Association between medical cannabis laws and opioid overdose mortality has reversed over time

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).

The relationship of medical and recreational cannabis laws with opioid misuse and opioid use disorder in the USA: Does it depend on prior history of cannabis use?

BACKGROUND

Wider availability of cannabis through medical and recreational legalization (MCL alone and RCL+MCL) has been hypothesized to contribute to reductions in opioid use, misuse, and related harms. We examined whether state adoption of cannabis laws was associated with changes in opioid outcomes overall and stratified by cannabis use.

METHODS

Using National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data from 2015 to 2019, we estimated cannabis law associations with opioid (prescription opioid misuse and/or heroin use) misuse and use disorder. All logistic regression models (overall models and models stratified by cannabis use), included year and state fixed effects, individual level covariates, and opioid-related state policies. Stratified analyses were restricted to individuals who reported lifetime cannabis use prior to law adoption to reduce potential for collider bias. Estimates accounted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate (FDR) corrections and sensitivity to unmeasured confounding using e-values.

RESULTS

Overall, MCL and RCL adoption were not associated with changes in the odds of any opioid outcome. After restricting to respondents reporting past-year cannabis use, we observed decreased odds of past year opioid misuse (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.57 [95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.38, 0.85]; FDR p-value: 0.07), among individuals in states with MCL compared to those in states without cannabis laws. RCLs were not associated with changes in the odds of any opioid outcome beyond MCL adoption.

CONCLUSION

Comparing individuals in MCL alone states to those in states without such laws, we found an inconsistent pattern of decreased odds of opioid outcomes, which were more pronounced among people reporting cannabis use. The pattern did not hold for individuals in RCL states. In line with a substitution-oriented perspective, findings suggests that MCLs may be associated with reductions in opioid use among people using cannabis but additional work to replicate and expand on these findings is needed.

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.

Impact of medical and recreational cannabis laws on inpatient visits for asthma

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of medical and recreational cannabis laws on inpatient visits for asthma and by payer-type.

STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN

Quasi-experimental difference-in-differences regression analysis was conducted while accounting for variations in cannabis laws implementation timing by states. Inpatient visits for asthma in states with a given type of cannabis law were compared with those in states that did not implement the specific law. Four different cannabis laws were examined in the study-initial passage of medical cannabis law, opening of a medical cannabis dispensary, home cultivation of medical cannabis, and recreational cannabis legalization.

DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE

State-level quarterly inpatient visit data for asthma patients were utilized from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Fast Stats database. The primary analysis included inpatient visits for asthma by all payer adult patients aged 19 and above in 38 states from 2005 to 2017, and the secondary analysis included inpatient visits for asthma by payer-type (i.e., private, Medicare, Medicaid, uninsured).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

States with medical cannabis dispensaries and legalized recreational cannabis experienced 14.12% (2.14; 95% CI, 0.74-3.53; p < 0.01) and 20.45% (3.08; 95% CI, 1.47-4.69; p < 0.001) increases in inpatient visits for asthma compared with states without these policies, respectively. These increases in inpatient visits for asthma were primarily driven by populations covered by Medicare and private insurance, with Medicare population showing larger effects of both recreational cannabis laws and medical cannabis dispensaries.

CONCLUSIONS

States with medical cannabis dispensaries and legalized recreational cannabis experienced higher rate of inpatient visits for asthma compared with states without these policies. Clinicians and policymakers should consider strategies to curb adverse health outcomes of cannabis, that is likely to result in increased costs of healthcare.

Legal Recreational Cannabis Sales and Opioid-Related Mortality in the 5 Years Following Cannabis Legalization in Canada: A Granger Causality Analysis

Objective

Little is known about the population-level impact of recreational cannabis legalization on trends in opioid-related mortality. Increased access to cannabis due to legalization has been hypothesized to reduce opioid-related deaths because of the potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabis. The objective of this study was to examine the relations between national retail sales of recreational (non-medical) cannabis and opioid overdose deaths in the 5 years following legalization in Canada.

Method

Using time-series data, we applied Granger causality methods to evaluate the association between trends in legal recreational cannabis sales and opioid-related deaths over time. Both sales and opioid deaths grew over time, with the latter exhibiting significant increases following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

We found no support for the hypothesis that increasing post-legalization sales Granger caused changes in opioid-related deaths in British Columbia, Ontario, or at the national level.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that increases in legal recreational cannabis sales following legalization were not meaningfully associated with changes in opioid-related mortality. Further examination with longer follow-up periods will be needed as the legal cannabis market becomes more entrenched in Canada, but these findings converge with previous work suggesting legalization is not related to opioid overdose mortality and further undermine that hypothesized link as a basis for legalization in other jurisdictions.

Cannabis and the overdose crisis among US adolescents

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Since 2019, the drug overdose death rate among adolescents 14-18 years of age in the United States more than doubled. That cannabis legalization may have contributed to this tragedy is investigated by comparing the death rate in jurisdictions that have legalized medicinal or both medicinal and recreational use with those that have not.

METHODS

Unintentional drug overdose death data for each state and District of Columbia (jurisdictions) were obtained from CDC WONDER and separately evaluated according to the jurisdiction legalization implementation of cannabis: recreational legalization, medicinal legalization but not recreational legalization, and nonlegalization.

RESULTS

After a decade of similar and decreasing overdose death rates, jurisdictions that implemented cannabis legalization had a statistically significant greater increase in overdose deaths than nonlegalizing states. Those that implemented recreational legalization had the greatest increase, in which the rate was 88%, 479%, and 115% greater in 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively, than in nonlegalizing jurisdictions. The overdose death rate versus cannabis legalization correlations are apparent in both females and males and in White, Black, and Hispanic individuals, and a statistically significant greater rate increases between recreational cannabis legalization implementation and nonlegalization.

CONCLUSION AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Legalization of cannabis is associated with overdose deaths in American adolescents, especially recreational legalization, and regardless of sex or White-Black-Hispanic race/ethnicity. Cause and effect relationships of these previously unreported correlations, if verified, merit investigation of biologic and psychosocial mechanisms, interventions, and prevention strategies.

Exploring the substitution of cannabis for alcohol and other drugs among a large convenience sample of people who use cannabis

BACKGROUND

The substitution of cannabis for alcohol and other drugs has been conceptualised in a harm reduction framework as where cannabis is used to reduce the negative side-effects, addiction potential, and social stigma of other drugs. There is currently mixed evidence with recent reviews suggesting cannabis co-use patterns may vary by age and ethnicity. Yet few studies have had large enough samples to examine this demographic variation in detail.

AIMS

To explore the co-use of cannabis with alcohol and other drugs within demographic subgroups of a large sample of people who use cannabis. Specifically: (1) whether cannabis is being substituted for other drugs, and (2), whether cannabis use leads to more, less or the same level of other drug use.

