Should Physicians Recommend Replacing Opioids With Cannabis?

Crafting effective regulatory policies for psychedelics: What can be learned from the case of cannabis?

The turn of the century brought a resurgence of interest in psychedelics as a treatment for addiction and other psychiatric conditions, accompanied by extensive positive media attention and private equity investment. Government regulatory bodies in Australia, Israel, Canada and the United States now permit use of psychedelics for medical purposes. In the United States, citizen action and corporate financing have led to petitions and ballot initiatives to legalize psilocybin and other psychedelics for medical and recreational use. Given this momentum, policymakers must grapple with important questions that define whether and how psychedelics are made available to the public, as well as how companies produce and promote them. The current push to broaden the production, sale, and use of psychedelics bears many parallels to the movement to legalize cannabis in the United States and other nations-most notably, the use of poorly-evidenced therapeutic claims to create a de facto recreational market via the health care system. Experience with cannabis highlights the value of debating the question of legalization for nonmedical use as such rather than misrepresenting it as a medical issue. The lessons of cannabis policy also suggest a need to challenge hyping of psychedelic research findings; to promote rigorous clinical research on dosing and potency; to minimize the influence of for-profit industry in shaping policies to their economic advantage; and to coordinate federal, state, and local governments to regulate the manufacture, sale and distribution of psychedelic drugs (regardless of whether they are legalized for medical and/or recreational use).

Therapeutic Potential of Psychedelic Drugs: Navigating High Hopes, Strong Claims, Weak Evidence, and Big Money

Therapeutic claims about many psychedelic drugs have not been evaluated in any studies of even modest rigor. The science of psychedelic drugs is strengthening, however, making it easier to differentiate some promising findings amid the hype that suffuses this research area. Ketamine has risks of adverse side effects (e.g., addiction and cystitis), but multiple studies suggest it can benefit individuals with treatment-resistant depression. Other therapeutic signals from psychedelic drug research that merit rigorous replication studies include 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and psilocybin for depression, end of life dysphoria, and alcohol use disorder. The precise mechanisms through which psychedelic drugs can produce benefit and harm are not fully understood. Rigorous research is the best path forward for evaluating the therapeutic potential and mechanisms of psychedelic drugs. Policies governing the clinical use of these drugs should be informed by evidence and prioritize the protection of public health over the profit motive.

Addressing Confusion and Inconsistencies Surrounding the Provider Role in Medical Cannabis Programs

ABSTRACT

More than 40 states in the United States have established medical cannabis programs that authorize the use of cannabis for specific medical conditions. Initially, these medical cannabis programs aimed to offer compassionate care primarily for terminal or rare, untreatable conditions. However, the scope of these programs has broadened to include nonterminal and more common conditions, including various medical and mental disorders. This expansion introduces several health care challenges: a lack of robust research evidence for many listed conditions, a sense of unpreparedness among providers, and a disparity in provider roles, expectations, and responsibilities across different states, leading to potential confusion. To address these issues, medical organizations need to develop expert consensus or guidelines that underscore evidence-based shared decision-making and patient monitoring standards. Medical education should also include such training. Concurrently, medical providers must prioritize evidence-based treatment over public opinion, exercise clinical judgment, and take responsibility for their recommendations.

"It frees your body from that pain thought": A mixed-methods exploration of patterns, contexts, and experiences of cannabis use for pain in rural communities

U.S. adults increasingly report using cannabis to manage chronic pain and rural areas have inadequate comprehensive pain management. Using mixed methods, we aimed to understand how and why some rural adults use cannabis for pain, including within the context of co-use with opioids. Participants (N = 14, Oklahoma) were rural-dwelling adults who used tobacco and ≥1 other substance, including cannabis and opioids, ≥3 days per week. Participants completed 14 days of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) regarding substance use and subsequent in-depth interviews discussing maps of their substance use reports. Half (7/14) described cannabis use for chronic pain, and most of these (85%) reported use on ≥75% of EMA days. The most frequently reported cannabis use motive was therapeutic/medicinal (90% of use reports). Most reports were of combusted cannabis (88% of use reports) at home (99% of use reports). Same-day use of cannabis and opioids was relatively common (45% of daily surveys), but seemingly not within close temporal proximity. Interview narratives characterized cannabis as modifying pain-adjacent factors (eg, thoughts), not eliminating pain itself. They recounted using a repertoire of substances to manage different pain dimensions (eg, intensity, quality) and balance perceived trade-offs of different substances. Participants described high medical cannabis access, low pain specialist access, and most physicians as unwilling to discuss cannabis for pain. The findings suggest that rural-dwelling patients could benefit from increased access to comprehensive pain management, having cannabis addressed within pain management provider discussions, and that risks and benefits of cannabis use for pain must be better established. PERSPECTIVE: This study used a geographically explicit EMA mixed method to gather rich, intensive pilot data on cannabis use and co-use for chronic pain in rural Oklahoma. It provides unique insights to inform future research on cannabis use among a vulnerable and understudied subgroup of adults with pain-rural residents.

Perspectives regarding cannabis use: Results from a qualitative study of individuals engaged in substance use treatment in Georgia and Connecticut

Objective

Cannabis use is increasingly pervasive throughout the U.S. People in treatment for substance use disorders (SUD) may be especially at-risk of harm due to this changing context of cannabis in the U.S. This study's objective was to qualitatively describe experiences and beliefs around cannabis among people who had entered treatment for any SUD in the past 12-months.

Methods

From May to November of 2022, we conducted 27 semi-structured interviews (n=16 in Georgia, n=11 in Connecticut) with individuals in treatment for SUD in Georgia and Connecticut. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using an emergent approach.

Results

All participants had used cannabis in the past. Four themes emerged from the interviews. Participants: (1) perceived cannabis as an important contributor to non-cannabis substance use initiation in adolescence; (2) viewed cannabis as a substance with the potential to improve health with fewer side effects than prescription medications; (3) expressed conflicting opinions regarding cannabis as a trigger or tool to manage cravings for other non-cannabis substances currently; and 4) described concerns related to negative legal, social service, and treatment-related consequences as well as negative peer perception relating to the use of cannabis.

Conclusion

Although participants described cannabis's important role as an initiatory drug in adolescence and young adulthood, many felt that cannabis was a medicinal substance for a range of health challenges. These findings suggest SUD treatment clinicians should address medicinal beliefs related to cannabis among their clients and emphasizes the need for research on cannabis use and SUD treatment outcomes.

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.

