General risks of harm with cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicine possibly relevant to patients receiving these for pain management: an overview of systematic reviews

The endocannabinoid system as a therapeutic target in neuropathic pain: a review

INTRODUCTION

This review highlights the critical role of the endocannabinoid system (ECS) in regulating neuropathic pain and explores the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids. Understanding the mechanisms of the ECS, including its receptors, endogenous ligands, and enzymatic routes, can lead to innovative treatments for chronic pain, offering more effective therapies for neuropathic conditions. This review bridges the gap between preclinical studies and clinical applications by emphasizing ECS modulation for better pain management outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

A review mapped the existing literature on neuropathic pain and the effects of modulating the ECS using natural and synthetic cannabinoids. This analysis examined ECS components and their alterations in neuropathic pain, highlighting the peripheral, spinal, and supraspinal mechanisms. This review aimed to provide a thorough understanding of the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids in the management of neuropathic pain.

EXPERT OPINION

Advances in cannabinoid research have shown significant potential for the management of chronic neuropathic pain. The study emphasizes the need for high-quality clinical trials and collaborative efforts among researchers, clinicians, and regulatory bodies to ensure safe and effective integration of cannabinoids into pain management protocols. Understanding the mechanisms and optimizing cannabinoid formulations and delivery methods are crucial for enhancing therapeutic outcomes.

A critical assessment of the abuse, dependence and associated safety risks of naturally occurring and synthetic cannabinoids

Various countries and US States have legalized cannabis, and the use of the psychoactive1 and non-psychoactive cannabinoids is steadily increasing. In this review, we have collated evidence from published non-clinical and clinical sources to evaluate the abuse, dependence and associated safety risks of the individual cannabinoids present in cannabis. As context, we also evaluated various synthetic cannabinoids. The evidence shows that delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) and other psychoactive cannabinoids in cannabis have moderate reinforcing effects. Although they rapidly induce pharmacological tolerance, the withdrawal syndrome produced by the psychoactive cannabinoids in cannabis is of moderate severity and lasts from 2 to 6 days. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that non-psychoactive cannabinoids do not produce intoxicating, cognitive or rewarding properties in humans. There has been much speculation whether cannabidiol (CBD) influences the psychoactive and potentially harmful effects of Δ9-THC. Although most non-clinical and clinical investigations have shown that CBD does not attenuate the CNS effects of Δ9-THC or synthetic psychoactive cannabinoids, there is sufficient uncertainty to warrant further research. Based on the analysis, our assessment is cannabis has moderate levels of abuse and dependence risk. While the risks and harms are substantially lower than those posed by many illegal and legal substances of abuse, including tobacco and alcohol, they are far from negligible. In contrast, potent synthetic cannabinoid (CB1/CB2) receptor agonists are more reinforcing and highly intoxicating and pose a substantial risk for abuse and harm. 1 "Psychoactive" is defined as a substance that when taken or administered affects mental processes, e.g., perception, consciousness, cognition or mood and emotions.

Cannabis medicine for chronic pain

In the last decade, patients with chronic pain have expressed increasing interest in cannabis-derived products for adjuvant therapy when treatment is deemed refractory to conventional analgesics. At present, clinical evidence to support this treatment approach appears to be sparse. Not because clinical studies as such are lacking, but rather as a result of methodological bias in relation to study design, patient populations, and treatment protocols. In this review, research in cannabis medicine for relief of chronic pain is reviewed, mainly with reference to published meta-analytic studies.

Cannabidiol (CBD) Products for Pain: Ineffective, Expensive, and With Potential Harms

Cannabidiol (CBD) attracts considerable attention for promoting good health and treating various conditions, predominantly pain, often in breach of advertising rules. Examination of available CBD products in North America and Europe demonstrates that CBD content can vary from none to much more than advertised and that potentially harmful other chemicals are often included. Serious harm is associated with chemicals found in CBD products and reported in children, adults, and the elderly. A 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain task force examined the evidence for cannabinoids and pain but found no trials of CBD. Sixteen CBD randomized trials using pharmaceutical-supplied CBD or making preparations from such a source and with pain as an outcome have been published subsequently. The trials were conducted in 12 different pain states, using 3 oral, topical, and buccal/sublingual administration, with CBD doses between 6 and 1,600 mg, and durations of treatment between a single dose and 12 weeks. Fifteen of the 16 showed no benefit of CBD over placebo. Small clinical trials using verified CBD suggest the drug to be largely benign; while large-scale evidence of safety is lacking, there is growing evidence linking CBD to increased rates of serious adverse events and hepatotoxicity. In January 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that a new regulatory pathway for CBD was needed. Consumers and health care providers should rely on evidence-based sources of information on CBD, not just advertisements. Current evidence is that CBD for pain is expensive, ineffective, and possibly harmful. PERSPECTIVE: There is no good reason for thinking that CBD relieves pain, but there are good reasons for doubting the contents of CBD products in terms of CBD content and purity.

