Cannabis and anticancer drugs: societal usage and expected pharmacological interactions - a review

Prevalence, reasons for use, perceived benefits, and awareness of health risks of cannabis use among cancer survivors - implications for policy and interventions

BACKGROUND

There is increasing discourse on the use of cannabis as a palliative for cancer/cancer-treatment-related symptoms. We described the prevalent reasons for use, perceived benefits, and awareness of health risks from cannabis use for cancer management among cancer survivors.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of adult (≥ 18 years) cancer survivors from 41 US states receiving treatment at a comprehensive cancer center.

RESULTS

Of 1,886 cancer survivors included, 17.4% were current users, 30.5% were former users, and 52.2% were never users of cannabis. Among survivors who currently or formerly used cannabis after their cancer diagnosis (n = 510), the reasons for cannabis use in cancer management were; sleep disturbance (60%), pain (51%), stress (44%), nausea (34%), and mood disorder/depression (32%). Also, about a fifth (91/510) of survivors used cannabis to treat their cancer. Across the different symptoms assessed, over half of the survivors who reported a reason for using cannabis currently or after their cancer diagnosis perceived that cannabis was helpful to a great extent in improving their symptoms. However, of the 167 survivors who reported awareness of potential health risks from cannabis use, the awareness of adverse health risks associated with cannabis use was low: suicidal thoughts (5%), intense nausea and vomiting (6%), depression (11%), anxiety (14%), breathing problems (31%), and interaction with cancer drugs (35%).

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of cannabis use among survivors was notable, with most reporting a great degree of symptomatic improvement for the specified reason for use. However, only a few were aware of the health risks of cannabis use during cancer management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

With more cancer survivors using cannabis as a palliative in managing their cancer-related symptoms, future guidelines and policies on cannabis use in cancer management should incorporate cannabis-based interventions to minimize the inadvertent harm from cannabis use during cancer treatment among survivors.

Cannabis Use among Cancer Survivors: Use Pattern, Product Type, and Timing of Use

Despite growing interest in the use of cannabis for the treatment of cancer-related symptoms, there are limited studies that have assessed the use pattern, type, and mode of delivery of cannabis products used by cancer survivors. This study describes the current state of the use pattern, product type, and mode of delivery of cannabis used by cancer survivors. This was a cross-sectional study of cancer survivors from 41 U.S. states who received treatment at the largest NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. The weighted prevalence of the use patterns, product types, and modes of delivery of cannabis used by cancer survivors was estimated. A total of 1886 cancer survivors were included in the study, with 915 (48% [95% CI: 45-51]) reporting ever using cannabis. Of survivors who had ever used cannabis, 36% (95% CI: 33-40) were current users. Among survivors who reported cannabis use after diagnosis, 40% used cannabis during and after cancer treatment, 35% used cannabis during treatment, and 25% used cannabis after completing their cancer treatment. Additionally, 48% of survivors reported an increase in cannabis use since cancer diagnosis. The commonest types of cannabis products used by cancer survivors were dry leaf cannabis (71%), cannabidiol (CBD) oil (46%), and cannabis candy (40%). Moreover, cancer survivors frequently used baked goods (32%), creams and gels (21%), and tinctures (18%). Furthermore, among ever users, the predominant mode of use was cannabis inhalation/smoking (69%) compared to eating/drinking (59%). More so, the common mode of inhalation/smoking of cannabis products were rolled cannabis cigarettes (79%), pipes (36%), water pipes (34%), vaporizers or vapes (14%), and e-cigarette devices (14%). A substantial number of cancer survivors use cannabis during cancer treatment, with increased use following cancer diagnosis. The forms and modes of delivery of cannabis varied among survivors, with most survivors inhaling or smoking cannabis. There is a need to educate healthcare providers (HCPs) and survivors on current evidence of cannabis use and strengthen cannabis regulatory frameworks to optimize benefits and minimize adverse events from cannabis use during cancer treatment.

Drug Interactions of Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol in Cannabinoid Drugs

BACKGROUND

Cannabinoid drugs containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or its structural analogues, as monotherapeutic agents or as extracts or botanical preparations with or without cannabidiol (CBD) are often prescribed to multimorbid patients who are taking multiple drugs. This raises the question of the risk of drug interactions.

