Analysis of State Cannabis Laws and Dispensary Staff Recommendations to Adults Purchasing Medical Cannabis

State Requirements for Non-Medical US Cannabis Retail Personnel

In September 2023, we examined requirements for budtenders working in nonmedical dispensaries in the 20 states with active non-medical cannabis markets. Two coders extracted data from each state's licensing board and/or governmental websites. The age requirement for budtenders was ≥21 years old ( n = 17) or ≥18 ( n = 3). Most states ( n = 16) required background checks; 10 specified felony convictions preventing employment, 5 allowed the Department to determine eligibility, and 2 allowed petitions upon denial. Twelve states required fingerprinting. There were application fees ($25-$300) in 13 states. Structured training was required in 7 states, while 5 states required employee training. Given the diverse budtender requirements, the evaluation of budtender standards is essential to assess the impacts of training on regulatory compliance and consumer education, and of application costs and conviction-based employment restrictions on social equity. This must inform the development of effective regulations and enforcement protocols, as well as and how to promote equity in cannabis regulations.

Perceptions, Experiences, and Patterns of Cannabis Use in Individuals with Mood and Anxiety Disorders in the Context of Cannabis Legalization and Medical Cannabis Program in Canada - A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Perceptions of cannabis as a potential medical treatment for mood and anxiety disorders have been increasing in the context of legalizations, availability, and medical cannabis programs, though current evidence predominately indicates risks and negative effects of cannabis use (CU) on mental health outcomes. This study aims to understand motivations, perceptions, effects, and patterns of CU in individuals with mood and anxiety disorders.

METHODS

Thirty-six adult patients diagnosed with mood or anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder who were currently using cannabis completed an in-depth qualitative interview on individual motivations, perceptions, experiences, effects, and patterns of their CU. The thematic analysis focused on phases of CU and sources of cannabis products and information.

RESULTS

Reported motivations for initiation of CU included curiosity, peer pressure, and dissatisfaction with conventional treatments. Factors such as psychotropic effects and coping with mental health symptoms and insomnia contributed to the continuation of CU. More negative effects, including cognitive dysfunction, worsening of mood, and anxiety symptoms, were acknowledged with ongoing CU. Concerning findings included common initiation of CU before age 18, combined medical and recreational CU, rare consultation of medical professionals on CU, and potential effects and harms.

DISCUSSION

Findings indicate individual complexity of motivations, perceptions, and patterns of CU in the study population. The reported potential beneficial effects of specific cannabis products should be further investigated. Findings emphasize patient-provider dialogue on both CU and conventional treatments. Information from this study can contribute to and inform the development of education, prevention, and intervention strategies.

Dispensary personnel's views and experiences regarding oncologic cannabis and the counsel they offer adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

A minority of oncologists feel qualified to advise adults with cancer on issues pertaining to medicinal cannabis. Adults with cancer frequently access medicinal cannabis information from non-medical sources such as cannabis dispensaries. We explored dispensary personnel's views and experiences regarding oncologic cannabis and the counsel they extend individuals with cancer.

METHODS

Snowball sampling in this qualitative study facilitated recruitment across 13 states (N = 26). Semi-structured phone interviews ceased with thematic saturation. A multi-stage thematic analysis combined inductive and deductive codes.

RESULTS

Of the 26 dispensary personnel interviewed, 54% identified as female and 19% as non-white. Median age was 40 years. A consensus emerged among participants concerning the botanical's efficacy for cancer-related symptoms; less so regarding its antineoplastic potential. Principles for serving those with cancer included provision of client-centered, symptom-based, and trial-and-error approaches. Non-inhalation modes of administration were generally recommended. No consensus was reached as to whether delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinal (THC)- or cannabidiol-predominant products were preferable in this population. Challenges in oncologic advising included successfully identifying individuals with cancer at the dispensary counter, financial toxicity, the special treatment required for the THC-naïve, and operating in the absence of standardized guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

These informed assertions suggest that members of the oncologic community should grapple with the extent to which they feel comfortable with both the nature and degree of counsel adults with cancer receive through dispensaries.

Cannabis use among cancer survivors in 22 states: Results from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2020

BACKGROUND

This study identified factors associated with recent cannabis use and cannabis use for medical purposes among cancer survivors relative to individuals without a history of cancer.

METHODS

Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were analyzed for the 22 states completing the optional cannabis module in 2020. Weighted multiple logistic regression was performed to explore variables associated with past 30-day cannabis use and cannabis use for medical purposes, stratified by history of cancer. Covariates included state-level cannabis policy, sociodemographic characteristics, health status indicators, and substance use.