Thoughtfully Integrating Cannabis Products Into Chronic Pain Treatment

Cannabis products (CPs) and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) are becoming increasingly available and are commonly used for pain management. The growing societal acceptance of cannabis and liberalization of cannabis laws allows patients to access CPs with minimal clinical oversight. While there is mechanistic plausibility that CPs and CBMs may be useful for pain management, the clinical trial literature is limited and does not refute or support the use of CBMs for pain management. Complicating matters, a large and growing body of observational literature shows that many people use CPs for pain management and in place of other medications. However, products and dosing regimens in existing trials are not generalizable to the current cannabis market, making it difficult to compare and reconcile these 2 bodies of literature. Given this complexity, clinicians need clear, pragmatic guidance on how to appropriately educate and work with patients who are using CBMs for pain management. In this review, we narratively synthesize the evidence to enable a clear view of current landscape and provide pragmatic advice for clinicians to use when working with patients. This advice revolves around 3 principles: (1) maintaining the therapeutic alliance; (2) harm reduction and benefit maximization; and (3) pragmatism, principles of patient-centered care, and use of best clinical judgment in the face of uncertainty. Despite the lack of certainty CPs and chronic pain management use, we believe that following these principles can make most of the clinical opportunity presented by discussions around CPs and also enhance the likelihood of clinical benefit from CPs.

Chronic wound-related pain, wound healing and the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids and endocannabinoid system modulation

Chronic wounds represent a significant burden on the individual, and the healthcare system. Individuals with chronic wounds report pain to be the most challenging aspect of living with a chronic wound, with current therapeutic options deemed insufficient. The cutaneous endocannabinoid system is an important regulator of skin homeostasis, with evidence of system dysregulation in several cutaneous disorders. Herein, we describe the cutaneous endocannabinoid system, chronic wound-related pain, and comorbidities, and review preclinical and clinical evidence investigating endocannabinoid system modulation for wound-related pain and wound healing. Based on the current literature, there is some evidence to suggest efficacy of endocannabinoid system modulation for promotion of wound healing, attenuation of cutaneous disorder-related inflammation, and for the management of chronic wound-related pain. However, there is 1) a paucity of preclinical studies using validated models, specific for the study of chronic wound-related pain and 2) a lack of randomised control trials and strong clinical evidence relating to endocannabinoid system modulation for wound-related pain. In conclusion, while there is some limited evidence of benefit of endocannabinoid system modulation in wound healing and wound-related pain management, further research is required to better realise the potential of targeting the endocannabinoid system for these therapeutic applications.

Experiences and Perceptions of Medical Cannabis among People Living with Chronic Pain and Community Pharmacists: A Qualitative Study in Canada

Background

The use of cannabis to treat chronic pain is under debate despite high expectations from patients. Qualitative data obtained by exploring both patients' and health professionals' perspectives are scarce.

Aims

This study aimed to understand the experiences and perceptions of people living with chronic pain and community pharmacists regarding the role of cannabis in chronic pain treatment in the Canadian context where both medical and recreational cannabis are legal.

Methods

We conducted 12 online focus groups (July 2020-February 2021) with 26 patients and 19 community pharmacists using semistructured discussion guides. All discussions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim were analyzed using a reflexive thematic approach.

Results

We developed three themes related to patients' perspectives and three themes related to pharmacists' perspectives. Patients' perspectives included (1) cannabis as an alternative to other pain medications, (2) a new treatment with potential health-related risks, and (3) a therapy rather than a recreational drug. Pharmacists' perspectives included (1) challenges in monitoring drug interactions with cannabis in the context of scarce research data, (2) informing and treating patients self-medicating with cannabis amid its growing popularity, and (3) financial costs and legal constraints for patients.