The influence of transformations in supply on methamphetamine initiation among people injecting opioids in the United States

BACKGROUND

Co-use of methamphetamine (MA) and opioids (pharmaceutical pills, heroin and fentanyls) has increased in the United States and is represented in rising mortality. Although coinciding with the import of low cost, high potency and purity methamphetamine, the relationship between supply and demand in propelling this polydrug use is not well understood. We consider the influence of macro changes in supply on the uptake of opioid and methamphetamine co-use by injection at the level of individual drug and injection initiation in West Virginia, a state which leads the US in drug overdose mortality.

METHOD

We recruited n = 30 people for semi-structured interviews who self-reported injecting heroin/fentanyl and using methamphetamine by any route at a West Virginia syringe service program and through snowball sampling. Interviews were recorded and transcripts analyzed using a thematic approach. Ethnographic observation was also conducted and recorded in fieldnotes. Sequence of substance and mode of use initiation and use trajectories for opioids and stimulants were charted for each participant.

RESULTS

A clear pattern of individual drug initiation emerged that matched each successive supply wave of the US overdose epidemic: 25 participants had initiated opioid use with pills, followed by heroin, often mixed with/replaced by fentanyl, and subsequently added methamphetamine use. For participants, the supply and consumption of opioid analgesics had set in motion a series of steps leading to the addition of stimulant injection to existing opioid injecting repertoires. Unlike other studies that have found a birth cohort effect in patterns of initiation, participants showed the same sequence across age groups. Considerations of economy, availability, dependence, tolerance and the erosion of taboos that marked transitions from opioid pills to heroin injection influenced these subsequent trajectories in novel ways. The form, timing and extent of opioid and stimulant consumption was influenced by four stages of the changing drug supply, which in turn reflected back on demand.

CONCLUSION

Transformations in the social meaning and supply of methamphetamine enabled these transitions while other desired, non-injectable drugs were difficult to obtain. We discuss policy implications of injectable drugs' market dominance at this location and possible interventions.

The Long-Term Relationship Between Cannabis and Heroin Use: An 18- to 20-year Follow-Up of the Australian Treatment Outcome Study (ATOS)

OBJECTIVE

Cannabis use is common among individuals with opioid use disorder, but it remains unclear whether cannabis use is associated with an increase or a reduction in illicit opioid use. To overcome limitations identified in previous longitudinal studies with limited follow-ups, the authors examined a within-person reciprocal relationship between cannabis and heroin use at several follow-ups over 18 to 20 years.

METHODS

The Australian Treatment Outcome Study (ATOS) recruited 615 people with heroin dependence in 2001 and 2002 and reinterviewed them at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months as well as 11 and 18-20 years after baseline. Heroin and cannabis use were assessed at each time point using the Opiate Treatment Index. A random-intercept cross-lagged panel model analysis was conducted to identify within-person relationships between cannabis use and heroin use at subsequent follow-ups.

RESULTS

After accounting for a range of demographic variables, other substance use, and mental and physical health measures, an increase in cannabis use 24 months after baseline was significantly associated with an increase in heroin use at 36 months (estimate=0.21, SE=0.10). Additionally, an increase in heroin use at 3 months and 24 months was significantly associated with a decrease in cannabis use at 12 months (estimate=-0.27, SE=0.09) and 36 months (estimate=-0.22, SE=0.08). All other cross-lagged associations were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was some evidence of a significant relationship between cannabis and heroin use at earlier follow-ups, this was sparse and inconsistent across time points. Overall, there was insufficient evidence to suggest a unidirectional or bidirectional relationship between the use of these substances.

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.

Impact of Recreational Cannabis Legalization on Opioid Prescribing and Opioid-Related Hospital Visits in Colorado: an Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Cannabis may be a substitute for opioids but previous studies have found conflicting results when using data from more recent years. Most studies have examined the relationship using state-level data, missing important sub-state variation in cannabis access.

OBJECTIVE

To examine cannabis legalization on opioid use at the county level, using Colorado as a case study. Colorado allowed recreational cannabis stores in January 2014. Local communities could decide whether to allow dispensaries, creating variation in the level of exposure to cannabis outlets.

DESIGN

Observational, quasi-experimental design exploiting county-level variation in allowance of recreational dispensaries.

SUBJECTS

Colorado residents MEASURES: We use licensing information from the Colorado Department of Revenue to measure county-level exposure to cannabis outlets. We use the state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (2013-2018) to construct opioid-prescribing measures of number of 30-day fills and total morphine equivalents, both per county resident per quarter. We construct outcomes of opioid-related inpatient visits (2011-2018) and emergency department visits (2013-2018) with Colorado Hospital Association data. We use linear models in a differences-in-differences framework that accounts for the varying exposure to medical and recreational cannabis over time. There are 2048 county-quarter observations used in the analysis.

RESULTS

We find mixed evidence of cannabis exposure on opioid-related outcomes at the county level. We find increasing exposure to recreational cannabis is associated with a statistically significant decrease in number of 30-day fills (coefficient: -117.6, p-value<0.01) and inpatient visits (coefficient: -0.8, p-value: 0.03), but not total MME nor ED visits. Counties with no medical exposure prior to recreational legalization experience greater reductions in the number of 30-day fills and MME than counties with prior medical exposure (p=0.02 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

Our mixed findings suggest that further increases in cannabis beyond medical access may not always reduce opioid prescribing or opioid-related hospital visits at a population level.

The association between cannabis use and risk of non-medical pain reliever misuse onset among young adults in a legal cannabis context

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the prospective relationship between cannabis use and pain reliever misuse. This study examined associations of non-medical and medical cannabis use with onset of non-medical pain reliever misuse among young adults in Washington State (WA), where non-medical cannabis is legal.

METHODS

Data were from a cohort-sequential study of adults 18-25 residing in WA. Four annual surveys were used from cohorts recruited in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Participants who had not reported non-medical pain reliever misuse at baseline were included in discrete time survival analyses (N = 4,236). Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated for new onset of non-medical pain reliever misuse in any given follow-up year over the course of three years according to baseline non-medical and medical cannabis use.

RESULTS

When included separately in models, non-medical and medical cannabis use at baseline were associated with increased risk of non-medical pain reliever misuse adjusting for demographic characteristics as well as past year cigarette use and alcohol use (non-medical OR = 5.27; 95 % CI: 3.28, 8.48; medical OR = 2.21; 95 % CI: 1.39, 3.52). Including both forms of use in the model, associations of non-medical and medical cannabis use with non-medical pain reliever misuse onset remained (non-medical OR = 4.64; 95 % CI: 2.88, 7.49; medical OR = 1.65; 95 % CI: 1.04, 2.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite claims that cannabis use may reduce opioid use and related harms, findings suggest that cannabis use, including medical use, may not be protective, but instead may increase risk for non-medical pain reliever misuse.