METHOD

Online convenience survey promoted via Facebook™ completed by 23,500 New Zealand respondents. Those who had used cannabis and any of eight other substances in the same six-month period were asked if their use of cannabis had any impact on their use of each other substance ("a lot more", "little more", "no impact/same", "little less", "a lot less"). Frequency and quantity used of each other drug was compared by co-use group. Generalised logistic regression models were developed to predict co-use categories.

RESULTS

Significant proportions reported cannabis use led to "less" alcohol (60%), synthetic cannabinoid (60%), morphine (44%) and methamphetamine (40%) use. Those who reported using "less" had lower frequency and amount used of other drugs. Approximately seven-out-ten reported cannabis use had "no impact" on LSD, MDMA, and cocaine use. One-in-five reported using cannabis led to "more" tobacco use. Young adults (21-35-years) were more likely to report cannabis use led to "less" drinking and methamphetamine use. Adolescent co-users (16-20 years) reported mixed impacts. Māori were more likely to report cannabis use resulted in "less" alcohol, tobacco, methamphetamine, and LSD use. Students and those living in cities were less likely to report cannabis use lowering use of other substances.

CONCLUSION

Cannabis and other drug co-use patterns are moderated by life stages, lifestyles, cultural perspectives, and urbanicity. Harm reduction initiatives and policy reforms should take account of these moderating factors.

Using Medical Cannabis for Chronic Pain: A Social-Ecological Framework

Early studies suggest medical cannabis (MC) has the potential to benefit people who suffer from chronic pain by offering a less addictive alternative to opioids; however, most investigators agree more research is indicated. Today, in 2023, cannabis remains a Schedule I drug and is an illegal substance in the United States under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Despite this designation, as of February 2022, 37 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia allowed using cannabis products to treat certain painful medical conditions. The contradictory status of federal and state legislation regarding cannabis use has resulted in delays and restrictions on relevant research. As a result, an inadequate foundation of knowledge exists needed to inform policy, program, and practice decisions concerning MC to treat pain. Implementing and controlling access to MC is influenced by overlapping individual, interpersonal, community, and organizational influences that all fall under the umbrella of federal and state policies. Increasingly, the legalization and expanded access to MC necessitates the integration of evidence, policy, and social-ecological reality. To adequately delineate these complex factors to anticipate and plan future interventions at multiple levels, we propose a social-ecological framework (SEF) for using MC to treat pain. This SEF assumes the transactional relationship between the individual and the environment and that no single factor can predict behavior or health outcomes. Our framework illustrates five dynamic levels of analysis that interact between dimensions. Key elements and intersections are discussed at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, and policy levels.

Medical marijuana laws and mental health in the United States

The consequences of legal access to medical marijuana for individuals' well-being are controversially assessed. We contribute to the discussion by evaluating the impact of the introduction of medical marijuana laws across US states on self-reported mental health considering different motives for cannabis consumption. Our analysis is based on BRFSS survey data from close to eight million respondents between 1993 and 2018 that we combine with information from the NSDUH to estimate individual consumption propensities. We find that eased access to marijuana through medical marijuana laws reduce the reported number of days with poor mental health for individuals with a high propensity to consume marijuana for medical purposes and for those individuals who likely suffer from frequent pain.

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.

United States marijuana legalization and opioid mortality trends before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

To determine if marijuana legalization was associated with reduced opioid mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

The United States (US) opioid mortality trend during the 2010-2019 decade was compared in states and District of Columbia (jurisdictions) that had implemented marijuana legalization with states that had not. Acceleration of opioid mortality during 2020, the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, was also compared in recreational and medicinal-only legalizing jurisdictions.

METHODS

Joinpoint methodology was applied to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER data. Trends in legalizing jurisdictions were cumulative aggregates.

RESULTS

The overall opioid and fentanyl death rates and the percentage of opioid deaths due to fentanyl increased more during 2010-2019 in jurisdictions that legalized marijuana than in those that did not (pairwise comparison p = 0.007, 0.05, and 0.006, respectively). By 2019, the all-opioid and fentanyl death rates were 44 and 50 percent greater in the legalizing than in the nonlegalizing jurisdictions, respectively. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, jurisdictions that implemented recreational marijuana legalization before 2019 had significantly greater increases in both overall opioid and fentanyl death rates than jurisdictions with medicinal-only legalization. For all-opioids, the mean (95 percent confidence interval) 2019-to-2020 increases were 46.5 percent (36.6, 56.3 percent) and 29.1 percent (20.2, 37.9 percent), respectively (p = 0.02). For fentanyl, they were 115.6 percent (80.2, 151.6 percent) and 55.4 percent (31.6, 79.2 percent), respectively (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

During the past decade, marijuana legalization in the US was associated at the jurisdiction level with a greater acceleration in opioid death rate. An even greater increase in opioid mortality occurred in recreational-legalizing jurisdictions with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Marijuana legalization is correlated with worsening of the US opioid epidemic.

Recreational and Medical Cannabis Legalization and Opioid Prescriptions and Mortality

Importance

While some have argued that cannabis legalization has helped to reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality in the US, evidence has been mixed. Moreover, existing studies did not account for biases that could arise when policy effects vary over time or across states or when multiple policies are assessed at the same time, as in the case of recreational and medical cannabis legalization.

Objective

To quantify changes in opioid prescriptions and opioid overdose deaths associated with recreational and medical cannabis legalization in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This quasiexperimental, generalized difference-in-differences analysis used annual state-level data between January 2006 and December 2020 to compare states that legalized recreational or medical cannabis vs those that did not.

Intervention

Recreational and medical cannabis law implementation (proxied by recreational and medical cannabis dispensary openings) between 2006 and 2020 across US states.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Opioid prescription rates per 100 persons and opioid overdose deaths per 100 000 population based on data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Results

Between 2006 and 2020, 13 states legalized recreational cannabis and 23 states legalized medical cannabis. There was no statistically significant association of recreational or medical cannabis laws with opioid prescriptions or overall opioid overdose mortality across the 15-year study period, although the results also suggested a potential reduction in synthetic opioid deaths associated with recreational cannabis laws (4.9 fewer deaths per 100 000 population; 95% CI, -9.49 to -0.30; P = .04). Sensitivity analyses excluding state economic indicators, accounting for additional opioid laws and using alternative ways to code treatment dates yielded substantively similar results, suggesting the absence of statistically significant associations between cannabis laws and the outcomes of interest during the full study period.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this study suggest that, after accounting for biases due to possible heterogeneous effects and simultaneous assessment of recreational and medical cannabis legalization, the implementation of recreational or medical cannabis laws was not associated with opioid prescriptions or opioid mortality, with the exception of a possible reduction in synthetic opioid deaths associated with recreational cannabis law implementation.