Conclusions

This study highlights patients' and pharmacists' urgent need for reliable information regarding the benefits and risks of cannabis. Training tailored to pharmacists' needs and evidence-based information for patients should be developed to support pharmacists' practice, improve patients' experiences, and promote safe cannabis use.

Looking Back, Moving Forward in Pain Medicine

Pain is an ancient medical complaint and a clinical riddle that has never been entirely solved. Looking back into history was the springboard to a look into the future of pain medicine. This article was based on a series of presentations given in a recent congress (May 2023) and represents the research, views, and opinions of the authors. Opium has been used for millennia to treat pain, but when it gained broad use in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s, it was so vastly overprescribed and mis-prescribed that it led to a public health crisis. This, in turn, led to the reaction where opioids at times were under-prescribed, leaving out many patients who may have benefited from opioids while leaving many legacy pain patients to manage withdrawal on their own and with few analgesic options. Cannabinoids (CB) were likewise widely used for various conditions, including pain, but were outlawed in the 20th century, only to be brought back as a potential analgesic agent. Interventional pain medicine is a developing discipline and has reinforced the concept of the interdisciplinary pain clinic. It plays an increasingly important part in modern medicine overall, especially with the support of ultrasound, for both diagnosis and therapy. Today, the views about pain have changed. Anyone has accepted that pain is not purely a physical phenomenon but a biopsychosocial phenomenon that occurs within a cultural context. Pain management remains a small but vitally important medical subspecialty that is critical from a functional enablement and population health perspective, which is helping to navigate new therapeutic targets, new drugs and routes of administration, greater understanding of pain psychology, and new technologies. Pain control today means early intervention, functional enablement through pain alleviation, educating patients about pain management, and minimizing the transition from acute to chronic pain.

Answering Big Questions in Pain Medicine

The future of pain medicine is marked by many questions. What can other nations around the world learn from the opioid crisis that is still affecting the United States? The American opioid experience was mischaracterized and wrongly described, and its causes were misdiagnosed from the outset, leading to its mismanagement and the abandonment of many chronic pain patients to their suffering. There are a few new drugs in the analgesic armamentarium. What new targets do we have in pain medicine? There are many breakthroughs, discoveries, and potential new targets that could add to our analgesic prescribing choices. These include sigma receptors, d-amino acid oxidase, endoplasmic reticulum stress receptors, histone deacetylase, and others. Neuromodulation had been used with varying degrees of success for years, but with a simplistic approach based on the gate theory of pain. Despite our familiarity with neuromodulation and spinal cord stimulators, neuromodulation research indicates that the activation of glial cells may activate the immune system and enhance analgesia. Neuromodulation studies have concentrated on how electricity affects neuronal activity rather than how electrical activity could reduce pain. There are still more frontiers in our battle against pain and some promising avenues for treatments. This narrative review will try to summarize what can be done from the perspective of recent technological and pharmacological developments.

Association of Tetrahydrocannabinol Content and Price in Herbal Cannabis Products Offered by Dispensaries in California: A Purview of Consumers/Patients

Background and Aims

The U.S. legal cannabis market is saturated with products containing high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), with no distinction between medical and recreational programs. This omnipresence of potent cannabis products seems to be driven by the recreational realm, where cannabis with the highest THC content is prized. This prevalence of highly potent cannabis is conveyed to medical programs, which places consumers (patients) at higher risk for over consumption and cannabis use disorder. Thus, understanding what factors influence the market that patients face in medical cannabis programs could shed light on the risks of legal cannabis. The supply and demand dynamic of the US for-profit cannabis market could explain the current market composition; therefore, we postulate that a financial gain could influence the perpetuation of the prevalence of high THC products in legal cannabis dispensaries. We investigate whether THC content in popular cannabis products correlates with higher prices and assess whether some attributes (type of product, chemovars, or presence of cannabidiol (CBD) affect the association of THC with price.

Methods

We focus on the world's largest cannabis market, California. We randomly selected dispensaries across the state, screened for a web presence and product menu, determined the most prevalent product type, and collected THC and CBD concentration, price, and other product attributes.