METHODS

This review of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of interactions with cannabinoid drugs and their potential effects is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search.

RESULTS

As THC and CBD are largely metabolized in the liver, their bioavailability after oral or oral-mucosal administration is low (6-8% and 11-13%, respectively). The plasma concentrations of THC and its active metabolite 11-OH-THC can be increased by strong CYP3A4 inhibitors (verapamil, clarithromycin) and decreased by strong CYP3A4 inductors (rifampicin, carbamazepine). The clinical significance of these effects is unclear because of the variable plasma level and therapeutic spectrum of THC. The metabolism of CBD is less dependent on cytochrome P450 enzymes than that of THC. THC and CBD inhibit CYP2C and CYP3A4; the corresponding clinically relevant drug interactions probably are likely to arise only with THC doses above 30 mg/day and CBD doses above 300 mg/day.

CONCLUSION

Potential drug interactions with THC and CBD are probably of little importance at low or moderate doses. Strong CYP inhibitors or inductors can intensify or weaken their effect. Slowly ramping up the dose of oral cannabinoid drugs can lessen their pharmacodynamic interactions, which can generally be well controlled. Administration by inhalation can worsen the interactions.

Effects of concomitant use of THC and irinotecan on tumour growth and biochemical markers in a syngeneic mouse model of colon cancer

Clinical treatment with the antineoplastic drug irinotecan (IRI) is often hindered by side effects that significantly reduce the quality of life of treated patients. Due to the growing public support for products with Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), even though relevant scientific literature does not provide clear evidence of their high antitumour potential, some cancer patients take unregistered preparations containing up to 80 % THC. This study was conducted on a syngeneic colorectal cancer mouse model to test the efficiency and safety of concomitant treatment with IRI and THC. Male BALB/c mice subcutaneously injected with CT26 cells were receiving 60 mg/kg of IRI intraperitoneally on day 1 and 5 of treatment and/or 7 mg/kg of THC by gavage a day for 7 days. Treatment responses were evaluated based on changes in body, brain, and liver weight, tumour growth, blood cholinesterase activity, and oxidative stress parameters. Irinotecan's systemic toxicity was evidenced by weight loss and high oxidative stress. The important finding of this study is that combining THC with IRI diminishes IRI efficiency in inhibiting tumour growth. However, further studies, focused on more subtle molecular methods in tumour tissue and analytical analysis of IRI and THC distribution in tumour-bearing mice, are needed to prove our observations.

Potential, Limitations and Risks of Cannabis-Derived Products in Cancer Treatment

The application of cannabis products in oncology receives interest, especially from patients. Despite the plethora of research data available, the added value in curative or palliative cancer care and the possible risks involved are insufficiently proven and therefore a matter of debate. We aim to give a recommendation on the position of cannabis products in clinical oncology by assessing recent literature. Various types of cannabis products, characteristics, quality and pharmacology are discussed. Standardisation is essential for reliable and reproducible quality. The oromucosal/sublingual route of administration is preferred over inhalation and drinking tea. Cannabinoids may inhibit efflux transporters and drug-metabolising enzymes, possibly inducing pharmacokinetic interactions with anticancer drugs being substrates for these proteins. This may enhance the cytostatic effect and/or drug-related adverse effects. Reversely, it may enable dose reduction. Similar interactions are likely with drugs used for symptom management treating pain, nausea, vomiting and anorexia. Cannabis products are usually well tolerated and may improve the quality of life of patients with cancer (although not unambiguously proven). The combination with immunotherapy seems undesirable because of the immunosuppressive action of cannabinoids. Further clinical research is warranted to scientifically support (refraining from) using cannabis products in patients with cancer.

ASRA Pain Medicine consensus guidelines on the management of the perioperative patient on cannabis and cannabinoids

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have seen an increase in cannabis use due to both regulatory changes and an interest in potential therapeutic effects of the substance, yet many aspects of the substance and their health implications remain controversial or unclear.