The impact of cannabis on non-medical opioid use among individuals receiving pharmacotherapies for opioid use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

Background: The relationship between cannabis use and the risk of returning to using opioids non-medically during treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains unclear.Objective: We sought to quantify the impact of cannabis use on the risk of non-medical opioid use among people receiving pharmacotherapies for OUD.Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases from March 1 to April 5 of 2023. Eligible studies longitudinally assessed the association between cannabis use and non-medical opioid use among people with OUD receiving treatment with buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone. We utilized a random-effects model employing the restricted maximum likelihood method. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand potential differences between each OUD treatment modality.Results: A total of 10 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. There were 8,367 participants (38% female). The average follow-up time across these studies was 9.7 months (SD = 3.77), ranging from 4 to 15 months. The pharmacotherapies involved were methadone (76.3%) buprenorphine (21.3%), and naltrexone (2.4%). The pooled odds ratio did not indicate that cannabis use significantly influenced non-medical opioid use (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.04, p = .98). There is evidence of moderate heterogeneity and publication bias.Conclusion: There was no significant association between cannabis use and non-medical opioid use among patients receiving pharmacotherapies for OUD. These findings neither confirm concerns about cannabis increasing non-medical opioid use during MOUD, nor do they endorse its efficacy in decreasing non-medical opioid use with MOUD. This indicates a need for individualized approaches for cannabis use and challenges the requirement of cannabis abstinence to maintain OUD pharmacotherapies.

Opioid and healthcare service use in medical cannabis patients with chronic pain: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Various jurisdictions have legalised medical cannabis (MC) for use in chronic pain treatment. The objective of this study was to determine if the use of MC is related to a reduction in the use of prescription opioids and other prescription medications and healthcare services.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the medical files of 68 Israeli patients with chronic pain using MC. Number of prescription medications filled and healthcare services used were recorded separately for the baseline period (6 months prior to the start of MC treatment) and 6 months' follow-up. Paired t-tests were used to compare each individual to himself/herself from baseline to follow-up.

RESULTS

Patients filled less opioid prescription medication at follow-up compared with baseline, and the reduction was of small effect size. There were no significant changes in the use of other medications or use of healthcare services from pre-MC treatment to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

MC may be related to a significant yet small reduction in opioid prescription medication. Further prospective studies with representative samples are warranted to confirm the potential small opioid-sparing effects of MC treatment, its clinical importance, if any, and potential lack of association with other healthcare-related services and medication use. Due to methodological limitations of the data used in this study, results may be regarded as preliminary and causal inferences cannot be made.

Health, safety, and socioeconomic impacts of cannabis liberalization laws: An evidence and gap map

Background

Globally, cannabis laws and regulations are rapidly changing. Countries are increasingly permitting access to cannabis under various decriminalization, medicalization, and legalization laws. With strong economic, public health, and social justice incentives driving these domestic cannabis policy reforms, liberalization trends are bound to continue. However, despite a large and growing body of interdisciplinary research addressing the policy-relevant health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences of cannabis liberalization, there is a lack of robust primary and systematic research that comprehensively investigates the consequences of these reforms.

Objectives

This evidence and gap map (EGM) summarizes the empirical evidence on cannabis liberalization policies. Primary objectives were to develop a conceptual framework linking cannabis liberalization policies to relevant outcomes, descriptively summarize the empirical evidence, and identify areas of evidence concentration and gaps.

Search Methods

We comprehensively searched for eligible English-language empirical studies published across 23 academic databases and 11 gray literature sources through August 2020. Additions to the pool of potentially eligible studies from supplemental sources were made through November 2020.

Selection Criteria

The conceptual framework for this EGM draws upon a legal epidemiological perspective highlighting the causal effects of law and policy on population-level outcomes. Eligible interventions include policies that create or expand access to a legal or decriminalized supply of cannabis: comprehensive medical cannabis laws (MCLs), limited medical cannabidiol laws (CBDLs), recreational cannabis laws (RCLs), industrial hemp laws (IHLs), and decriminalization of cultivations laws (DCLs). Eligible outcomes include intermediate responses (i.e., attitudes/behaviors and markets/environments) and longer-term consequences (health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes) of these laws.

Data Collection and Analysis

Both dual screening and dual data extraction were performed with third person deconfliction. Primary studies were appraised using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale and systematic reviews were assessed using AMSTAR 2.

Main Results

The EGM includes 447 studies, comprising 438 primary studies and nine systematic reviews. Most research derives from the United States, with little research from other countries. By far, most cannabis liberalization research focuses on the effects of MCLs and RCLs. Studies targeting other laws-including CBDLs, IHLs, and DCLs-are relatively rare. Of the 113 distinct outcomes we documented, cannabis use was the single most frequently investigated. More than half these outcomes were addressed by three or fewer studies, highlighting substantial evidence gaps in the literature. The systematic evidence base is relatively small, comprising just seven completed reviews on cannabis use (3), opioid-related harms (3), and alcohol-related outcomes (1). Moreover, we have limited confidence in the reviews, as five were appraised as minimal quality and two as low quality.

Authors’ Conclusions

More primary and systematic research is needed to better understand the effects of cannabis liberalization laws on longer-term-and arguably more salient-health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes. Since most research concerns MCLs and RCLs, there is a critical need for research on the societal impacts of industrial hemp production, medical CBD products, and decriminalized cannabis cultivation. Future research should also prioritize understanding the heterogeneous effects of these laws given differences in specific provisions and implementation across jurisdictions.

Patient Reported Outcomes Using Medical Cannabis for Managing Pain in Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease

Objective: Chronic pain is a major problem for patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) disease. This exploratory study examined patient reported efficacy of medical cannabis for pain management in this population. Methods: Participants (N = 56; 71.4% female; Age = 48.9, SD = 14.6; 48.5% CMT1) were recruited though the Hereditary Neuropathy Foundation. The online survey contained 52 multiple choice questions about demographics, medical cannabis use, symptomology, efficacy, and adverse effects. Results: Nearly all (90.9%) of respondents reported experiencing pain, including all (100%) females and 72.7% of males (chi-square P < .05) with 91.7% of respondents indicating cannabis provided at least 50% pain relief. The most frequent response was an 80% reduction in pain. Moreover, 80.0% of respondents reported using less opiates, 69% noted using less sleep medication, and 50.0% reported using less anxiety/antidepressant medications. Negative side effects were noted by 23.5% of respondents. However, almost all (91.7%) of that subgroup did not have plans to stop consuming cannabis. One-third (33.9%) possessed a medical cannabis certificate. Patient perceptions of their physicians' attitudes regarding patient medical cannabis use greatly impacted whether respondents informed their providers of their usage. Conclusion: The vast majority of patients with CMT reported that cannabis was effective to manage pain symptoms. These data support the need for prospective, randomized, controlled trials using standardized dosing protocols to further delineate and optimize the potential use of cannabis to treat pain related to CMT.