Results

We observed that herbal products were more common, they had THC concentrations greater than 10%, and THC concentrations positively correlated with price. This correlation existed in flower and preroll presentations, all chemovar, and independently of the level of CBD. CBD did not correlate with price; however, the presence of CBD diminished the THC and price correlation particularly in products with high THC (>15%).

Conclusions

Overall, highly potent herbal cannabis products (>15% THC) are the majority of products offered and more expensive regardless of product type or chemovar in California dispensaries, suggesting that a financial gain contributes to the current market composition. Efforts to limit the availability of highly potent THC products and educate consumers about potential harms are needed.

Central Neuropathic Pain Syndromes: Current and Emerging Pharmacological Strategies

Central neuropathic pain is caused by a disease or lesion of the brain or spinal cord. It is difficult to predict which patients will develop central pain syndromes after a central nervous system injury, but depending on the etiology, lifetime prevalence may be greater than 50%. The resulting pain is often highly distressing and difficult to treat, with no specific treatment guidelines currently available. This narrative review discusses mechanisms contributing to central neuropathic pain, and focuses on pharmacological approaches for managing common central neuropathic pain conditions such as central post-stroke pain, spinal cord injury-related pain, and multiple sclerosis-related neuropathic pain. Tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and gabapentinoids have some evidence for efficacy in central neuropathic pain. Medications from other pharmacologic classes may also provide pain relief, but current evidence is limited. Certain non-pharmacologic approaches, neuromodulation in particular, may be helpful in refractory cases. Emerging data suggest that modulating the primary afferent input may open new horizons for the treatment of central neuropathic pain. For most patients, effective treatment will likely require a multimodal therapy approach.

Long-term observational studies with cannabis-based medicines for chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines (CbMs) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in long-term observational studies.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched to December 2021. We included prospective observational studies with a study duration ≥ 26 weeks. Pooled estimates of event rates of categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) of continuous variables were calculated using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Six studies were included with 2686 participants, with study duration ranging between 26 and 52 weeks. Pain conditions included were nociceptive, nociplastic, neuropathic and mixed pain. The certainty of evidence for every outcome was very low. The weighted mean difference of mean pain reduction was 1.75 (95% Confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 2.78) on a 0-10 scale. 20.8 % (95% CI 10.2 % to 34.0 %) of patients reported pain relief of 50% or greater. The effect size for sleep problems was moderate and for depression and anxiety was low. Study completions was reported for 53.3% (95% CI 26.8% to 79.9%) of patients, with dropouts of 6.8 % (95% CI 4.3% to 9.7%) due to adverse events. Serious adverse events occurred in 3.0% (95 CI 0.02 % to 12.8%) and 0.3 % (95% CI 0.1% to 0.6%) of patients died.

CONCLUSIONS

Information included in observational studies should be regarded with caution.Within the context of observational studies, CbMs had positive effects on multiple symptoms for some CNCP patients and were generally well tolerated and safe.

Geotemporospatial and causal inferential epidemiological overview and survey of USA cannabis, cannabidiol and cannabinoid genotoxicity expressed in cancer incidence 2003-2017: part 1 - continuous bivariate analysis

BACKGROUND

The genotoxic and cancerogenic impacts of population-wide cannabinoid exposure remains an open but highly salient question. The present report examines these issues from a continuous bivariate perspective with subsequent reports continuing categorical and detailed analyses.

METHODS

Age-standardized state census incidence of 28 cancer types (including "All (non-skin) Cancer") was sourced using SEER*Stat software from Centres for Disease Control and National Cancer Institute across US states 2001-2017. It was joined with drug exposure data from the nationally representative National Survey of Drug Use and Health conducted annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2003-2017, response rate 74.1%. Cannabinoid data was from Federal seizure data. Income and ethnicity data sourced from the US Census Bureau. Data was processed in R.