RESULTS

Cannabis use was lower among cancer survivors compared to individuals with no history of cancer (7.57% vs. 10.83%). However, a higher proportion of cancer survivors reported use for medical purposes (82.23% vs. 62.58%). After adjusting for state-level policy, biological sex, age, educational attainment, self-reported race/ethnicity, home ownership, mental health status and physical health status, current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 5.14 vs. 3.74) and binge drinking (OR, 2.71 vs. 2.69) were associated with cannabis use in both groups. Characteristics associated with medical cannabis use varied for the two groups; however, daily use (20-30 days; OR, 1.72 vs. 2.43) was associated with cannabis use for medical purposes in both groups after adjusting for other variables in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

A high proportion of individuals report cannabis use for medical purposes with higher rates among cancer survivors. Findings support the urgent need for ongoing cannabis research to better understand and inform its use for medical purposes, as well as the development of high-quality standardized education materials and clinical practice guidelines.

Cannabis dispensary staff approaches to counseling on potential contraindications to cannabis use: insights from a national self-report survey

BACKGROUND

Legal cannabis is available in more than half of the United States. Health care professionals (HCPs) rarely give recommendations on dosing or safety of cannabis due to limits imposed by policy and lack of knowledge. Customer-facing cannabis dispensary staff, including clinicians (pharmacists, nurses, physician's assistants), communicate these recommendations in the absence of HCP recommendations. Little is known about how dispensary staff approach individuals with complex medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Using responses from a national survey, we describe how cannabis dispensary staff counsel customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities on cannabis use and examine whether state-specific cannabis policy is associated with advice given to customers.

METHODS

National, cross-sectional online survey study from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 of dispensary staff at dispensaries that sell delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol containing products. Measures include responses to survey questions about how they approach customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities; state medicalization score (scale 0-100; higher score indicates more similarity to regulation of traditional pharmacies); legalized adult-use cannabis (yes/no). We conducted multiple mixed effects multivariable logistic regression analyses to understand relationships between state medicalization and dispensary employees' perspectives.

RESULTS

Of 434 eligible respondents, most were budtenders (40%) or managers (32%), and a minority were clinicians (18%). State medicalization score was not associated with responses to most survey questions. It was associated with increased odds of encouraging customers with medical comorbidities to inform their traditional HCP of cannabis use (Odds ratio [OR]=1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.4, p=0.03) and reduced odds of recommending cannabis for individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) (OR=0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, p=0.04). Working in a state with legalized adult-use cannabis was associated with recommending traditional health care instead of cannabis in those with serious mental illness (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p=0.04). Less than half of respondents believed they had encountered CUD (49%), and over a quarter did not believe cannabis is addictive (26%).

CONCLUSIONS

When managing cannabis dosing and safety in customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidity, dispensary staff preferred involving individuals' traditional HCPs. Dispensary staff were skeptical of cannabis being addictive. While state regulations of dispensaries may impact the products individuals have access to, they were not associated with recommendations that dispensary staff gave to customers. Alternative explanations for dispensary recommendations may include regional or store-level variation not captured in this analysis.

Dispensary Staff Perceptions About the Benefits, Risks, and Safety of Cannabis for Medical Purposes

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic use of cannabis is common in the United States (up to 18.7% of Americans aged ≥12), and dispensaries in the US are proliferating rapidly. However, the efficacy profile of medical cannabis is unclear, and customers often rely on dispensary staff for purchasing decisions. The objective was to describe cannabis dispensary staff perceptions of medical cannabis benefits and risks, as well as its safety in high-risk populations.

METHODS

Online Survey study conducted using Qualtrics from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 with a national sample of dispensary staff who reportedinteracting with customers in a cannabis dispensary selling tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products. Participants were queried about benefits ("helpfulness") and risks ("worry") about cannabis for a variety of medical conditions, and safety in older adults and pregnant women on a five-point Likert scale. These results were then collapsed into three categories including "neutral" (3/5). "I don't know" (uncertainty) was a response option for helpfulness and safety.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 434) were from 29 states and included patient-facing dispensary staff (40%); managers (32%); pharmacists (13%); and physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants (5%). Over 80% of participants perceived cannabis as helpful for post-traumatic stress disorder (88.7%), epilepsy (85.3%) and cancer (83.4%). Generally, participants were not concerned about potential cannabis risks, including increased use of illicit drugs (76.3%), decreases in intelligence (74.4%), disrupted sleep (71.7%), and new/worsening health problems from medical cannabis use (70.7%). Cannabis was considered safe in older adults by 81.3% of participants, though there was much less consensus on safety in pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis dispensary staff generally view medical cannabis as beneficial and low-risk. However, improvements in dispensary staff training, an increased role for certifying clinicians, and interventions to reduce dispensary staff concerns (e.g., cost, judgment) may improve evidence-based staff recommendations to patients seeking medical cannabis.