Adult Medical Cannabinoid Use and Changes in Prescription Controlled Substance Use

Introduction: Nonopioid-based strategies for managing chronic noncancer pain are needed to help reduce overdose deaths. Although lab studies and population-level data suggest that cannabinoids could provide opioid-sparing effects, among medical cannabis participants they may also impact overdose risk by modifying other controlled substance use such as sedative hypnotics. However, no study has combined observational data at the individual level to empirically address interactions between the use of cannabinoids and prescribed controlled substances. Methods: Electronic health records, including prescription drug monitoring program data, from a large multisite medical cannabis program in New York State were abstracted for all participants with noncancer pain and recently prescribed noncannabinoid controlled substances who completed a new intake visit from April 15, 2018-April 14, 2019 and who remained actively in treatment for >180 days. Participants were partitioned into two samples: those with recent opioid use and those with active opioid use and co-use of sedative hypnotics. A patient-month level analysis assessed total average equivalent milligrams by class of drug (i.e., cannabinoid distinguishing tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] vs. cannabidiol [CBD], opioids, and sedative-hypnotics) received as a time-varying outcome measure across each 30-day "month" period postintake for at least 6 months for all participants. Results: Sample 1 of 285 opioid users were 61.1 years of age (±13.5), 57.5% female, and using an average of 49.7 (±98.5) morphine equivalents daily at intake. Unadjusted analyses found a modest decline in morphine equivalents to 43.9 mg (±94.1 mg) from 49.7 (±98.5) in month 1 (p=0.047) while receiving relatively low doses of THC (2.93 mg/day) and CBD (2.15 mg/day). Sample 2 of 95 opioid and sedative-hypnotic users were 60.9 years of age (±13.1), 63.2% female, and using an average of 86.6 (±136.2) morphine equivalents daily, and an average of 4.3 (±5.6) lorazepam equivalents. Unadjusted analyses did not find significant changes in either morphine equivalents (p=0.81) or lorazepam equivalents (p=0.980), and patients similarly received relatively low doses of THC (2.32 mg/day) and CBD (2.24 mg/day). Conclusions: Findings demonstrated minimal to no change in either opioids or sedative hypnotics over the 6 months of medical cannabis use but may be limited by low retention rates, external generalizability, and an inability to account for nonprescribed substance use.

Implications of Cannabis Legalization on Substance-Related Benefits and Harms for People Who Use Opioids: A Canadian Perspective

In 2018, Canada enacted the Cannabis Act, becoming only the second country (after Uruguay) to legalize the recreational consumption of cannabis. Although there is ongoing global disagreement on the risk-benefit profile of cannabis with increasing legalization in many parts of the world, the evidence of rising cannabis use prevalence postlegalization has been consistent. In contrast, postlegalization changes in various cannabis-related metrics have been inconsistent in Canada and other parts of the world. Furthermore, the implications of cannabis legalization on substance-related harms and benefits for people who use unregulated drugs, particularly opioids, remain unclear. Finally, although Canada did not legalize cannabis to address the opioid crisis, there is rising scientific and popular interest in the therapeutic potential of cannabis to mitigate opioid-related harms. This perspective highlights the implications of cannabis legalization on substance-related benefits and harms for people who use opioids, the current state of Canadian research, and suggestions for future directions.

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.

Medical cannabis laws lower individual market health insurance premiums

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the impact of medical cannabis laws (MCLs) on health insurance premiums. We study whether cannabis legalization significantly impacts aggregate health insurer premiums in the individual market. Increases in utilization could have spillover effects to patients in the form of higher health insurance premiums.

METHODS

We use 2010-2021 state-level U.S. private health insurer financial data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. We examined changes to individual market health insurance premiums after the implementation of medical cannabis laws. We employed a robust difference-in-differences estimator that accounted for variation in policy timing to exploit temporal and geographic variation in state-level medical cannabis legalization.

RESULTS

Seven years after the implementation of Medical Cannabis laws, we observe lower health insurer premiums in the individual market. Starting seven years post-MCL implementation, we find a reduction of $-1662.7 (95% confidence interval [CI -2650.1, -605.7]) for states which implemented MCLs compared to the control group, a reduction of -$1541.8 (95% confidence interval [CI 2602.1, -481.4]) in year 8, and a reduction of $-1625.8, (95% confidence interval [CI -2694.2, -557.5]) in year 9. Due to the nature of insurance pooling and community rating, these savings are appreciated by cannabis users and non-users alike in states that have implemented MCLs.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of MCLs lowers individual-market health insurance premiums. Health insurance spending, including premiums, comprises between 16% and 34% of household budgets in the United States. As healthcare costs continue to rise, our findings suggest that households that obtain their health insurance on the individual (i.e., not employer sponsored) market in states with MCLs appreciate significantly lower premiums.

Cannabis use to manage opioid cravings among people who use unregulated opioids during a drug toxicity crisis

BACKGROUND

Accumulating evidence has indicated that cannabis substitution is often used as a harm reduction strategy among people who use unregulated opioids (PWUO) and people living with chronic pain. We sought to investigate the association between cannabis use to manage opioid cravings and self-reported changes in opioid use among structurally marginalized PWUO.

METHODS

The data were collected from a cross-sectional questionnaire administered to PWUO in Vancouver, Canada. Binary logistic regression was used to analyze the association between cannabis use to manage opioid cravings and self-reported changes in unregulated opioid use.

RESULTS

A total of 205 people who use cannabis and opioids were enrolled in the present study from December 2019 to November 2021. Cannabis use to manage opioid cravings was reported by 118 (57.6%) participants. In the multivariable analysis, cannabis use to manage opioid cravings (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07, 4.27) was significantly associated with self-reported reductions in opioid use. In the sub-analyses of pain, cannabis use to manage opioid cravings was only associated with self-assessed reductions in opioid use among people living with moderate to severe pain (aOR = 4.44, 95% CI: 1.52, 12.97). In the sub-analyses of males and females, cannabis use to manage opioid cravings was only associated with self-assessed reductions in opioid use among females (aOR = 8.19, 95% CI: 1.20, 55.81).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that cannabis use to manage opioid cravings is a prevalent motivation for cannabis use among PWUO and is associated with self-assessed reductions in opioid use during periods of cannabis use. Increasing the accessibility of cannabis products for therapeutic use may be a useful supplementary strategy to mitigate exposure to unregulated opioids and associated harm during the ongoing drug toxicity crisis.