Effects of U.S. State Medical Cannabis Laws on Treatment of Chronic Noncancer Pain

BACKGROUND

State medical cannabis laws may lead patients with chronic noncancer pain to substitute cannabis in place of prescription opioid or clinical guideline-concordant nonopioid prescription pain medications or procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To assess effects of state medical cannabis laws on receipt of prescription opioids, nonopioid prescription pain medications, and procedures for chronic noncancer pain.

DESIGN

Using data from 12 states that implemented medical cannabis laws and 17 comparison states, augmented synthetic control analyses estimated laws' effects on receipt of chronic noncancer pain treatment, relative to predicted treatment receipt in the absence of the law.

SETTING

United States, 2010 to 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

583 820 commercially insured adults with chronic noncancer pain.

MEASUREMENTS

Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, nonopioid prescription pain medication, or procedure for chronic noncancer pain; volume of each treatment type; and mean days' supply and mean morphine milligram equivalents per day of prescribed opioids, per patient in a given month.

RESULTS

In a given month during the first 3 years of law implementation, medical cannabis laws led to an average difference of 0.05 percentage points (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.21 percentage points), 0.05 percentage points (CI, -0.13 to 0.23 percentage points), and -0.17 percentage points (CI, -0.42 to 0.08 percentage points) in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, any nonopioid prescription pain medication, or any chronic pain procedure, respectively, relative to what we predict would have happened in that month had the law not been implemented.

LIMITATIONS

This study used a strong nonexperimental design but relies on untestable assumptions involving parallel counterfactual trends. Statistical power is limited by the finite number of states. Results may not generalize to noncommercially insured populations.

CONCLUSION

This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Different Tokes for Different Folks: Use of Cannabis Products Among a Longitudinal Cohort of People with Heroin Dependence

Co-occurring cannabis use is common among those with opioid use disorder (OUD), but the extent to which it is harmful may be due to its preparation and concentration of various cannabinoids. The current study aimed to examine the prevalence of, and long-term associations with, the use of varying cannabis products among a naturalistic longitudinal cohort of people with heroin dependence. A total of 615 people, most of whom were entering treatment, were recruited to the Australian Treatment Outcome Study (ATOS) in 2001-2002. This analysis focuses on the 401 participants followed up at 18-20 years post baseline. Structured interviews assessed the use of cannabis products, as well as demographic and health covariates. High-potency/indoor-grown cannabis was the most common type ever used (68.8%), and in the past 12 months (80.4%), followed by low potency/outdoor grown (22.4%; 14.4%), and less so for other types of cannabis. After controlling for covariates, older age at baseline was associated with lower odds of high-potency cannabis being used as the primary type in the past 12 months. In contrast to studies of non-opioid dependent populations, common use of high-potency cannabis was not associated with more severe health outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11469-023-01071-5.

The impact of recreational cannabis markets on motor vehicle accident, suicide, and opioid overdose fatalities

In the U.S., an increasing number of states are legalizing regulated commercial markets for recreational cannabis, which allows private industry to produce, distribute, and sell marijuana to those 21 and older. The health impacts of these markets are not fully understood. Preliminary evidence suggests recreational markets may be associated with increased use among adults, which indicates there may be downstream health impacts on outcomes related to cannabis use. Three causes of death that are linked to cannabis use are motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and opioid overdose. Drawing on data from U.S. death certificates from 2009 to 2019, we conducted a difference-in-differences analysis to estimate the impact of recreational markets on fatalities from motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and opioid overdose in seven states: Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Nevada, California, and Massachusetts. States with comprehensive medical cannabis programs with similar pre-trends in deaths were used as comparisons. For each outcome, a pooled estimate was generated with a meta-analysis using random effects models. The results revealed substantial increases in crash fatalities in Colorado, Oregon, Alaska, and California of 16%, 22%, 20%, and 14%, respectively. Based on estimates from all seven states, recreational markets were associated with a 10% increase in motor vehicle accident deaths, on average. This study found no evidence that recreational markets impacted suicides. Most states saw a relative reduction in opioid overdose death that ranged between 3 and 28%. On average, recreational markets were associated with an 11% reduction in opioid overdose fatalities.

Do We Have Structure, Process and Outcomes to Support Cannabis as Supportive Therapy in Cancer?

Cannabis is becoming more popular and more available in the United States. It has been approved for use by multiple states for various conditions and several states now allow recreational cannabis. We explore the structure of cannabis distribution, the process of acquisition, outcomes, and the safety of cannabis in the United States.

Clinical Trial Design Challenges and Opportunities for Emerging Treatments for Opioid Use Disorder: A Review

Importance

Novel treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) are needed to address both the ongoing opioid epidemic and long-standing barriers to existing OUD treatments that target the endogenous μ-opioid receptor (MOR) system. The goal of this review is to highlight unique clinical trial design considerations for the study of emerging treatments for OUD that address targets beyond the MOR system. In November 2019, the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration sponsored a meeting to discuss the current evidence regarding potential treatments for OUD, including cannabinoids, psychedelics, sedative-hypnotics, and immunotherapeutics, such as vaccines.

Observations

Consensus recommendations are presented regarding the most critical elements of trial design for the evaluation of novel OUD treatments, such as: (1) stage of treatment that will be targeted (eg, seeking treatment, early abstinence/detoxification, long-term recovery); (2) role of treatment (adjunctive with or independent of existing OUD treatments); (3) primary outcomes informed by patient preferences that assess opioid use (including changes in patterns of use), treatment retention, and/or global functioning and quality of life; and (4) adverse events, including the potential for opioid-related relapse or overdose, especially if the patient is not simultaneously taking maintenance MOR agonist or antagonist medications.

Conclusions and Relevance

Applying the recommendations provided here as well as considering input from people with lived experience in the design phase will accelerate the development, translation, and uptake of effective and safe therapeutics for individuals struggling with OUD.

Primary care provider attitudes, experiences and practices about cannabidiol (CBD) and barriers to patient-provider communication about CBD use: A qualitative study

Objectives

Federal hemp legalization and ongoing shifts in US marijuana laws have led to increased population-wide use of cannabidiol (CBD) supplements, often without the knowledge of primary healthcare providers (PCPs). Given the potential risks related to CBD use, especially in vulnerable subgroups, improved communication is warranted. This study aimed to examine PCP attitudes, experiences, and practice behaviors related to CBD and provider-reported barriers to communication with patients about CBD use.

Methods

Fourteen PCPs were recruited and participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were digitally analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Analyses identified that most PCPs had neutral views about CBD use by their patients. The study found that discussions about CBD use were initiated by patients. Most PCPs cited lack of time, discomfort, low-quality evidence, and low prioritization as reasons for not discussing CBD with patients.