Reasonable access: important characteristics and perceived quality of legal and illegal sources of cannabis for medical purposes in Canada

BACKGROUND

Throughout the past two decades of legal medical cannabis in Canada, individuals have experienced challenges related to accessing legal sources of cannabis for medical purposes. The objective of our study was to examine the sources of cannabis accessed by individuals authorized to use medical cannabis and to identify possible reasons for their use of illegal sources.

METHODS

Individuals who participated in the Cannabis Access Regulations Study (CANARY), a national cross-sectional survey launched in 2014, and indicated they were currently authorized to use cannabis for medical purposes in Canada were included in this study. We assessed differences between participants accessing cannabis from only legal sources versus from illegal sources in relation to sociodemographic characteristics, health-related factors, and characteristics of medical cannabis they considered important. A secondary analysis assessed differences in satisfaction with various dimensions of cannabis products and services provided by legal versus illegal sources.

RESULTS

Half of the 237 study participants accessed cannabis from illegal sources. Individuals accessing cannabis from illegal sources were significantly more likely to value pesticide-free products, access to a variety of strains, ability to select strain and dosage, ability to observe and smell cannabis, availability in a dispensary, and availability in small quantities than did individuals accessing cannabis from only legal sources (all p < 0.05). Additionally, participants gave significantly higher satisfaction scores to illegal sources than to legal sources on service-related dimensions of cannabis access (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our findings contribute to an understanding of reasonable access to medical cannabis from a patient perspective and how to assess whether it has been achieved. Characteristics of cannabis products and services valued by patients and appropriate to their needs should be incorporated into legal medical cannabis programs to promote the use of legal medical sources. While pertaining specifically to medical use of cannabis in Canada, the findings of this study may also be instructive for understanding the use of illegal cannabis sources for non-medical purposes in Canada and provide insight for other jurisdictions implementing cannabis regulations for both medical and non-medical purposes.

Medicinal Cannabis Guidance and Resources for Health Professionals to Inform Clinical Decision Making

PURPOSE

Interest in the use of cannabis as a medicine has markedly increased during the last decade, with an unprecedented number of patients now seeking advice or prescriptions for medicinal cannabis. Unlike other medicines prescribed by physicians, many medicinal cannabis products have not undergone standard clinical trial development required by regulatory authorities. Different formulations with varying strengths and ratios of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol are available, and this diversity of medicinal cannabis products available for a myriad of therapeutic indications adds to the complexity. Physicians face challenges and barriers in their clinical decision making with medicinal cannabis because of current evidence limitations. Research efforts to address evidence limitations are ongoing; in the interim, educational resources and clinical guidance are being developed to address the gap in clinical information and support the needs of health professionals.

METHODS

This article provides an overview of various resources that health professionals may use when seeking information about medicinal cannabis in the absence of high-quality evidence and clinical guidelines. It also identifies examples of international evidence-based resources that support clinical decision making with medicinal cannabis.

FINDINGS

Similarities and differences between international examples of guidance and guideline documents are identified and summarized.

IMPLICATIONS

Guidance can help guide physicians in the individualized choice and dose of medicinal cannabis. Before quality clinical trials and regulator-approved products with risk management programs, safety data require clinical and academic collaborative pharmacovigilance.

Physicians' Attitudes and Practices Regarding Cannabis and Recommending Medical Cannabis Use