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol modulates pain sensitivity among persons receiving opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A within-subject, randomized, placebo-controlled laboratory study

The opioid and cannabinoid receptor systems are inextricably linked-overlapping at the anatomical, functional and behavioural levels. Preclinical studies have reported that cannabinoid and opioid agonists produce synergistic antinociceptive effects. Still, there are no experimental data on the effects of cannabinoid agonists among humans who receive opioid agonist therapies for opioid use disorder (OUD). We conducted an experimental study to investigate the acute effects of the delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) among persons receiving methadone therapy for OUD. Using a within-subject, crossover, human laboratory design, 25 persons on methadone therapy for OUD (24% women) were randomly assigned to receive single oral doses of THC (10 or 20 mg, administered as dronabinol) or placebo, during three separate 5-h test sessions. Measures of experimental and self-reported pain sensitivity, abuse potential, cognitive performance and physiological effects were collected. Mixed-effects models examined the main effects of THC dose and interactions between THC (10 and 20 mg) and methadone doses (low-dose methadone defined as <90 mg/day; high dose defined as >90 mg/day). Results demonstrated that, for self-reported rather than experimental pain sensitivity measures, 10 mg THC provided greater relief than 20 mg THC, with no substantial evidence of abuse potential, and inconsistent dose-dependent cognitive adverse effects. There was no indication of any interaction between THC and methadone doses. Collectively, these results provide valuable insights for future studies aiming to evaluate the risk-benefit profile of cannabinoids to relieve pain among individuals receiving opioid agonist therapy for OUD, a timely endeavour amidst the opioid crisis.

An answered call for aid? Cannabinoid clinical framework for the opioid epidemic

BACKGROUND

The opioid crisis continues in full force, as physicians and caregivers are desperate for resources to help patients with opioid use and chronic pain disorders find safer and more accessible non-opioid tools.

MAIN BODY

The purpose of this article is to review the current state of the opioid epidemic; the shifting picture of cannabinoids; and the research, policy, and current events that make opioid risk reduction an urgent public health challenge. The provided table contains an evidence-based clinical framework for the utilization of cannabinoids to treat patients with chronic pain who are dependent on opioids, seeking alternatives to opioids, and tapering opioids.

CONCLUSION

Based on a comprehensive review of the literature and epidemiological evidence to date, cannabinoids stand to be one of the most interesting, safe, and accessible tools available to attenuate the devastation resulting from the misuse and abuse of opioid narcotics. Considering the urgency of the opioid epidemic and broadening of cannabinoid accessibility amidst absent prescribing guidelines, the authors recommend use of this clinical framework in the contexts of both clinical research continuity and patient care.

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.

Use of Cannabis as a Harm Reduction Strategy Among People Who Use Drugs: A Cohort Study

Introduction: While substance use contributes to a substantial burden of disease, access to evidence-based harm reduction interventions remains limited or inaccessible. Preliminary research suggests that some individuals use cannabis to reduce the harms associated with their use of other substances, including opioids and stimulants. This study examines factors associated with the self-reported use of cannabis for harm reduction among people who use drugs (PWUD). Methods: We drew data from three prospective, community-recruited cohorts of PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, between June 2016 and May 2018. Multivariable generalized linear mixed-effects modeling was used to examine factors associated with the primary outcome of "use of cannabis for harm reduction," defined as self-reported use of cannabis to substitute for other substances, treat withdrawal, or come down off other drugs. Results: One thousand nine hundred thirty-six participants contributed 5706 observations. In adjusted analyses, daily methamphetamine use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.89), experiencing barriers to accessing addiction treatment (AOR=1.92, 95% CI: 1.21-3.03), and enrollment in addiction treatment modalities other than opioid agonist therapy (AOR=1.64, 95% CI: 1.17-2.29) were positively associated with using cannabis for harm reduction. Older age was negatively associated (AOR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.95-0.98). Among 1281 (66.2%) participants who use cannabis, daily cannabis use and obtaining cannabis from unregulated dispensaries were also independent correlates of using cannabis for harm reduction. Discussion and Conclusions: Individuals who were more likely to use cannabis for harm reduction reported difficulty accessing addiction treatment or used substances, such as methamphetamines, where effective treatments are limited. These findings highlight the need to better understand the potential harm-reducing impacts of cannabis among PWUD in these scenarios.

Cannabis use frequency and pain interference among people with HIV

Cannabis is often used by people with HIV (PWH) for pain, yet study results are inconsistent regarding whether and how it affects pain. This study examines whether greater cannabis use frequency is associated with lower pain interference and whether cannabis use modifies the association of pain severity and pain interference among 134 PWH with substance dependence or a lifetime history of injection drug use. Multi-variable linear regression models examined the association between past 30-day cannabis use frequency and pain interference. Additional models evaluated whether cannabis use modified the association between pain severity and pain interference. Cannabis use frequency was not significantly associated with pain interference. However, in a model with interaction between cannabis use frequency and pain severity, greater cannabis use frequency attenuated the strength of the association between pain severity and pain interference (p = 0.049). The adjusted mean difference (AMD) in pain interference was +1.13, + 0.81, and +0.05 points for each 1-point increase in pain severity for those with no cannabis use, 15 days of use, and daily use, respectively. These findings suggest that attenuating the impact of pain severity on pain-related functional impairment is a potential mechanism for a beneficial role of cannabis for PWH.

Changes in Opioid and Benzodiazepine Poisoning Deaths After Cannabis Legalization in the US: A County-level Analysis, 2002-2020

BACKGROUND

Cannabis legalization for medical and recreational purposes has been suggested as an effective strategy to reduce opioid and benzodiazepine use and deaths. We examined the county-level association between medical and recreational cannabis laws and poisoning deaths involving opioids and benzodiazepines in the US from 2002 to 2020.

METHODS

Our ecologic county-level, spatiotemporal study comprised 49 states. Exposures were state-level implementation of medical and recreational cannabis laws and state-level initiation of cannabis dispensary sales. Our main outcomes were poisoning deaths involving any opioid, any benzodiazepine, and opioids with benzodiazepines. Secondary analyses included overdoses involving natural and semi-synthetic opioids, synthetic opioids, and heroin.

RESULTS

Implementation of medical cannabis laws was associated with increased deaths involving opioids (rate ratio [RR] = 1.14; 95% credible interval [CrI] = 1.11, 1.18), benzodiazepines (RR = 1.19; 95% CrI = 1.12, 1.26), and opioids+benzodiazepines (RR = 1.22; 95% CrI = 1.15, 1.30). Medical cannabis legalizations allowing dispensaries was associated with fewer deaths involving opioids (RR = 0.88; 95% CrI = 0.85, 0.91) but not benzodiazepine deaths; results for recreational cannabis implementation and opioid deaths were similar (RR = 0.81; 95% CrI = 0.75, 0.88). Recreational cannabis laws allowing dispensary sales was associated with consistent reductions in opioid- (RR = 0.83; 95% CrI = 0.76, 0.91), benzodiazepine- (RR = 0.79; 95% CrI = 0.68, 0.92), and opioid+benzodiazepine-related poisonings (RR = 0.83; 95% CrI = 0.70, 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of medical cannabis laws was associated with higher rates of opioid- and benzodiazepine-related deaths, whereas laws permitting broader cannabis access, including implementation of recreational cannabis laws and medical and recreational dispensaries, were associated with lower rates. The estimated effects of the expanded availability of cannabis seem dependent on the type of law implemented and its provisions.

