Impact of personal beliefs about medical cannabis on physician recommendation practices: Results of an international survey

Effects of Buprenorphine, Methadone and Substance-Use on COVID-19 Morbidity and Mortality

Objectives

Substance use disorder has been associated with increased morbidity in COVID-19 infection. However, less is known about the impact of active substance use and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) on COVID-19 outcomes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of substance use, namely cannabis, cocaine, alcohol, sedative and opioid use as well as buprenorphine or methadone = on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

Methods

Using electronic-health record data at a large urban hospital system, patients who tested positive for COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021 were included. Substance use was identified from urine toxicology and MOUD prescriptions within 90 days prior to admission. COVID-19 outcomes included mortality, ICU admission, need for ventilatory support, number and duration of hospitalizations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed controlling for variables such as age, sex, medical comorbidity, tobacco use, and social disadvantage.

Results

Among COVID-19 positive patients (n=17,423), sedative, cannabis, cocaine, and opioid use was associated with statistically significant increases in need for ICU care, need for ventilatory support, number of hospitalizations and duration of hospitalization. Substance use was not associated with an increase in all-cause mortality. There were no statistically significant differences between methadone, buprenorphine and other opioids on COVID-19 outcomes.

Conclusions

Active substance use were associated with increased morbidity in COVID-19 infection. MOUD was not associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes compared to OUD. Future studies focused on MOUD treatments that reduce morbidity may help improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

International perspective on physician knowledge, attitude and practices related to medical cannabis

Background

The trends of recreational use of cannabis and use of cannabis for medical indications (i.e. "medical cannabis") have grown in recent years. Despite that, there is still limited scientific evidence to guide clinical decision-making and the strength of evidence for the medical use of cannabis is currently considered to be low. In contrast, there's growing evidence for negative health outcomes related to use of cannabis. In this rapidly shifting landscape, the role of physician's attitudes regarding the therapeutic value of cannabis has become essential. This study aimed to characterize knowledge/experience, attitudes, and potential predictors of clinical practice regarding medical cannabis.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of physicians from 17 countries between 2016-2018. The survey comprised of 28 questions designed to explore physician knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding the use of medical cannabis. Descriptive statistics were used to examine willingness to recommend medical cannabis for medical and psychiatric indications, followed by regression analysis to identify predictors of physician willingness to recommend medical cannabis.

Results

A total of 323 physicians responded to the survey. Mean age was 35.4± 9.5 years, with 10.04 ±8.6 years of clinical experience. 53 percent of physicians were women. Clinical experience with medical cannabis was overall limited (51.4% noted never having recommended medical cannabis; 33% noted inadequate knowledge regarding medical cannabis). Overall willingness to recommend medical cannabis was highest for chemotherapy-induced nausea, refractory chronic neuropathic pain, and spasticity in amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Conclusion

This international study examining knowledge, attitudes and practices related to medical cannabis among physicians revealed that there are significant gaps in domain-specific knowledge related to medical cannabis. There is wide variability in willingness to recommend medical cannabis that is not consistent with the current strength of evidence. This study thus highlights the need for greater education related to domain-specific knowledge about medical cannabis.