recreational and medical cannabis law implementation (proxied by recreational and medical cannabis dispensary openings) between 2006 and 2020 across US states. Main Outcomes and Measures: Opioid prescription rates per 100 persons and opioid overdose deaths per 100 000 population based on data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Results: Between 2006 and 2020, 13 states legalized recreational cannabis and 23 states legalized medical cannabis. There was no statistically significant association of recreational or medical cannabis laws with opioid prescriptions or overall opioid overdose mortality across the 15-year study period, although the results also suggested a potential reduction in synthetic opioid deaths associated with recreational cannabis laws (4.9 fewer deaths per 100 000 population; 95% CI, -9.49 to -0.30; P = .04). Sensitivity analyses excluding state economic indicators, accounting for additional opioid laws and using alternative ways to code treatment dates yielded substantively similar results, suggesting the absence of statistically significant associations between cannabis laws and the outcomes of interest during the full study period. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that, after accounting for biases due to possible heterogeneous effects and simultaneous assessment of recreational and medical cannabis legalization, the implementation of recreational or medical cannabis laws was not associated with opioid prescriptions or opioid mortality, with the exception of a possible reduction in synthetic opioid deaths associated with recreational cannabis law implementation.

Available but inaccessible: patient experiences during the first 2 years of a primary care-based medical cannabis program at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Medical cannabis use and public acceptance in the United States have increased over the past 25 years. However, access to medical cannabis remains limited, particularly for underserved populations. To understand how patients experience medical cannabis accessibility, we measured medical cannabis use and barriers to use after medical cannabis certification in an urban safety-net academic medical center. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients seen in Montefiore's Medical Cannabis Program (MMCP) from 2017 to 2019. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, as well purchase history of medical cannabis, were extracted from electronic medical records. We also administered a phone questionnaire to a subset of patients to assess usage patterns, effectiveness, and barriers to medical cannabis use. RESULTS: Among 562 patients who were newly certified for medical cannabis between 2017 and 2019, 45% purchased medical cannabis, while 55% did not. Patients who purchased medical cannabis were more likely to be white and have private insurance or Medicare. Unregulated cannabis use and current tobacco use were less common among those who purchased medical cannabis. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, unregulated cannabis use remained negatively associated with purchasing medical cannabis. Patients reported that affordability and dispensary accessibility were their main barriers to purchasing medical cannabis. CONCLUSION: Among patients certified for medical cannabis use, fewer than half purchased medical cannabis after certification. Improving access to medical cannabis is crucial for ensuring equitable access to regulated cannabis, and to reducing unregulated cannabis use.

Perceptions in orthopedic surgery on the use of cannabis in treating pain: a survey of patients with spine pain (POSIT Spine).

BACKGROUND: Back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Despite guidelines discouraging opioids as first-line treatment, opioids remain the most prescribed drugs for back pain. There is renewed interest in exploring the potential medical applications of cannabis, and with the recent changes in national legislation there is a unique opportunity to investigate the analgesic properties of cannabis. METHODS: This was a multi-center survey-based study examining patient perceptions regarding cannabis for spine pain. We included patients presenting with back or neck pain to one of three Orthopedic clinics in Ontario. Our primary outcome was perceived effect of cannabis on back pain, while secondary outcomes were perceptions regarding potential applications and barriers to cannabis use. RESULTS: 259 patients participated in this study, 35.3% (90/255) stating they used cannabis medically. Average pain severity was 6.5/10 ± 0.3 (95% CI 6.2-6.8). Nearly three-quarters were prescribed opioids (73.6%, 148/201), with oxycodone/oxycontin (45.9% 68/148) being the most common, and almost half of (49.3%, 73/148) had used an opioid in the last week. Patients estimated cannabis could treat 54.3% ± 4.0 (95% CI 50.3-58.3%) of their spine pain and replace 46.2% ± 6. 6 (95% CI 39.6-52.8%) of their current analgesics. Age (ß = - 0.3, CI - 0.6-0.0), higher pain severity (ß = 0.4, CI 0.1-0.6) and previous cannabis use (ß = 14.7, CI 5.1-24.4) were associated with a higher perceived effect of cannabis. Patients thought cannabis would be beneficial to treat pain (129/146, 88.4%), and reduce (116/146, 79.5%) or eliminate opioids (102/146, 69.9%). Not considering using cannabis for medical purposes (65/150, 43.3%) was the number one reported barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Patients estimated medical cannabis could treat more than half of their spine pain, with one in three patients already using medical cannabis. 79% of patients also believe cannabis could reduce opioid usage. This data will help support more research into cannabis for musculoskeletal pain.