A national population-based study of cannabis use and correlates among U.S. veterans prescribed opioids in primary care

BACKGROUND

Cannabis is marketed as a treatment for pain. There is limited data on the prevalence of cannabis use and its correlates among Veterans prescribed opioids.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence and correlates of cannabis use among Veterans prescribed opioids.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Veterans with a urine drug test (UDT) from Primary Care 2014-2018, in 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. A total of 1,182,779 patients were identified with an opioid prescription within 90 days prior to UDT.

MAIN MEASURES

Annual prevalence of cannabis positive UDT by state. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess associations of demographic factors, mental health conditions, substance use disorders, and pain diagnoses with cannabis positive UDT.

RESULTS

Annual prevalence of cannabis positive UDT ranged from 8.5% to 9.7% during the study period, and in 2018 was 18.15% in Washington, D.C. and 10 states with legalized medical and recreational cannabis, 6.1% in Puerto Rico and 25 states with legalized medical cannabis, and 4.5% in non-legal states. Younger age, male sex, being unmarried, and marginal housing were associated with use (p < 0.001). Post-traumatic stress disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.22, p < 0.001), opioid use disorder (AOR 1.14; CI 1.07-1.22, p < 0.001), alcohol use disorder or positive AUDIT-C (AOR 1.34; 95% CI 1.28-1.39, p < 0.001), smoking (AOR 2.58; 95% CI 2.49-2.66, p < 0.001), and other drug use disorders (AOR 1.15; 95% CI 1.03-1.29, p = 0.02) were associated with cannabis use. Positive UDT for amphetamines AOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.26-1.58, p < 0.001), benzodiazepines (AOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.31-1.51, p < 0.001) and cocaine (AOR 2.04; 95% CI 1.75-2.36, p < 0.001) were associated with cannabis positive UDT.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis use among Veterans prescribed opioids varied by state and by legalization status. Veterans with PTSD and substance use disorders were more likely to have cannabis positive UDT. Opioid-prescribed Veterans using cannabis may benefit from screening for these conditions, referral to treatment, and attention to opioid safety.

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.

Marijuana legalization and opioid deaths

Many states have legalized marijuana over the last two decades, initially for medical purposes and more recently for recreational consumption. Despite prior research, it remains unclear how these policies are related to rates of opioid-involved overdose deaths, which have trended rapidly upwards over time. We examine this question in two ways. First, we replicate and extend previous investigations to show that the prior empirical results are frequently fragile to the choice of specifications and time periods, and probably provide an overly optimistic assessment of the effects of marijuana legalization on opioid deaths. Second, we present new estimates suggesting that legal medical marijuana, particularly when available through retail dispensaries, is associated with higher opioid mortality. The results for recreational marijuana, while less reliable, also indicate that retail sales may be correlated with greater death rates relative to the counterfactual of no legal cannabis. A likely mechanism for these effects is the emergence of illicit fentanyl, which has increased the riskiness of even small positive effects of cannabis legalization on the consumption of opioids.

Recreational marijuana laws and the misuse of prescription opioids: Evidence from National Survey on Drug Use and Health microdata

Several studies have concluded that legalizing medical marijuana can reduce deaths from opioid overdoses. Drawing on micro data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, a survey uniquely suited to assessing patterns of substance use, we examine the relationship between recreational marijuana laws (RMLs) and the misuse of prescription opioids. Using a standard difference-in-differences (DD) regression model, we find that RML adoption reduces the likelihood of frequently misusing prescription opioids such as OxyContin, Percocet, and Vicodin. However, using a two-stage procedure designed to account for staggered treatment and dynamic effects, the DD estimate of relationship between RML adoption and the likelihood of frequently misusing prescription opioids becomes positive. Although event study estimates suggest that RML adoption leads to a decrease in the frequency of prescription opioid abuse, this effect appears to dissipate after only 2 or 3 years.

Perceived Efficacy, Reduced Prescription Drug Use, and Minimal Side Effects of Cannabis in Patients with Chronic Orthopedic Pain

Introduction: Although cannabis is widely used for the treatment of chronic pain, most research relies on patient self-report and few studies have objectively quantified its efficacy and side effects. Extant inventories for measuring cannabis use were not designed to capture the medically relevant features of cannabis use, but rather were designed to detect problematic use or cannabis use disorder. Thus, we sought to capture the medically relevant features of cannabis use in a population of patients with orthopedic pain and pair these data with objective measures of pain and prescription drug use. Materials and Methods: In this prospective observational study, orthopedic pain patients were enrolled in Pennsylvania's medical cannabis program by their treating pain management physician, received cannabis education from their physician at the time of certification, and purchased products from state-licensed cannabis retailers. Results: Medical cannabis use was associated with clinical improvements in pain, function, and quality of life with reductions in prescription drug use; 73% either ceased or decreased opioid consumption and 31% discontinued benzodiazepines. Importantly, 52% of patients did not experience intoxication as a side effect of cannabis therapy. Significant clinical benefits of cannabis occurred within 3 months of initiating cannabis therapy and plateaued at the subsequent follow-ups. Conclusions: This work provides a direct relationship between the initiation of cannabis therapy and objectively fewer opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions. Our work also identifies specific subpopulations of patients for whom cannabis may be most efficacious in reducing opioid consumption, and it highlights the importance of both physician involvement and patient self-titration in symptom management with cannabis.

Cannabis Use and Heart Transplantation: Disparities and Opportunities to Improve Outcomes

Heart transplantation (HT) remains the optimal therapy for many patients with advanced heart failure. Use of substances of potential abuse has historically been a contraindication to HT. Decriminalization of cannabis, increasing cannabis use, clinician biases, and lack of consensus for evaluating patients with heart failure who use cannabis all have the potential to exacerbate racial and ethnic and regional disparities in HT listing and organ allocation. Here' we review pertinent pre-HT and post-HT considerations related to cannabis use' and relative attitudes between opiates and cannabis are offered for context. We conclude with identifying unmet research needs pertaining to the use of cannabis in HT that can inform a standardized evaluation process.