Conclusion

PCPs rarely screen for or discuss CBD use with their patients and most of them had neutral views about CBD use by their patients. A number of barriers exist to open dialogue about CBD.

Innovation

Our study is the first in-depth report on PCP attitudes, experiences, and practice behaviors related to CBD. The findings of our study have the potential to significantly impact future PCP practice behaviors. These results can inform healthcare system policies around screening for CBD use and PCP communication training. In doing so, these efforts may mitigate risk and optimize benefits related to the expanding CBD market.

Clinician Beliefs and Practices Related to Cannabis

Introduction: Medical cannabis (marijuana) use is legal in 33 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Clinicians can play an important role in helping patients access and weigh potential benefits and risks of medicinal cannabis. Accordingly, this study aimed to assess clinician beliefs and practices related to cannabis. Methods: Data are from 1506 family practice doctors, internists, nurse practitioners, and oncologists who responded to the 2018 DocStyles, a web-based panel survey of clinicians. Questions assessed medicinal uses for and practices related to cannabis and assessed clinicians' knowledge of cannabis legality in their state. Logistic regression was used to assess multivariable correlates of asking about, assessing, and recommending cannabis. Results: Over two-thirds (68.9%) of clinicians surveyed believe that cannabis has medicinal uses and just over a quarter (26.6%) had ever recommended cannabis to a patient. Clinicians who believed cannabis had medicinal uses had 5.9 times the adjusted odds (95% confidence interval 3.9-8.9) of recommending cannabis to patients. Beliefs about conditions for medical cannabis use did not necessarily align with the current scientific evidence. Nearly two-thirds (60.0%) of clinicians surveyed incorrectly reported the legal status of cannabis in their state. Discussion: Findings suggest that while clinicians believe that cannabis has medicinal uses, they may not have a full understanding of the scientific evidence and may not accurately understand their state-based policies for cannabis legalization and use. Given that clinicians are responsible for recommending medicinal cannabis in most states that have legalized it, ongoing education about the health effects of cannabis is warranted.

Integrated Medical Cannabis Consultations in a Palliative Care Program: Policies, Procedures, and Progress after Six Years of Practice

Introduction: Our academic ambulatory palliative care program has counseled, monitored, and certified patients for cannabis as part of routine palliative care practice for six years. Objective: We describe the population certified for cannabis and policies, procedures, and medicolegal challenges in our palliative care clinic. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients, qualifying diagnoses for cannabis certification, reasons for referral, and number of annual certifications. Results: Between 2015 and 2021, we certified 1711 patients for cannabis. The most common indications were cancer (64%), pain (24%), and neuropathy (9%). Other three months in 2021, 28% of new referrals to our practice were certified for cannabis and 15% of patients were referred explicitly for cannabis certification. Conclusion: Despite legal and practical challenges to implementing a medical cannabis program, our palliative care program has fully integrated cannabis as part of our standard outpatient clinical practice.

Association of medical cannabis licensure with prescription opioid receipt: A population-based, individual-level retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The endocannabinoid system has been implicated in physiological processes fundamental to pain, giving plausibility to the hypothesis that cannabis may be used as a substitute or complement to prescription opioids in the management of chronic pain. We examined the association of medical cannabis licensure with likelihood of prescription opioid receipt using administrative records.

METHODS

This study linked registry information for medical cannabis licensure with records from the prescription drug monitoring program from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2019 to create a population-based, retrospective cohort in Rhode Island. We examined within-person changes in receipt of any opioid prescription and receipt of an opioid prescription with a morphine equivalent dose of 50 mg or more, and of 90 mg or more.

RESULTS

The sample included 5,296 participants with medical cannabis license. Medical cannabis licensure was not associated with the odds of filling any opioid prescription (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.94-0.1.05) or the odds of filling a prescription with a morphine equivalent dose of 50 mg or more (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.84-1.04) and 90 mg or more (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.86-1.15).

CONCLUSION

Medical cannabis licensure was not associated with subsequent cessation and reduction in prescription opioid use. Re-scheduling of cannabis will allow for the conduct of randomized controlled trials to determine the efficacy of medical cannabis as an alternative to prescription opioid use or a complement to the use of lower doses of prescription opioids in patients with chronic pain.

Societal Costs and Outcomes of Medical and Recreational Marijuana Policies in the United States: A Systematic Review

Significant support exists in the United States for legalization of marijuana/cannabis. As of 2021, 36 states and four territories approved the legalization of medical cannabis via medical marijuana laws (MMLs), and 15 states and District of Columbia (DC) have adopted recreational marijuana laws (RMLs). We performed structured and systematic searches of articles published from 2010 through September 2021. We assess the literature pertaining to adolescent marijuana use; opioid use and opioid-related outcomes; alcohol use; tobacco use; illicit and other drug use; marijuana growing and cultivation; employment, earnings, and other workplace outcomes; academic achievement and performance; criminal activity; perceived harmfulness; traffic and road safety; and suicide and sexual activity. Overall, 113 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. Except for opioids, studies on use of other substances (illicit drugs, tobacco, and alcohol) were inconclusive. MMLs and RMLs do not generate negative outcomes in the labor market, lead to greater criminal activity, or reduce traffic and road safety.

Review of cannabis reimbursement by workers' compensation insurance in the U.S. and Canada

Changing public attitudes about cannabis consumption have currently led 36 U.S. states and the District of Columbia to approve laws that make cannabis available to consumers with qualifying medical conditions. This article reviews the 36 states and the District of Columbia with medical cannabis access laws to determine if the state or the District also allows reimbursement of the costs of cannabis for a work-related health condition under that state's or District's workers' compensation insurance (WCI) laws and administrative regulations. The legal basis for a state allowing or not allowing WCI reimbursement is described. The review found that only six of the 36 states expressly allow cannabis WCI reimbursement, six expressly prohibit it, 14 states do not require reimbursement, and 10 states, and the District of Columbia, are silent on the issue. The article describes the role of the insurer, treating physician, and worker in obtaining WCI reimbursement in the six states that expressly allow cannabis WCI reimbursement. Comparisons are made to how selected Canadian provinces and territories administer cannabis reimbursement under Canada's new national cannabis legalization law. The article discusses the future role of cannabis legalization in the United States and the evolving role of cannabis from an international perspective.