RESULTS

Nineteen thousand eight hundred seventy-seven age-standardized cancer rates were returned. Based on these rates and state populations this equated to 51,623,922 cancer cases over an aggregated population 2003-2017 of 124,896,418,350. Regression lines were charted for cancer-substance exposures for cigarettes, alcohol use disorder (AUD), cannabis, THC, cannabidiol, cannabichromene, cannabinol and cannabigerol. In this substance series positive trends were found for 14, 9, 6, 9, 12, 6, 9 and 7 cancers; with largest minimum E-Values (mEV) of 1.76 × 109, 4.67 × 108, 2.74 × 104, 4.72, 2.34 × 1018, 2.74 × 1017, 1.90 × 107, 5.05 × 109; and total sum of exponents of mEV of 34, 32, 13, 0, 103, 58, 25, 31 indicating that cannabidiol followed by cannabichromene are the most strongly implicated in environmental carcinogenesis. Breast cancer was associated with tobacco and all cannabinoids (from mEV = 3.53 × 109); "All Cancer" (non-skin) linked with cannabidiol (mEV = 1.43 × 1011); pediatric AML linked with cannabis (mEV = 19.61); testicular cancer linked with THC (mEV = 1.33). Cancers demonstrating elevated mEV in association with THC were: thyroid, liver, pancreas, AML, breast, oropharynx, CML, testis and kidney. Cancers demonstrating elevated mEV in relation to cannabidiol: prostate, bladder, ovary, all cancers, colorectum, Hodgkins, brain, Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, esophagus, breast and stomach.

CONCLUSION

Data suggest that cannabinoids including THC and cannabidiol are important community carcinogens exceeding the effects of tobacco or alcohol. Testicular, (prostatic) and ovarian tumours indicate mutagenic corruption of the germline in both sexes; pediatric tumourigenesis confirms transgenerational oncogenesis; quantitative criteria implying causality are fulfilled.

Geotemporospatial and causal inferential epidemiological overview and survey of USA cannabis, cannabidiol and cannabinoid genotoxicity expressed in cancer incidence 2003-2017: part 3 - spatiotemporal, multivariable and causal inferential pathfinding and exploratory analyses of prostate and ovarian cancers

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology of cannabinoid-related cancerogenesis has not been studied with cutting edge epidemiological techniques. Building on earlier bivariate papers in this series we aimed to conduct pathfinding studies to address this gap in two tumours of the reproductive tract, prostate and ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Age-standardized cancer incidence data for 28 tumour types (including "All (non-skin) Cancer") was sourced from Centres for Disease Control and National Cancer Institute using SEER*Stat software across US states 2001-2017. Drug exposure was sourced from the nationally representative household survey National Survey of Drug Use and Health conducted annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2003-2017 with response rate 74.1%. Federal seizure data provided cannabinoid concentration data. US Census Bureau provided income and ethnicity data. Inverse probability weighted mixed effects, robust and panel regression together with geospatiotemporal regression analyses were conducted in R. E-Values were also calculated.

RESULTS

19,877 age-standardized cancer rates were returned. Based on these rates and state populations this equated to 51,623,922 cancer cases over an aggregated population 2003-2017 of 124,896,418,350. Inverse probability weighted regressions for prostate and ovarian cancers confirmed causal associations robust to adjustment. Cannabidiol alone was significantly associated with prostate cancer (β-estimate = 1.61, (95%C.I. 0.99, 2.23), P = 3.75 × 10- 7). In a fully adjusted geospatiotemporal model at one spatial and two temporal years lags cannabidiol was significantly independently associated with prostate cancer (β-estimate = 2.08, (1.19, 2.98), P = 5.20 × 10- 6). Cannabidiol alone was positively associated with ovarian cancer incidence in a geospatiotemporal model (β-estimate = 0.36, (0.30, 0.42), P <  2.20 × 10- 16). The cigarette: THC: cannabidiol interaction was significant in a fully adjusted geospatiotemporal model at six years of temporal lag (β-estimate = 1.93, (1.07, 2.78), P = 9.96 × 10- 6). Minimal modelled polynomial E-Values for prostate and ovarian cancer ranged up to 5.59 × 1059 and 1.92 × 10125. Geotemporospatial modelling of these tumours showed that the cannabidiol-carcinogenesis relationship was supra-linear and highly sigmoidal (P = 1.25 × 10- 45 and 12.82 × 10- 52 for linear v. polynomial models).

CONCLUSION

Cannabinoids including THC and cannabidiol are therefore important community carcinogens additive to the effects of tobacco and greatly exceeding those of alcohol. Reproductive tract carcinogenesis necessarily implies genotoxicity and epigenotoxicity of the germ line with transgenerational potential. Pseudoexponential and causal dose-response power functions are demonstrated.