Real-Time Monitoring of Cannabis and Prescription Opioid Co-Use Patterns, Analgesic Effectiveness, and the Opioid-Sparing Effect of Cannabis in Individuals With Chronic Pain

Despite a rapid expansion of cannabis use for pain management, how cannabis and prescription opioids are co-used and whether co-use improves analgesia and promotes reduction of opioid use in the daily lives of individuals with chronic pain is poorly understood. Based upon ecological momentary assessment (EMA), the present study examined 1) how pain and use of opioids and/or cannabis in the previous moment is associated with individuals' choice of opioids and/or cannabis in the next moment, 2) the effects of co-use on pain severity and pain relief, and 3) whether daily total opioid consumption differs on days when people only used opioids versus co-used. Adults with chronic pain (N = 46) using both opioids and cannabis who were recruited online completed a 30-day EMA. Elevated pain did not increase the likelihood of co-use in subsequent momentary assessments. Switching from sole use of either opioids and cannabis to co-use was common. Neither co-use nor sole use of either cannabis or opioids were associated with reductions in pain in the next moment. However, participants reported the highest daily perceived pain relief from co-use compared to cannabis and opioid use only. Post hoc analysis suggested recall bias as a potential source of this discrepant findings between momentary versus retrospective assessment. Lastly, there was no evidence of an opioid-sparing effect of cannabis in this sample. The present study shows preliminary evidence on cannabis and opioid co-use patterns, as well as the effects of co-use on pain and opoid dose in the real-world setting. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the overall patterns and effects of co-using cannabis and prescription opioids among individuals with chronic pain employing ecological momentary assessment. There were conflicting findings on the association between co-use and analgesia. Co-use was not associated with a reduction in daily opioid consumption in this sample.

U.S. state policy contexts and mortality of working-age adults

The rise in working-age mortality rates in the United States in recent decades largely reflects stalled declines in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality alongside rising mortality from alcohol-induced causes, suicide, and drug poisoning; and it has been especially severe in some U.S. states. Building on recent work, this study examined whether U.S. state policy contexts may be a central explanation. We modeled the associations between working-age mortality rates and state policies during 1999 to 2019. We used annual data from the 1999-2019 National Vital Statistics System to calculate state-level age-adjusted mortality rates for deaths from all causes and from CVD, alcohol-induced causes, suicide, and drug poisoning among adults ages 25-64 years. We merged that data with annual state-level data on eight policy domains, such as labor and taxes, where each domain was scored on a 0-1 conservative-to-liberal continuum. Results show that the policy domains were associated with working-age mortality. More conservative marijuana policies and more liberal policies on the environment, gun safety, labor, economic taxes, and tobacco taxes in a state were associated with lower mortality in that state. Especially strong associations were observed between certain domains and specific causes of death: between the gun safety domain and suicide mortality among men, between the labor domain and alcohol-induced mortality, and between both the economic tax and tobacco tax domains and CVD mortality. Simulations indicate that changing all policy domains in all states to a fully liberal orientation might have saved 171,030 lives in 2019, while changing them to a fully conservative orientation might have cost 217,635 lives.

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.

Cannabinoids and solid organ transplantation: Psychiatric perspectives and recommendations

Cannabinoid use in patients seeking solid organ transplantation (SOT) is an important and unsettled matter which all transplantation clinicians regularly encounter. It is also a multifaceted, interprofessional issue, difficult for any specialty alone to adequately address in a research article or during clinical care. Such uncertainty lends itself to bias for or against cannabinoid use accompanied by inconsistent policies and procedures. Scientific literature in SOT regarding cannabinoids often narrowly examines the issue and exists mostly in liver and kidney transplantation. Published recommendations from professional societies are mosaics of vagueness and specificity mirroring the ongoing dilemma. The cannabinoid information SOT clinicians need for clinical care may require data and perspectives from diverse medical literature which are rarely synthesized. SOT teams may not be adequately staffed or trained to address various neuropsychiatric cannabinoid effects and risks in patients. In this article, authors from US transplantation centers conduct a systematized review of the few existing studies regarding clinician perceptions, use rates, and clinical impact of cannabinoid use in SOT patients; collate representative professional society guidance on the topic; draw from diverse medical literature bases to detail facets of cannabinoid use in psychiatry and addiction pertinent to all transplantation clinicians; provide basic clinical and policy recommendations; and indicate areas of future study.

Recreational cannabis legalizations associated with reductions in prescription drug utilization among Medicaid enrollees

The potential substitution of cannabis for prescription medication has attracted a substantial amount of attention within the context of medical cannabis laws (MCLs). However, much less is known about the association between recreational cannabis laws (RCLs) and prescription drug use. With recent evidence supporting substitution of cannabis for prescription drugs following MCLs, it is reasonable to ask what effect RCLs may have on those outcomes. We use quarterly data for all Medicaid prescriptions from 2011 to 2019 to investigate the effect of state-level RCLs on prescription drug utilization. We estimate this effect with a series of two-way fixed effects event study models. We find significant reductions in the volume of prescriptions within the drug classes that align with the medical indications for pain, depression, anxiety, sleep, psychosis, and seizures. Our results suggest substitution away from prescription drugs and potential cost savings for state Medicaid programs.

Randomised, pragmatic, waitlist controlled trial of cannabis added to prescription opioid support on opioid dose reduction and pain in adults with chronic non-cancer pain: study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Chronic, non-cancer pain impacts approximately 50 million adults in the USA (20%), approximately 25% of whom receive chronic prescription opioids for pain despite limited empirical efficacy data and strong dose-related risk for opioid use disorder and opioid overdose. Also despite lack of efficacy data, there are many reports of people using cannabis products to manage chronic pain and replace or reduce chronic opioids. Here we describe the protocol for a randomised trial of the effect of cannabis, when added to a behavioural pain management and prescription opioid taper support programme, on opioid utilisation, pain intensity and pain interference.

METHODS

This is a pragmatic, single-blind, randomised, wait-list controlled trial that aims to enrol 250 adults taking prescription opioids at stable doses of ≥25 morphine milligram equivalents per day for chronic non-cancer pain who express interest in using cannabis to reduce their pain, their opioid dose or both. All participants will be offered a weekly, 24-session Prescription Opioid Taper Support group behavioural pain management intervention. Participants will be randomly assigned in 1:1 ratio to use cannabis products, primarily from commercial cannabis dispensaries or to abstain from cannabis use for 6 months. Coprimary outcomes are change in prescription monitoring programme-verified opioid dose and change in Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity scale scores. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, depression, anxiety, self-reported opioid dose and opioid and cannabis use disorder symptoms. All other outcomes will be exploratory. We will record adverse events.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has ethical approval by the Massachusetts General Brigham Institutional Review Board (#2021P000871). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04827992.