Medical Marijuana: Liability Issues for Mental Health Providers

ABSTRACT

As of 2019, 33 states, in addition to three territories and the District of Columbia, have approved medical marijuana programs. In the United States, the 12-month prevalence of medical marijuana use increased by 34.2% between 2013 and 2015. The rapid dissemination of medical marijuana use, in conjunction with conflicting data regarding its safety and efficacy, renders mental health providers in an ethical and legal quandary. The purpose of this article was to highlight emerging evidence regarding the efficacy and risks of medical marijuana and to describe medical-legal issues of such use regarding liability for mental health providers. Mental health care providers must be prudent to ensure that they are providing patients with the most accurate, up-to-date information regarding medical marijuana. This is not only to ensure protection from medical liability but also to promote best outcomes for patients experiencing mental health problems.

Exploring the use of cannabis as a substitute for prescription drugs in a convenience sample

BACKGROUND

The use of cannabis as medicine (CaM) both prescribed and non-prescribed has increased markedly in the last decade, mirrored in a global shift in cannabis policy towards a more permissive stance. There is some evidence that cannabis functions as a substitute for prescription drugs, particularly opioids; however, more knowledge is needed on the motives of substitution users, their patterns of use, and perceived effects of substitution use.

AIMS

To explore who substitutes prescription drugs with cannabis, the type of prescription drugs substituted and the type of cannabis used, and the impact that substitution with cannabis has on prescription drug use as well as the motives for substitution in terms of experienced effects and side effects.

METHODS

A self-selected convenience sample was recruited through social media, public media, and patient organizations to take part in an anonymous online survey. Inclusion criteria were 18 years or older and use of cannabis (prescribed or non-prescribed) with a medical purpose.

RESULTS

The final sample included 2.841 respondents of which the majority (91%) used non-prescribed cannabis, and more than half (54.6%) had used CaM with the purpose of replacing a prescribed drug. Compared to non-substitution users, substitution users were more likely to be women and to use CaM in the treatment of chronic pain and other somatic conditions. Pain medication (67.2%), antidepressants (24.5%), and arthritis medication (20.7%) were the most common types of drugs replaced with CaM. Among substitution users, 38.1% reported termination of prescription drug use, and 45.9% a substantial decrease in prescription drug use. The most frequent type of cannabis used as a substitute was CBD-oil (65.2%), followed by 'hash, pot or skunk' (36.6%). More than half (65.8%) found CaM much more effective compared to prescription drugs, and 85.5% that the side effects associated with prescription drug use were much worse compared to use of CaM.

CONCLUSION

CaM is frequently used as a substitute for prescription drugs, particularly opioids. More research is needed on the long-term consequences of use of CaM, including the impact from low and high THC cannabis products on specific somatic and mental health conditions.

Within-subject, double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled evaluation of the combined effects of the cannabinoid dronabinol and the opioid hydromorphone in a human laboratory pain model

This Phase II study evaluated analgesia, abuse liability, and cognitive performance of hydromorphone and oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; dronabinol) using a within-subject, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, human laboratory trial. Healthy adults (N = 29) with no history of drug use disorder received combinations of placebo, hydromorphone (4 mg; oral), and dronabinol (2.5 mg, 5.0 mg, 10 mg; oral). Primary outcomes were quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures of acute (thermal, pressure pain; thermal, punctate probe temporal summation; cold pressor; conditioned pain modulation) and chronic pain (capsaicin 10% topical cream with thermal rekindling), measures of drug abuse liability, cognitive functioning, and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted within opioid-responders (endorsed >20 on a Drug Effect visual analog scale during the hydromorphone-only condition) and nonresponders. A consistent dose-effect relationship of dronabinol on hydromorphone across all measures was not observed. Analgesia only improved in the hydromorphone + dronabinol 2.5 mg condition. Hydromorphone + dronabinol 2.5 mg showed the lowest and hydromorphone+dronabinol 5 mg showed the highest risk for abuse. Hydromorphone+dronabinol 10 mg produced a high rate of dysphoric effects, and hydromorphone+dronabinol 5 mg and hydromorphone + dronabinol 10 mg produced AEs. Subgroup analyses showed subjective effects and abuse risk was increased among opioid responders and largely absent among nonresponders. Overall, only hydromorphone+dronabinol 2.5 mg modestly enhanced hydromorphone-based analgesia and hydromorphone + dronabinol 5 mg and 10 mg increased risk for abuse and AEs. These data can help inform opioid-sparing efforts in clinical pain populations. Demonstration that potential opioid effects varied as a function of participant opioid sensitivity (e.g., responder status) is a novel finding that warrants additional research.

Remission of persistent methamphetamine-induced psychosis after cariprazine therapy: presentation of a case report

In this case report, we described a patient admitted with persistent methamphetamine-induced psychotic symptoms, accompanied by negative symptoms, who appeared to respond to cariprazine treatment regarding his psychotic and craving symptoms. To our knowledge, no cariprazine-related data has been published about these type of patients. Our case suggests that cariprazine may improve both psychotic and addictive symptoms in subjects with persistent substance-induced psychotic disorders. Notably, our patient reported an abrupt decrease in substance craving and use, and an improvement in positive and negative psychotic symptoms. Although it is not possible to generalize the observations and findings gathered with this single case, it detected a potential effect of cariprazine on a drug naïve patient with persistent psychotic symptoms induced by methamphetamine for the first time.

Cannabinoids for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder: Where is the Evidence?

With the growing public interest in the potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis and cannabinoids in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), some states have now either added or proposed to add OUD as an indication for their state's medical marijuana program. However, these initiatives are based on weak evidence which at present do not support the listing of cannabis or cannabinoids as a treatment for OUD. Nevertheless, studying the potential therapeutic applications of carefully chosen components of cannabis or cannabinoids to treat specific aspects of OUD is not without scientific merit. Given the high rates of treatment discontinuation among those taking medications for OUD, interventions that further improve clinical outcomes are especially needed. The potential therapeutic applications of cannabis and cannabinoids in the treatment of OUD are worthy of further study, but it should be conducted with the same rigor that we expect of all pharmaceutical products. Until we have more research to show their efficacy, policy makers and clinicians should refrain from portraying cannabis and cannabinoids as evidence-based treatments for OUD.