Introduction: Medical cannabis users tend not to trust or rely on health care providers regarding cannabis advice. Previous surveys of physicians have focused on favorability toward medical cannabis. The current study assesses how physicians interact with patients regarding cannabis in their day-to-day practice, and whether and how they address important topics such as use patterns and substituting cannabis for medications. We predicted that physicians would generally perceive cannabis dispensary staff and caretakers as not competent in addressing patient health needs and would not be likely to use their recommendations. Methods: Physicians in a university-affiliated health system completed an anonymous online survey. The survey assessed physicians' cannabis related education experiences, perceptions of their knowledge of and competence regarding medical cannabis, and the content of cannabis related discussions with patients. We also examined perceptions of the sources of influence on patients regarding cannabis and physicians' attitudes toward medical cannabis dispensary staff and medical cannabis caregivers (MCCs). Results: A few physicians (10%) had ever signed a medical cannabis authorization form for their patients, consistent with their perceptions of low knowledge and competence in this area. Discussions on cannabis primarily focus on risks (63%) rather than dosage (6%) and harm reduction (25%). Physicians see their influence on patients as weak compared with other information sources and have generally unfavorable attitudes toward medical cannabis dispensary staff and MCCs. Conclusion: Greater integration of medical cannabis knowledge is needed at all levels of medical and clinical education to address the potential harm to patients if they receive no guidance. Continued research is needed to provide a strong scientific basis for developing treatment guidelines and standardized medical education for medical cannabis use.

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.

Medical Marijuana Legalization and Opioid- and Pain-Related Outcomes Among Patients Newly Diagnosed With Cancer Receiving Anticancer Treatment

Importance

The past decade saw rapid declines in opioids dispensed to patients with active cancer, with a concurrent increase in marijuana use among cancer survivors possibly associated with state medical marijuana legalization.

Objective

To assess the associations between medical marijuana legalization and opioid-related and pain-related outcomes for adult patients receiving cancer treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used 2012 to 2017 national commercial claims data and a difference-in-differences design to estimate the associations of interest for patients residing in 34 states without medical marijuana legalization by January 1, 2012. Secondary analysis differentiated between medical marijuana legalization with and without legal allowances for retail dispensaries. Data analysis was conducted between December 2021 and August 2022. Study samples included privately insured patients aged 18 to 64 years who received anticancer treatment during the 6 months after a new breast (in women), colorectal, or lung cancer diagnosis.

Exposures

State medical marijuana legalization that took effect between 2012 and 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Having 1 or more days of opioids, 1 or more days of long-acting opioids, total morphine milligram equivalents of any opioid dispensed to patients with 1 or more opioid days, and 1 or more pain-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations (hereafter, hospital events) during the 6 months after a new cancer diagnosis. Interaction terms were included between each policy indicator and an indicator of recent opioids, defined as having 1 or more opioid prescriptions during the 12 months before the new cancer diagnosis. Logistic models were estimated for dichotomous outcomes, and generalized linear models were estimated for morphine milligram equivalents.

Results

The analysis included 38 189 patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer (38 189 women [100%]), 12 816 with colorectal cancer (7100 men [55.4%]), and 7190 with lung cancer (3674 women [51.1%]). Medical marijuana legalization was associated with a reduction in the rate of 1 or more opioid days from 90.1% to 84.4% (difference, 5.6 [95% CI, 2.2-9.0] percentage points; P = .001) among patients with breast cancer with recent opioids, from 89.4% to 84.4% (difference, 4.9 [95% CI, 0.5-9.4] percentage points; P = .03) among patients with colorectal cancer with recent opioids, and from 33.8% to 27.2% (difference, 6.5 [95% CI, 1.2-11.9] percentage points; P = .02) among patients with lung cancer without recent opioids. Medical marijuana legalization was associated with a reduction in the rate of 1 or more pain-related hospital events from 19.3% to 13.0% (difference, 6.3 [95% CI, 0.7-12.0] percentage points; P = .03) among patients with lung cancer with recent opioids.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that medical marijuana legalization implemented from 2012 to 2017 was associated with a lower rate of opioid dispensing and pain-related hospital events among some adults receiving treatment for newly diagnosed cancer. The nature of these associations and their implications for patient safety and quality of life need to be further investigated.

The evolving culture of medical cannabis in Canada for the management of chronic pain