The Efficacy of Cannabis in Reducing Back Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To critically analyze the evidence and efficacy of cannabis to treat surgical and nonsurgical back pain via a Systematic Review.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to investigate the efficacy of cannabis to treat non-surgical and surgical back pain. A literature search was performed with MEDLINE and Embase databases. Only RCTs and prospective cohort studies with concurrent control were included in this study. Risk of bias and quality grading was assessed for each included study.

RESULTS

Database searches returned 1738 non-duplicated results. An initial screening excluded 1716 results. Twenty-two full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Four articles ultimately met pre-determined eligibility and were included in the study. Two studies addressed post-SCI pain while other two studies addressed low back pain. No studies specifically examined the use of cannabis for surgical back pain. The type of cannabis varied between study and included THC, dronabinol, and Nabilone. A total of 110 patients were included in the four studies reviewed. In each study, there was a quantifiable advantage of cannabis therapy for alleviating back pain. There were no serious adverse effects reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In all articles, cannabis was shown to be effective to treat back pain with an acceptable side effect profile. However, long-term follow up is lacking. As medicinal cannabis is being used more commonly for analgesic effect and patients are "self-prescribing" cannabis for back pain, additional studies are needed for healthcare providers to confidently recommend cannabis therapy for back pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

Pain Management Strategies After Orthopaedic Trauma: A Mixed-Methods Study with a View to Optimizing Practices

PURPOSE

To examine 1) pain management strategies within the care trajectory of orthopaedic trauma patients and patients' perception of their effectiveness, 2) adverse effects (AEs) associated with pharmacological treatments, particularly opioids and cannabis, and 3) patients' perceptions of strategies that should be applied after an orthopaedic trauma and support that they should obtain from health professionals for their use.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was conducted with orthopaedic trauma patients in a level 1 trauma center. A convergent mixed-methods design was used. Data on pain experience, pain management strategies used and AEs were collected with self-administered questionnaires at hospital discharge (T1) and at 3 months after injury (T2). Patients' preferences about the pain management strategies used, the required support and AEs were further examined through semi-structured individual interviews at the same time measures. Descriptive statistics and thematic analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were recruited and 30 individual interviews were undertaken. Pharmacological pain management strategies used at T1 and T2 were mainly opioids (95.8%; 20.8%) and acetaminophen (91.5%; 37.5%). The most frequently applied non-pharmacological strategies were sleep (95.6%) and physical positioning (89.7%) at T1 and massage (46.3%) and relaxation (32.5%) at T2. Findings from quantitative and qualitative analyses highlighted that non-pharmacological strategies, such as comfort, massage, distraction, and physical therapy, were perceived as the most effective by participants. Most common AEs related to opioids were dry mouth (78.8%) and fatigue (66.1%) at T1 and insomnia (30.0%) and fatigue (20.0%) at T2. Dry mouth (28.6%) and drowsiness (14.3%) were the most reported AEs by patients using recreational cannabis. An important need for information at hospital discharge and for a personalized follow-up was identified by participants during interviews.

CONCLUSION

Despite its AEs, we found that opioids are still the leading pain management strategy after an orthopaedic trauma and that more efforts are needed to implement non-pharmacological strategies. Cannabis was taken for recreational purposes but patients also used it for pain relief. Support from health professionals is needed to promote the adequate use of these strategies.

Prevalence of marijuana use in pregnant women with concurrent opioid use disorder or alcohol use in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

A quarter of pregnant women use alcohol, 6.5/1000 deliveries are affected by opioid use disorder (OUD), and the prevalence of cannabis use in pregnant women is increasing. However, marijuana co-exposure in polysubstance-using women is not well described.

METHODS

The well-characterized ENRICH-1 cohort (n = 251), which focused on the effects of two primary exposures of interest-opioids and alcohol, was used to (1) estimate the prevalence/frequency of marijuana use in those with OUD and/or alcohol use, and (2) examined correlates of marijuana use. Participants were classified into an OUD group (n = 125), Alcohol group (n = 69), and concurrent OUD and Alcohol (OUD + Alcohol) group (n = 57). Self-report and biomarkers ascertained substance use. Multivariable logistic regression identified correlates of marijuana use.