Should You Recommend Cannabinoids for This Patient With Painful Neuropathy? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Cannabis includes 140 active cannabinoid compounds, the most important of which are tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol (CBD). Tetrahydrocannabinol is primarily responsible for the intoxicating effects of cannabis; CBD has potential therapeutic effects, including reduction in chronic pain. Recent legislative changes have resulted in the legal availability of cannabinoids in all 50 states, as well as a marked increase in patients' interest in their use. Despite an abundance of data, albeit of varied quality, clinicians may feel poorly prepared to counsel patients seeking advice on the suitability of CBD products for various indications, particularly chronic neuropathic pain. In 2018, on the basis of a systematic review of the literature, a Canadian Evidence Review Group published a guideline with recommendations for clinicians on prescribing cannabinoids in primary care practice. The overall quality of evidence was low to very low. In a meta-analysis of 15 randomized trials of medical cannabis for treating chronic pain, 39% of patients achieved at least a 30% reduction in pain. The corresponding value for placebo-treated patients was 30%; the number needed to treat was 11. More evidence exists for neuropathic pain than for other types of noncancer pain. Here, a general internist with a focus on addiction medicine and an addiction psychiatrist discuss how they would apply the literature to make recommendations for a patient with painful diabetic neuropathy, including counseling on both potential benefits and harms.

Use of Cannabis for Self-Management of Chronic Pelvic Pain

Background: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects up to 15% of women in the United States. The endocannabinoid system is a potential pharmacological target for pelvic pain as cannabinoid receptors are highly expressed in the uterus and other nonreproductive tissues. We hypothesize that cannabis use is common for self-management of CPP, and our primary objective was to determine the prevalence of cannabis use in this population. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey of women with pelvic and perineal pain, dyspareunia, or endometriosis was performed between March and August 2019. Subjects were recruited in an outpatient gynecology office. An anonymous, confidential, electronic survey was performed using a tablet. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP (SAS, Cary, NC). Results: A total of 240 patients were approached, with 113 responses (47.1% response rate). There were 26 patients who used cannabis (23%). The majority used at least once per week (n = 18, 72%). Most users (n = 24, 96%) reported improvement in symptoms, including pain, cramping, muscle spasms, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, libido, and irritability. Over one-third (35%) stated that cannabis use decreased the number of phone calls or messages sent to their provider, and 39% reported decreased number of clinical visits. Side effects, including dry mouth, sleepiness, and feeling "high," were reported by 84% (n = 21). Conclusions: Almost one-quarter of patients with CPP report regular use of cannabis as an adjunct to their prescribed therapy. Although side effects are common, most users report improvement in symptoms. Our study highlights the potential of cannabis as a therapeutic option for patients with CPP.

Median Nerve Stimulation as a Nonpharmacological Approach to Bypass Analgesic Tolerance to Morphine: A Proof-of-Concept Study in Mice

Analgesic tolerance to opioids contributes to the opioid crisis by increasing the quantity of opioids prescribed and consumed. Thus, there is a need to develop non-opioid-based pain-relieving regimens as well as strategies to circumvent opioid tolerance. Previously, we revealed a non-opioid analgesic mechanism induced by median nerve electrostimulation at the overlaying PC6 (Neiguan) acupoint (MNS-PC6). Here, we further examined the efficacy of MNS-PC6 in morphine-tolerant mice with neuropathic pain induced by chronic constriction injury (CCI) of the sciatic nerve. Daily treatments of MNS-PC6 (2 Hz, 2 mA), but not electrostimulation at a nonmedian nerve-innervated location, for a week post-CCI induction significantly suppressed established mechanical allodynia in CCI-mice in an orexin-1 (OX₁) and cannabinoid-1 (CB₁) receptor-dependent fashion. This antiallodynic effect induced by repeated MNS-PC6 was comparable to that induced by repeated gabapentin (50 mg/kg, i.p.) or single morphine (10 mg/kg, i.p.) treatments, but without tolerance, unlike repeated morphine-induced analgesia. Furthermore, single and repeated MNS-PC6 treatments remained fully effective in morphine-tolerant CCI-mice, also in an OX₁ and CB₁ receptor-dependent fashion. In CCI-mice receiving escalating doses of morphine for 21 days (10, 20 and 50 mg/kg), single and repeated MNS-PC6 treatments remained fully effective. Therefore, repeated MNS-PC6 treatments induce analgesia without tolerance, and retain efficacy in opioid-tolerant mice via a mechanism that involves OX₁ and CB₁ receptors. This study suggests that MNS-PC6 is an alternative pain management strategy that maybe useful for combatting the opioid epidemic, and opioid-tolerant patients receiving palliative care. PERSPECTIVE: Median nerve stimulation relieves neuropathic pain in mice without tolerance and retains efficacy even in mice with analgesic tolerance to escalating doses of morphine, via an opioid-independent, orexin-endocannabinoid-mediated mechanism. This study provides a proof of concept for utilizing peripheral nerve stimulating devices for pain management in opioid-tolerant patients.

Impact of cannabis on non-medical opioid use and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder: a nationwide longitudinal VA study

BACKGROUND

Multiple states have authorized cannabis as an opioid substitution agent and as a treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the relationship between cannabis use, non-medical opioid use, and PTSD symptoms among U.S. veterans.

METHODS

From 1992-2011, veterans admitted to specialized intensive PTSD treatment participated in a national evaluation with assessments at intake and four months after discharge. Participants with non-medical opioid use ≥ 7 days during the 30 days preceding admission were divided into two groups: those with cannabis use ≥ 7 days, and those without cannabis use. These two groups were compared on measures of substance use and PTSD symptoms at baseline and 4-months outpatient follow-up. We hypothesized that, at both assessments, the group with baseline cannabis use would show less non-medical opioid use and less severe PTSD symptoms.

RESULTS

Of 1,413 veterans with current non-medical opioid use, 438 (30.3%) also used cannabis, and 985 (69.7%) did not. At baseline, veterans with concurrent non-medical opioid and cannabis use had slightly fewer days of non-medical opioid use (p < .005; d = -0.16), greater use of other substances (p < .0001) and more PTSD symptoms (p = .003; d = 0.16), compared to veterans who used non-medical opioids but not cannabis. At follow-up, substance use or PTSD symptoms did not significantly differ.

CONCLUSION

Cannabis use was not associated with a substantial reduction of non-medical opioid use, or either improvement or worsening of PTSD symptoms in this population. Hence, these data do not encourage cannabis use to treat either non-medical opioid use or PTSD.

Smoke and Mirrors: The Recreational Marijuana Debate

The increasingly widespread legalization of recreational marijuana should raise concerns regarding the societal and medical impact of its use. The relative cultural acceptance for its use should be counterbalanced with an honest and scientific review of the adverse impacts. This article provides a synopsis of recent studies that point to significant concerns from medical and psychiatric viewpoints.

Summary

With the increasing number of states that have legalized the use of recreational marijuana, concerns regarding its negative effects are necessary. There is growing scientific evidence that the use of marijuana for recreational purposes has a wide variety of negative health effects, both physical and psychiatric.

Medical cannabis for orthopaedic patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: does evidence support its use?