Although used therapeutically for millennia, cannabis has been a prohibited substance worldwide for most of the 20th Century. With revision of prohibitive regulations in many jurisdictions during the past 2 decades, cannabis is increasingly available to patients as a potential treatment option for various symptoms. Pain relief, sleep promotion and alleviation of distress, depression and anxiety are the most common reasons for cannabis use. Canada has been at the forefront of medical cannabis (MC) legislation revisions to enable and facilitate access for therapeutic use. Although initially viewed with caution and stigma, attitudes to cannabis in general have changed. Medical cannabis is identified as the herbal plant product sourced from a grower/producer and is not at present a regulated pharmaceutical product. Medical cannabis use is currently prevalent in Canada but has bypassed the rigorous study required for usual drug approval. Although uptake has been enthusiastic by patients, the medical community has voiced cautions and concerns. Access to medical cannabis is fairly easy once an approval document is obtained from a healthcare professional, but without obligation for medical or pharmacy oversight. The greatest concern is a dearth of sound clinical evidence for effects and harms. Emerging concerns include prevalent patient self-management with information based on personal research, an abundance of on-line information which may not always be accurate, the emergence of designated "cannabis clinics," potential risks to society due to accidents, and high cost of the legal medical product leading to access via the recreational market. With cannabis now entrenched in Canadian healthcare, physicians must be sufficiently knowledgeable to provide guidance that is evidence-based and will ensure personal and societal harm reduction. Examination of the changing culture of medical cannabis in Canada will provide insight for countries that may be anticipating similar revisions of cannabis regulations to allow cannabis access for their patient population and learn from the issues created by recreational legalization.

CBD Retailers in NC Promote CBD Online to Treat Pain Violating FDA Rules About Medical Claims and Offer Low-CBD/High-Price Products

Introduction

Cannabidiol (CBD) products are available nearly nationwide in the US and can coexist with medical or recreational programs. North Carolina (NC) is an example of a state with a program dedicated to integrating hemp cultivation and medicinal CBD exclusively, containing a multitude of retailers selling it as a primary product. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates that non-FDA approved CBD products cannot be marketed using medical or health-related claims and has sent warning letters to retailers violating these terms. We aim to characterize the online content of the NC CBD market by analyzing retailers' websites to determine whether hemp/CBD shops comply with FDA regulations in terms of medical claims and analyze the claimed CBD content and price of products offered online.

Methods

We randomly selected three CBD retailers from the ten most populated cities of NC. We analyzed their website content: product type, medical claims, other disclaimers, price, and CBD content.

Results

We found that edible, oral, inhalable, and topical products are offered in similar proportions. Word analysis of product description revealed that "pain" and "pain relief" were the most common medical claim, followed by inflammation and anxiety. Health claims were mostly related to wellbeing. Other attributes indicate that products are associated with pleasant flavors or sensations (ie, cool, lavender, delicious, honey, menthol), which resembles the strategies used for tobacco advertisement. Most products (61%) claimed to contain less than 1000 mg of CBD. The median price of products ranged from $15-30 per 300 mg. We found a positive correlation between CBD content and price.

Discussion

Our data demonstrate that the NC online CBD market does not comply with FDA regulations, primarily targets patients with pain, inflammation, or anxiety, and offers products with low CBD concentration and high prices. New policies should limit the access and online promotion of non-pharmaceutical grade CBD products.

Backgrounds and Trainings in Cannabis Therapeutics of Dispensary Personnel

PURPOSE

A growing body of scientific research indicates that oncology teams tend to offer individuals with cancer little clinical advice regarding medicinal cannabis (MC) and that individuals with cancer instead turn to cannabis dispensaries for MC guidance. Our objective was to investigate dispensary personnel's backgrounds and trainings in MC advising.

METHODS

The study design was semistructured interviews across 13 states with cannabis dispensary personnel in managerial or client-facing positions. Of 38 recruited, 26 (68%) completed interview. The primary outcome was training in MC advising. Researchers targeted thematic saturation and adhered to Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.

RESULTS

Of 26 participants, 54% were female, with an average age of 40 (range: 22-64) years. Half worked in client-facing roles; half worked in managerial ones. Study participants endorsed passionate commitment to their profession, often motivated by personal experience with MC therapeutics. Cannabis dispensaries often privileged sales skills over cannabis therapeutics knowledge when hiring, resulting in uneven baseline levels of cannabis therapeutics expertise among staff. Most participants reported workplace cannabis therapeutics training to be unstandardized and weak. They described dispensary personnel as resourceful in pursuing cannabis knowledge, self-financing learning in off-hours, sampling dispensary products, and exchanging knowledge. Nearly half the participants called for quality, standardized cannabis therapeutics training for dispensary personnel.

CONCLUSION

The many oncology teams who defer to dispensary personnel regarding MC advising rely on a workforce who views themselves as unevenly trained. Further research should include a national survey of cannabis dispensary personnel to learn whether these findings hold true in a larger sample. If so, the oncology community must determine the best approach to clinically advising individuals with cancer about MC.