RESULTS

The prevalence of any marijuana use in pregnancy was 43.2%, 52.6%, and 46.4% in the OUD, OUD + Alcohol, and Alcohol groups, respectively. Correspondingly, weekly or daily use was reported by 19.4%, 21.0%, and 24.6% of participants. In the OUD and OUD + Alcohol groups, the proportion of women using marijuana was significantly higher in those taking buprenorphine (45.8% and 58.3%, respectively) compared to women using methadone (37.5% and 42.9%, respectively). Mean maternal age was lower in women who used marijuana in all three groups compared to non-marijuana users. Independent correlates of marijuana use (controlling for group, race/ethnicity, education, and smoking) were maternal age (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) per 5-year increment 0.61; (95% CI 0.47, 0.79)), and polysubstance use (aOR 2.02; 95% CI 1.11, 3.67). There was a significant interaction between partnership status and group: among women who were not in a partnership, those in the OUD and OUD + Alcohol groups had lower odds of marijuana use relative to the Alcohol group. For women in the Alcohol group, partnered women had lower odds of marijuana use than un-partnered women (aOR 0.12; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate a relatively high prevalence and frequency of marijuana use in pregnant women being treated for OUD and/or women consuming alcohol while pregnant. These results highlight the need for ongoing risk reduction strategies addressing marijuana use for pregnant women receiving OUD treatment and those with alcohol exposure.

Cannabis-Based Medicines and Medical Cannabis for Chronic Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain represents a broad category of pain syndromes that include a wide variety of peripheral and central disorders. The overall prevalence of neuropathic pain in the general population is reported to be between 7 and 10%. Management of neuropathic pain presents an unmet clinical need, with less than 50% of patients achieving substantial pain relief with medications currently recommended such as pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine and various tricyclic antidepressants. It has been suggested that cannabis-based medicines (CbMs) and medical cannabis (MC) may be a treatment option for those with chronic neuropathic pain. CbMs/MC are available in different forms: licensed medications or medical products (plant-derived and/or synthetic products such as tetrahydrocannabinol or cannabidiol); magistral preparations of cannabis plant derivatives with defined molecular content such as dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol); and herbal cannabis with a defined content of tetrahydrocannabinol and/or cannabidiol, together with other active ingredients (phytocannabinoids other than cannabidiol/tetrahydrocannabinol, terpenes and flavonoids). The availability of different types of CbMs/MC varies between countries worldwide. Systematic reviews of available randomised controlled trials have stated low-quality evidence for CbMs and MC for chronic neuropathic pain. Depending on the studies included in the various quantitative syntheses, authors have reached divergent conclusions on the efficacy of CbMs/MC for chronic neuropathic pain (from not effective to a clinically meaningful benefit). Clinically relevant side effects of CbMs/MC, especially for central nervous system and psychiatric disorders, have been reported by some systematic reviews. Recommendations for the use of CbMs/MC for chronic neuropathic pain by various medical associations also differ, from negative recommendations, no recommendation possible, recommended as third-line therapy, or recommended as an alternative in selected cases failing standard therapies within a multimodal concept. After reading this paper, readers are invited to formulate their own conclusions regarding the potential benefits and harms of CbMs/MC for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain.

Public health monitoring of cannabis use in Europe: prevalence of use, cannabis potency, and treatment rates

Background

Cannabis is one of the most widely used substances worldwide. Heavy use is associated with an increased risk of cannabis use disorders, psychotic disorders, acute cognitive impairment, traffic injuries, respiratory problems, worse pregnancy outcomes, and there are indications for genotoxic and epigenotoxic adverse effects. International regulation of medical and non-medical cannabis use is changing rapidly and substantially, highlighting the importance of robust public health monitoring. This study aimed to describe the trends of key public health indicators in European Union (27 member states + UK, Norway and Turkey) for the period 2010 to 2019, their public health implications, and to identify the steps required to improve current practice in monitoring of cannabis use and harm in Europe.

Methods

Data on four key cannabis indicators (prevalence of use, prevalence of cannabis use disorder [CUD], treatment rates, and potency of cannabis products) in Europe were extracted from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the Global Burden of Disease study. For prevalence of use and CUD, the first and last available estimate in each country were compared. For treatment rates and cannabis potency, linear regression models were conducted.