The treatment of chronic, non-cancer musculoskeletal pain has become a topic growing interest as it is believed to be one of the reasons for the current opioid epidemic. The medicinal use of cannabis has a long history as a number of active compounds in cannabis have been shown to interact with the body's endocannabinoid system to reduce pain. This position paper provides a history on the evolution of cannabis, the science behind its therapeutic effects, and review of the evidence and current guideline recommendations on its use as a treatment for patients with chronic, non-cancer musculoskeletal pain. Results from systematic reviews have demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in chronic pain conditions with cannabinoids, compared with placebo, although the effects might be considered small and did not reach the minimally important difference. More adverse events were reported in the cannabinoid group than in the placebo group with longer than 2 weeks of treatment. There is a lack of evidence on dependence. With changes to policies, patients' perception has changed to be more positive toward the use of medical cannabis. Current recommendations from North America, Latin America, Europe, Australia and Iran support the use of medical cannabis for chronic, non-cancer pain. Based on the current evidence, it is our position that cannabinoids may be considered as an adjunctive therapy after recommended first- and second-line therapies have failed to provide sufficient efficacy or tolerability. Patients should consider the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects of taking cannabis for chronic pain, and comprehensively consider their own values and preferences, as well as cost-effectiveness factors, based on the information provided by their physician.

Association of State Policies Allowing Medical Cannabis for Opioid Use Disorder With Dispensary Marketing for This Indication

IMPORTANCE

Misinformation about cannabis and opioid use disorder (OUD) may increase morbidity and mortality if it leads individuals with OUD to forego evidence-based treatment. It has not been systematically evaluated whether officially designating OUD as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis is associated with cannabis dispensaries suggesting cannabis as a treatment for OUD.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether state-level policies designating OUD a qualifying condition for medical cannabis are associated with more dispensaries claiming cannabis can treat OUD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study of 208 medical dispensary brands was conducted in 2019 using the brands' online content. The study included dispensaries operating in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, where OUD is a qualifying condition for medical cannabis, and in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, and West Virginia, where this policy does not exist.

EXPOSURES

Presence of OUD on the list of qualifying conditions for a state's medical cannabis program.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Binary indicators of whether online content from the brand said cannabis can treat OUD, can replace US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OUD, can be an adjunctive therapy to Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OUD, or can be used as a substitute for opioids to treat other conditions (eg, chronic pain).

RESULTS

After excluding duplicates, listings for nonexistent dispensaries, and those without online content, 167 brands across 7 states were included in the analysis (44 [26.3%] in states where OUD was a qualifying condition and 123 [73.7%] in adjacent states). A dispensary listed in a directory for West Virginia was not operational; therefore, comparison states were Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Ohio. In policy-exposed states, 39% (95% CI, 23%-55%) more dispensaries claimed cannabis could treat OUD compared with unexposed states (P < .001). For replacing medications for OUD and being an adjunctive therapy, the differences were 14% (95% CI, 2%-26%; P = .002) and 28% (95% CI, 14%-42%; P < .001), respectively. The suggestion that cannabis could substitute for opioids (eg, to treat chronic pain) was made by 25% (95% CI, 9%-41%) more brands in policy-exposed states than adjacent states (P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, state-level policies designating OUD as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis were associated with more dispensaries claiming cannabis can treat OUD. In the current policy environment, in which medical claims by cannabis dispensaries are largely unregulated, these advertisements could harm patients. Future research linking these policies to patient outcomes is warranted.

Cannabis as a Gateway Drug for Opioid Use Disorder

Cannabis use in some individuals can meaningfully introduce de novo risk for the initiation of opioid use and development of opioid use disorder. These risks may be particularly high during adolescence when cannabis use may disrupt critical periods of neurodevelopment. Current research studying the combination of genetic and environmental factors involved in substance use disorders is poorly understood. More research is needed, particularly to identify which adolescents are most at risk and to develop effective interventions addressing contributing factors such as trauma and psychiatric comorbidity.

The impact of naturalistic cannabis use on self-reported opioid withdrawal

OBJECTIVES

Four states have legalized medical cannabis for the purpose of treating opioid use disorder. It is unclear whether cannabinoids improve or exacerbate opioid withdrawal. A more thorough examination of cannabis and its impact on specific symptoms of opioid withdrawal is warranted.

METHOD

Two hundred individuals recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk with past month opioid and cannabis use and experience of opioid withdrawal completed the survey. Participants indicated which opioid withdrawal symptoms improved or worsened with cannabis use and indicated the severity of their opioid withdrawal on days with and without cannabis.

RESULTS

62.5% (n = 125) of 200 participants had used cannabis to treat withdrawal. Participants most frequently indicated that cannabis improved: anxiety, tremors, and trouble sleeping. A minority of participants (6.0%, n = 12) indicated cannabis worsened opioid withdrawal, specifically symptoms of yawning, teary eyes, and runny nose. Across all symptoms, more participants indicated that symptoms improved with cannabis compared to those that indicated symptoms worsened with cannabis. Women reported greater relief from withdrawal with cannabis use than men.

DISCUSSION

These results show that cannabis may improve opioid withdrawal symptoms and that the size of the effect is clinically meaningful. It is important to note that symptoms are exacerbated with cannabis in only a minority of individuals. Prospectively designed studies examining the impact of cannabis and cannabinoids on opioid withdrawal are warranted.

The emergence of innovative cannabis distribution projects in the downtown eastside of Vancouver, Canada

The ongoing overdose crisis in the United States and Canada has highlighted the urgent need for innovative interventions to reduce drug-related harms. This, in turn, has led to increased interest in the potential of cannabis as a harm reduction strategy. While Canada has recently legalized cannabis, meaningful barriers to accessing legal cannabis remain for people who use drugs (PWUD) from marginalized communities. In the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, Canada, innovative, grassroots cannabis distribution programs that dispense cannabis and cannabis products from unregulated sources to PWUD for free have recently emerged. In this study, we draw upon 23 in-depth qualitative interviews and ethnographic fieldwork with PWUD who access these programs. We found that these distribution programs play an important function in bridging access to cannabis for PWUD in a structurally disadvantaged neighborhood and do so by implementing few restrictions on who can access, providing a variety of cannabis products that would otherwise be inaccessible, and distributing cannabis at no cost. In addition, many people reported the program spaces provided an avenue to socialize and connect. Most of our participants reported that legal cannabis was inaccessible both through the legal medical and non-medical systems. Considering Canadian governments have made important regulatory changes in regards to cannabis, understanding emerging patterns and the structural barriers to accessing legal cannabis will be critical to maximizing the potential uses of cannabis as a harm reduction tool and ensuring equitable access to structurally disadvantaged populations. Examining the impact of cannabis use on PWUD and ensuring these groups have access to cannabis is an important component in determining whether cannabis deregulation reduces drug-related harms.