U.S. Trends in Registration for Medical Cannabis and Reasons for Use From 2016 to 2020 : An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Cannabis policy liberalization has increased cannabis availability for medical or recreational purposes. Up-to-date trends in medical cannabis licensure can inform clinical policy and care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe recent trends in medical cannabis licensure in the United States.

DESIGN

Ecological study with repeated measures.

SETTING

State registry data via state reports and data requests on medical cannabis licensure from 2016 to 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Medical cannabis patients (persons with medical cannabis licenses) in the United States.

MEASUREMENTS

Total patient volume, patients per 10 000 of total population, and patient-reported qualifying conditions (that is, symptoms or conditions qualifying patients for licensure)-including whether these symptoms align with current therapeutic evidence of cannabis-cannabinoid efficacy.

RESULTS

In 2020, 26 states and Washington, DC reported patient numbers, and 19 states reported patient-reported qualifying conditions. Total enrolled patients increased approximately 4.5-fold from 678 408 in 2016 to 2 974 433 in 2020. Patients per 10 000 total population generally increased from 2016 to 2020, most dramatically in Oklahoma (927.1 patients per 10 000 population). However, enrollment increased in states without recreational legalization (that is, medical-only states), whereas enrollment decreased in 5 of 7 with recreational legalization (that is, recreational states). In 2020, 68.2% of patient-reported qualifying conditions had substantial or conclusive evidence of therapeutic value versus 84.6% in 2016. Chronic pain was the most common patient-reported qualifying condition in 2020 (60.6%), followed by posttraumatic stress disorder (10.6%).

LIMITATION

Missing state data; lack of rationale for discontinuing medical cannabis licensure.

CONCLUSION

Enrollment in medical cannabis programs approximately increased 4.5-fold from 2016 to 2020, although enrollment decreased in recreational states. Use for conditions or symptoms without a strong evidence basis increased from 15.4% (2016) to 31.8% (2020). Thoughtful regulatory and clinical strategies are needed to effectively manage this rapidly changing landscape.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Cannabidiol (CBD) in Rheumatic Diseases (Musculoskeletal Pain)

Purpose of Review

This review will address the many uncertainties surrounding the medical use of cannabidiol (CBD). We will begin with an overview of the legal and commercial environment, examine recent preclinical and clinical evidence on CBD, explore questions concerning CBD raised by healthcare professionals and patients, investigate dosing regimens and methods of administration, and address current challenges in the accumulation of sound evidence.

Recent Findings

CBD has potential for relief of symptoms of pain, sleep, and mood disturbance in rheumatology patients, but sound clinical evidence is lacking. CBD is safe when accessed from a regulated source, whereas wellness products are less reliable regarding content and contaminants. Dosing for symptom relief has not yet been established.

Summary

As many rheumatology patients are trying CBD as a self-management strategy, the healthcare community must urgently accrue sound evidence for effect.

Description of collaborative, fee-for-service, office-based, pharmacist-directed medical cannabis therapy management service for patients with chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Treatment with medical cannabis (MC) in the United States tends to be patient-driven in nature despite evidence that suggests that patients have remarkably poor knowledge on the medical use of this treatment modality.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and pilot a collaborative, fee-for-service (FFS), office-based, pharmacist-directed MC therapy management (MCTM) service for patients suffering chronic pain.

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

A collaborative, FFS, office-based, pharmacist-directed MCTM service where patients are seen after a physician deems them suitable for treatment with MC. The pharmacist designs the initial treatment regimen by selecting a formulation, dose, route, and frequency of administration and then manages ongoing therapy by making regimen changes based on the patient's response, adverse effects, and financial concerns.

PRACTICE INNOVATION

The creation of a specialized service where a registered MC pharmacist is positioned in a collaborating provider's office and sees patients face-to-face for the provision of MCTM services.

EVALUATION METHODS

Patient retention, revenue generated, and ability to replicate the service were evaluated. Patient satisfaction was assessed by collecting subjective feedback on the service.

RESULTS

The pilot site that developed the service has seen 133 patients from 2016 to 2021 and has retained 89% of patients after 5 years of quarterly appointments. Patients appear willing to pay out of pocket for the service, and the revenue generated covers the pharmacist's and collaborating physician's time as well as additional overhead. The service has been replicated at 2 additional sites, and patient feedback has been positive.

CONCLUSIONS

MCTM is another useful pharmacist service that patients are willing to pay for. MCTM services decrease the collaborating provider's workload while still allowing them to offer their patients personalized treatment with MC. In our experience, the service retains patients, generates enough revenue to cover costs, can be replicated, and is well received by patients.