METHODS

In November 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine charged the Cannabis Working Group to develop guidelines for the perioperative use of cannabis. The Perioperative Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids Guidelines Committee was charged with drafting responses to the nine key questions using a modified Delphi method with the overall goal of producing a document focused on the safe management of surgical patients using cannabinoids. A consensus recommendation required ≥75% agreement.

RESULTS

Nine questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved on third-round voting. Topics addressed included perioperative screening, postponement of elective surgery, concomitant use of opioid and cannabis perioperatively, implications for parturients, adjustment in anesthetic and analgesics intraoperatively, postoperative monitoring, cannabis use disorder, and postoperative concerns. Surgical patients using cannabinoids are at potential increased risk for negative perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific clinical recommendations for perioperative management of cannabis and cannabinoids were successfully created.

Herb-anticancer drug interactions in real life based on VigiBase, the WHO global database

Cancer patients could combine herbal treatments with their chemotherapy. We consulted VigiBase, a WHO database of individual case safety reports (ICSRs) which archives reports of suspected Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) when herbal products are used in conjunction with anti-cancer treatment. We focused on the possible interactions between antineoplastic (L01 ATC class) or hormone antagonists (L02B ATC class) with 10 commonly used herbs (pineapple, green tea, cannabis, black cohosh, turmeric, echinacea, St John’s wort, milk thistle and ginger) to compare ADRs described in ICSRs with the literature. A total of 1057 ICSRs were extracted from the database but only 134 were complete enough (or did not concern too many therapeutic lines) to keep them for analysis. Finally, 51 rationalizable ICSRs could be explained, which led us to propose a pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interaction mechanism. Reports concerned more frequently women and half of the rationalizable ICSRs involved Viscum album and Silybum marianum. 5% of the ADRs described could have been avoided if clinicians had had access to the published information. It is also important to note that in 8% of the cases, the ADRs observed were life threatening. Phytovigilance should thus be considered more by health care professionals to best treat cancer patients and for better integrative care.

Cannabinoid consumption among cancer patients receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

Despite the inconclusiveness regarding health effects of cannabinoids among cancer patients, studies from non-European countries suggest that the medical-intended consumption of such products by this patient group is significant. The current study analyses cannabinoid usage among oncology patients receiving systemic treatment in the Netherlands.

METHODS

The current study included adult patients receiving intravenous systemic therapy at Maastricht Comprehensive Cancer Centre, for a solid malignancy. Participants were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire including questions on demographic variables, clinical variables and cannabinoid consumption.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients with solid cancer were included in this study. Almost 25% reported usage of cannabinoids for medical purposes, with 15% of the patients currently using the substance. Additionally, 18% of non-users considered future medical usage. In 48% of the cases, consumption was reported by the oncologist. The proposed anti-cancer effect was reported by 46% of the users as motivation for consumption. Current users were mainly palliative patients and 54% of the users were undergoing immunotherapy. Intention of treatment and type of therapy were predictive factors for consumption. Cannabinoid-oil was the most frequently used way of consumption.

CONCLUSION

This study underlines the high number of cannabinoid users among oncology patients in the Netherlands in presumed absence of clinical guidance. It highlights the essence of a pro-active role of the clinician, assessing cannabinoid usage and educating the patients on the most recent evidence regarding its potential benefits and risks. Further studies on clinical decision making and efficacy of cannabinoids are recommended, to improve clinical guidance.

First Attempt to Couple Proteomics with the AhR Reporter Gene Bioassay in Soil Pollution Monitoring and Assessment

A topsoil sample obtained from a highly industrialized area (Taranto, Italy) was tested on the DR-CALUX^® cell line and the exposed cells processed with proteomic and bioinformatics analyses. The presence of polyhalogenated compounds in the topsoil extracts was confirmed by GC-MS/MS analysis. Proteomic analysis of the cells exposed to the topsoil extracts identified 43 differential proteins. Enrichment analysis highlighted biological processes, such as the cellular response to a chemical stimulus, stress, and inorganic substances; regulation of translation; regulation of apoptotic process; and the response to organonitrogen compounds in light of particular drugs and compounds, extrapolated by bioinformatics all linked to the identified protein modifications. Our results confirm and reflect the complex epidemiological situation occurring among Taranto inhabitants and underline the need to further investigate the presence and sources of inferred chemicals in soils. The combination of bioassays and proteomics reveals a more complex scenario of chemicals able to affect cellular pathways and leading to toxicities rather than those identified by only bioassays and related chemical analysis. This combined approach turns out to be a promising tool for soil risk assessment and deserves further investigation and developments for soil monitoring and risk assessment.