Findings

Between 2010 and 2019, past-month prevalence of cannabis use increased by 27% in European adults (from 3·1 to 3·9%), with most pronounced relative increases observed among 35-64 year-olds. In 13 out of 26 countries, over 20% of all past-month users reported high-risk use patterns. The rate of treatment entry for cannabis problems per 100,000 adults increased from 27·0 (95% CI: 17·2 to 36·8) to 35·1 (95% CI: 23·6 to 46·7) and has mostly plateaued since 2015. Modest increases in potency were found in herbal cannabis (from 6·9% to 10·6% THC) while median THC values tripled in cannabis resin (from 7·6% to 24·1% THC).

Interpretation

In the past decade, cannabis use, treatment rates and potency levels have increased in Europe highlighting major concerns about the public health impact of cannabis use. Continued monitoring and efforts to improve data quality and reporting, including indicators of high-risk use and cannabis-attributable harm, will be necessary to evaluate the health impact of international changes in cannabis regulation.

Funding

This study received no specific funding.

International Association for the Study of Pain Presidential Task Force on Cannabis and Cannabinoid Analgesia: research agenda on the use of cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines for pain management

ABSTRACT

The President of the International Association for the Study of Pain established a task force on cannabis and cannabinoid analgesia to systematically examine the evidence on (1) analgesic pharmacology of cannabinoids and preclinical evidence on their efficacy in animal models of injury-related or pathological persistent pain; (2) the clinical efficacy of cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis-based medicines for pain; (3) harms related to long-term use of cannabinoids; as well as (4) societal issues and policy implications related to the use of these compounds for pain management. Here, we summarize key knowledge gaps identified in the task force outputs and propose a research agenda for generating high-quality evidence on the topic. The systematic assessment of preclinical and clinical literature identified gaps in rigor of study design and reporting across the translational spectrum. We provide recommendations to improve the quality, rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of preclinical and clinical research on cannabis and cannabinoids for pain, as well as for the conduct of systematic reviews on the topic. Gaps related to comprehensive understanding of the endocannabinoid system and cannabinoid pharmacology, including pharmacokinetics and drug formulation aspects, are discussed. We outline key areas where high-quality clinical trials with cannabinoids are needed. Remaining important questions about long-term and short-term safety of cannabis and cannabinoids are emphasized. Finally, regulatory, societal, and policy challenges associated with medicinal and nonmedicinal use of cannabis are highlighted, with recommendations for improving patient safety and reducing societal harms in the context of pain management.

A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Comparing Pharmacotherapy for Chronic Neuropathic Pain, Including Cannabinoids and Cannabis-Based Medical Products

Background:

Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) still represents a major clinical challenge. Collective harnessing of both the scientific evidence base and clinical experience (of clinicians and patients) can play a key role in informing treatment pathways and contribute to the debate on specific treatments (e.g., cannabinoids). A group of expert clinicians (pain specialists and psychiatrists), scientists, and patient representatives convened to assess the relative benefit–safety balance of 12 pharmacological treatments, including orally administered cannabinoids/cannabis-based medicinal products, for the treatment of CNP in adults.

Methods:

A decision conference provided the process of creating a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model, in which the group collectively scored the drugs on 17 effect criteria relevant to benefits and safety and then weighted the criteria for their clinical relevance.

Findings:

Cannabis-based medicinal products consisting of tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD), in a 1:1 ratio, achieved the highest overall score, 79 (out of 100), followed by CBD dominant at 75, then THC dominant at 72. Duloxetine and the gabapentinoids scored in the 60s, amitriptyline, tramadol, and ibuprofen in the 50s, methadone and oxycodone in the 40s, and morphine and fentanyl in the 30s. Sensitivity analyses showed that even if the pain reduction and quality-of-life scores for THC/CBD and THC are halved, their benefit–safety balances remain better than those of the noncannabinoid drugs.

Interpretation:

The benefit–safety profiles for cannabinoids were higher than for other commonly used medications for CNP largely because they contribute more to quality of life and have a more favorable side effect profile. The results also reflect the shortcomings of alternative pharmacological treatments with respect to safety and mitigation of neuropathic pain symptoms. Further high-quality clinical trials and systematic comprehensive capture of clinical experience with cannabinoids is warranted. These results demonstrate once again the complexity and multimodal mechanisms underlying the clinical experience and impact of chronic pain.