Opioid-sparing effect of cannabinoids for analgesia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies

Cannabinoid co-administration may enable reduced opioid doses for analgesia. This updated systematic review on the opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids considered preclinical and clinical studies where the outcome was analgesia or opioid dose requirements. We searched Scopus, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase (2016 onwards). Ninety-two studies met the search criteria including 15 ongoing trials. Meta-analysis of seven preclinical studies found the median effective dose (ED₅₀) of morphine administered with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol was 3.5 times lower (95% CI 2.04, 6.03) than the ED₅₀ of morphine alone. Six preclinical studies found no evidence of increased opioid abuse liability with cannabinoid administration. Of five healthy-volunteer experimental pain studies, two found increased pain, two found decreased pain and one found reduced pain bothersomeness with cannabinoid administration; three demonstrated that cannabinoid co-administration may increase opioid abuse liability. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found no evidence of opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in acute pain. Meta-analysis of four RCTs in patients with cancer pain found no effect of cannabinoid administration on opioid dose (mean difference -3.8 mg, 95% CI -10.97, 3.37) or percentage change in pain scores (mean difference 1.84, 95% CI -2.05, 5.72); five studies found more adverse events with cannabinoids compared with placebo (risk ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.03, 1.24). Of five controlled chronic non-cancer pain trials; one low-quality study with no control arm, and one single-dose study reported reduced pain scores with cannabinoids. Three RCTs found no treatment effect of dronabinol. Meta-analyses of observational studies found 39% reported opioid cessation (95% CI 0.15, 0.64, I² 95.5%, eight studies), and 85% reported reduction (95% CI 0.64, 0.99, I² 92.8%, seven studies). In summary, preclinical and observational studies demonstrate the potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in the context of analgesia, in contrast to higher-quality RCTs that did not provide evidence of opioid-sparing effects.

Cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis-based medicines: future research directions for analgesia

The use of cannabis spans thousands of years and encompasses almost all dimensions of the human experience, including consumption for recreational, religious, social, and medicinal purposes. Its use in the management of pain has been anecdotally described for millennia. However, an evidence base has only developed over the last 100 years, with an explosion in research occurring in the last 20-30 years, as more states in the USA as well as countries worldwide have legalized and encouraged its use in pain management. Pain remains one of the most common reasons for individuals deciding to use cannabis medicinally. However, cannabis remains illegal at the federal level in the USA and in most countries of the world, making it difficult to advance quality research on its efficacy for pain treatment. Nonetheless, new products derived both from the cannabis plant and the chemistry laboratory are being developed for use as analgesics. This review examines the current landscape of cannabinoids research and future research directions in the management of pain.

Marijuana Policy Bundles in the American States Over Time and Their Impact on the Use of Marijuana and Other Drugs

American states have used different approaches in adoption of cannabis policies and continue to modify those policies after approval. States also differ in how long it takes to implement such policies, and this influences the availability of legal marijuana. Such policy differences and implementation timelines could influence usage of marijuana and other illicit drugs by adolescents, young adults, and older adults. We develop an original coding scheme for marijuana legalization policies by classifying policy bundles characterized by three views of marijuana: as a pharmaceutical; as a permissive drug, or as a state fiscal revenue source. We test the impact of state legal marijuana policy characteristics on age group rates of marijuana use with panel regression models including control variables and fixed effects for 2000-2019. This design moves beyond a dichotomous construct of marijuana legalization and accounts for the dynamic adaptation of policies beyond their initial adoption. States with a higher pharmaceutical score experienced lower marijuana usage rates for adolescents and young adults while states with a permissive approach or fiscal approach experienced higher rates of marijuana use for all age groups. We find no consistent spillover effect of the pharmaceutical or permissive marijuana policy bundles on other illicit drug use for any age group, but fiscal bundles show some association with greater illicit drug use for adults. These more nuanced measures better reflect state policies as implemented and provide more clarity of the policy impact on target populations' marijuana usage.

"I got a bunch of weed to help me through the withdrawals": Naturalistic cannabis use reported in online opioid and opioid recovery community discussion forums

A growing body of research has reported on the potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabis and cannabinoids, but less is known about specific mechanisms. The present research examines cannabis-related posts in two large online communities on the Reddit platform (“subreddits”) to compare mentions of naturalistic cannabis use by persons self-identifying as actively using opioids versus persons in recovery. We extracted all posts mentioning cannabis-related keywords (e.g., “weed”, “cannabis”, “marijuana”) from December 2015 through August 2019 from an opioid use subreddit and an opioid recovery subreddit. To investigate how cannabis is discussed at-scale, we identified and compared the most frequent phrases in cannabis-related posts in each subreddit using term-frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) weighting. To contextualize these findings, we also conducted a qualitative content analysis of 200 random posts (100 from each subreddit). Cannabis-related posts were about twice as prevalent in the recovery subreddit (n = 908; 5.4% of 16,791 posts) than in the active opioid use subreddit (n = 4,224; 2.6% of 159,994 posts, p < .001). The most frequent phrases from the recovery subreddit referred to time without using opioids and the possibility of using cannabis as a “treatment.” The most frequent phrases from the opioid subreddit referred to concurrent use of cannabis and opioids. The most common motivations for using cannabis were to manage opioid withdrawal symptoms in the recovery subreddit, often in conjunction with anti-anxiety and GI-distress “comfort meds,” and to enhance the “high” when used in combination with opioids in the opioid subreddit. Despite limitations in generalizability from pseudonymous online posts, this examination of reports of naturalistic cannabis use in relation to opioid use identified withdrawal symptom management as a common motivation. Future research is warranted with more structured assessments that examines the role of cannabis and cannabinoids in addressing both somatic and affective symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

Risks and Benefits of Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

The United States is in the midst of rapidly changing laws regarding cannabis. The increasing availability of cannabis for recreational and medical use requires that mental health clinicians be knowledgeable about evidence to be considered when counseling both patients and colleagues. In this review, the authors outline the evidence from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials for therapeutic use of cannabinoids for specific medical conditions and the potential side effects associated with acute and chronic cannabis use.

METHODS

Searches of PubMed and PsycInfo were conducted for articles published through July 2021 reporting on "cannabis" or "cannabinoids" or "medicinal cannabis." Additional articles were identified from the reference lists of published reviews. Articles that did not contain the terms "clinical trial" or "therapy" in the title or abstract were not reviewed. A total of 4,431 articles were screened, and 841 articles that met criteria for inclusion were reviewed by two or more authors.

RESULTS

There are currently no psychiatric indications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cannabinoids, and there is limited evidence supporting the therapeutic use of cannabinoids for treatment of psychiatric disorders. To date, evidence supporting cannabinoid prescription beyond the FDA indications is strongest for the management of pain and spasticity.

CONCLUSIONS

As cannabinoids become more available, the need for an evidence base adequately evaluating their safety and efficacy is increasingly important. There is considerable evidence that cannabinoids have a potential for harm in vulnerable populations such as adolescents and those with psychotic disorders. The current evidence base is insufficient to support the prescription of cannabinoids for the treatment of psychiatric disorders.