Parallel modeling of pain and depression in prediction of relapse during buprenorphine and naloxone treatment: A finite mixture model

BACKGROUND

Relapse is common in treatment for opioid use disorders (OUDs). Pain and depression often co-occur during OUD treatment, yet little is known about how they influence relapse among patients with a primary diagnosis of prescription opioid use disorder (POUD). Advanced statistical analyses that can simultaneously model these two conditions may lead to targeted clinical interventions.

METHOD

The objective of this study was to utilize a discrete survival analysis with a growth mixture model to test time to prescription opioid relapse, predicted by parallel growth trajectories of depression and pain, in a clinical sample of patients in buprenorphine/naloxone treatment. The latent class analysis characterized heterogeneity with data collected from the National Institute of Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network project (CTN-0030).

RESULTS

Results suggested that a 4-class solution was the most parsimonious based on global fit indices and clinical relevance. The 4 classes identified were: 1) low relapse, 2) high depression and moderate pain, 3) high pain, and 4) high relapse. Odds ratios for time-to-first use indicated no statistically significant difference in time to relapse between the high pain and the high depression classes, but all other classes differed significantly.

CONCLUSION

This is the first longitudinal study to characterize the influence of pain, depression, and relapse in patients receiving buprenorphine and naloxone treatment. These results emphasize the need to monitor the influence of pain and depression during stabilization on buprenorphine and naloxone. Future work may identify appropriate interventions that can be introduced to extend time-to-first prescription opioid use among patients.

Online patient-provider cannabis consultations

Cannabis has been legalized, decriminalized, or medicalized in over half the U.S. states. With restrictions on cannabis research, accepted standards to guide clinical practice are lacking. Analyzing online communications through a digital health platform, we characterized patient questions about cannabis use and provider responses. Coded for content were 4579 questions posted anonymously online between March 2011 through January 2017, and the responses from 1439 U.S. licensed clinicians. Provider responses to medical cannabis use questions were coded for sentiment: "negative", "positive", and "mixed." Responses could be "thanked" by patients and receive "agrees" from providers. The most frequent themes were detection of cannabis use (25.3%), health harms (19.9%), co-use with other substances (9.1%), and medical use (8.2%). The 425 medical cannabis use questions most frequently related to treatment of mental illness (20.3%), pain (20.0%), and cancer care (6.7%). The 762 provider responses regarding medical cannabis use were coded for sentiment as 59.6% negative, 28.6% mixed, and 11.8% positive. Provider sentiment was most positive regarding cannabis use for palliative care and most negative for treating respiratory conditions, poor appetite, and mental illness. The proportion of positive sentiment responses increased from 17.6% to 32.4%. Provider responses coded as negative sentiment received more provider "Agrees" (mean rank = 280) than those coded as positive (mean rank = 215), beta coefficient = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.62; p = .02. Cannabis use is a health topic of public interest. Variability in provider responses reflects the need for more research and consensus building to inform evidence-based clinical guidelines for cannabis use in medicine.

Canadian Guidelines on Opioid Use Disorder Among Older Adults

BACKGROUND

In Canada, rates of hospital admission from opioid overdose are higher for older adults (≥ 65) than younger adults, and opioid use disorder (OUD) is a growing concern. In response, Health Canada commissioned the Canadian Coalition of Seniors' Mental Health to create guidelines for the prevention, screening, assessment, and treatment of OUD in older adults.

METHODS

A systematic review of English language literature from 2008-2018 regarding OUD in adults was conducted. Previously published guidelines were evaluated using AGREE II, and key guidelines updated using ADAPTE method, by drawing on current literature. Recommendations were created and assessed using the GRADE method.

RESULTS

Thirty-two recommendations were created. Prevention recommendations: it is key to prioritize non-pharmacological and non-opioid strategies to treat acute and chronic noncancer pain. Assessment recommendations: a comprehensive assessment is important to help discern contributions of other medical conditions. Treatment recommendations: buprenorphine is first line for both withdrawal management and maintenance therapy, while methadone, slow-release oral morphine, or naltrexone can be used as alternatives under certain circumstances; non-pharmacological treatments should be offered as an integrated part of care.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide practical and timely clinical recommendations on the prevention, assessment, and treatment of OUD in older adults within the Canadian context.

Identifying factors associated with opioid cessation in a biracial sample using machine learning

AIM

Racial disparities in opioid use disorder (OUD) management exist, however, and there is limited research on factors that influence opioid cessation in different population groups.

METHODS

We employed multiple machine learning prediction algorithms least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, random forest, deep neural network, and support vector machine to assess factors associated with ceasing opioid use in a sample of 1,192 African Americans (AAs) and 2,557 individuals of European ancestry (EAs) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition criteria for OUD. Values for nearly 4,000 variables reflecting demographics, alcohol and other drug use, general health, non-drug use behaviors, and diagnoses for other psychiatric disorders, were obtained for each participant from the Semi-Structured Assessment for Drug Dependence and Alcoholism, a detailed semi-structured interview.

RESULTS

Support vector machine models performed marginally better on average than other machine learning methods with maximum prediction accuracies of 75.4% in AAs and 79.4% in EAs. Subsequent stepwise regression considered the 83 most highly ranked variables across all methods and models and identified less recent cocaine use (AAs: odds ratio (OR) = 1.82, P = 9.19 × 10-5; EAs: OR = 1.91, P = 3.30 × 10-15), shorter duration of opioid use (AAs: OR = 0.55, P = 5.78 × 10-6; EAs: OR = 0.69, P = 3.01 × 10-7), and older age (AAs: OR = 2.44, P = 1.41 × 10-12; EAs: OR = 2.00, P = 5.74 × 10-9) as the strongest independent predictors of opioid cessation in both AAs and EAs. Attending self-help groups for OUD was also an independent predictor (P < 0.05) in both population groups, while less gambling severity (OR = 0.80, P = 3.32 × 10-2) was specific to AAs and post-traumatic stress disorder recovery (OR = 1.93, P = 7.88 × 10-5), recent antisocial behaviors (OR = 0.64, P = 2.69 × 10-3), and atheism (OR = 1.45, P = 1.34 × 10-2) were specific to EAs. Factors related to drug use comprised about half of the significant independent predictors in both AAs and EAs, with other predictors related to non-drug use behaviors, psychiatric disorders, overall health, and demographics.

CONCLUSIONS

These proof-of-concept findings provide avenues for hypothesis-driven analysis, and will lead to further research on strategies to improve OUD management in EAs and AAs.