It Is Our Turn to Get Cannabis High: Put Cannabinoids in Food and Health Baskets

Cannabis is an annual plant with a long history of use as food, feed, fiber, oil, medicine, and narcotics. Despite realizing its true value, it has not yet found its true place. Cannabis has had a long history with many ups and downs, and now it is our turn to promote it. Cannabis contains approximately 600 identified and many yet unidentified potentially useful compounds. Cannabinoids, phenolic compounds, terpenoids, and alkaloids are some of the secondary metabolites present in cannabis. However, among a plethora of unique chemical compounds found in this plant, the most important ones are phytocannabinoids (PCs). Over hundreds of 21-22-carbon compounds exclusively produce in cannabis glandular hairs through either polyketide and or deoxyxylulose phosphate/methylerythritol phosphate (DOXP/MEP) pathways. Trans-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are those that first come to mind while talking about cannabis. Nevertheless, despite the low concentration, cannabinol (CBN), cannabigerol (CBG), cannabichromene (CBC), tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), cannabidivarin (CBDV), cannabinodiol (CBND), and cannabinidiol (CBDL) may have potentially some medical effects. PCs and endocannabinoids (ECs) mediate their effects mainly through CB1 and CB2 receptors. Despite all concerns regarding cannabis, nobody can ignore the use of cannabinoids as promising tonic, analgesic, antipyretic, antiemetic, anti-inflammatory, anti-epileptic, anticancer agents, which are effective for pain relief, depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, nausea and vomiting, multiple sclerosis, cardiovascular disorders, and appetite stimulation. The scientific community and public society have now increasingly accepted cannabis specifically hemp as much more than a recreational drug. There are growing demands for cannabinoids, mainly CBD, with many diverse therapeutic and nutritional properties in veterinary or human medicine. The main objective of this review article is to historically summarize findings concerning cannabinoids, mainly THC and CBD, towards putting these valuable compounds into food, feed and health baskets and current and future trends in the consumption of products derived from cannabis.

A Pediatric Hospital Policy for Medical Marijuana Use

Most US states have now legalized medical marijuana (MMJ) use, giving new hope to families dealing with chronic illness, despite only limited data showing efficacy. Access to MMJ has presented several challenges for patients and families, providers, and pediatric hospitals, including the discrepancy between state and federal law, potential patient safety issues, and drug interaction concerns. Colorado was one of the first states to legalize MMJ and has remained at the forefront in addressing these challenges. Children's Hospital Colorado has created and evolved its MMJ inpatient use policy and has developed a unique consultative service consisting of a clinical pharmacist and social worker. This service supports patients and families and primary clinical services in situations in which MMJ is actively being used or considered by a pediatric patient. The first 50 patients seen by this consultative service are reported. Eighty percent of patients seen had an oncologic diagnosis. Symptoms to be ameliorated by active or potential MMJ use included nausea and vomiting, appetite stimulation, seizures, and pain. In 64% of patients, MMJ use was determined to be potentially unsafe, most often because of potential drug-drug interactions. In 68% of patients, a recommendation was made to either avoid MMJ use or adjust its administration schedule. As pediatric hospitals address the topic of MMJ use in their patients, development of institutional policy and clinical support services with specific expertise in MMJ is a recommended step to support patient and families and hospital team members.

Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol Drug-Drug Interactions

Although prescribing information (PI) is often the initial source of information when identifying potential drug-drug interactions, it may only provide a limited number of exemplars or only reference a class of medications without providing any specific medication examples. In the case of medical cannabis and medicinal cannabinoids, this is further complicated by the fact that the increased therapeutic use of marijuana extracts and cannabidiol oil will not have regulatory agency approved PI. The objective of this study was to provide a detailed and comprehensive drug-drug interaction list that is aligned with cannabinoid manufacturer PI. The cannabinoid drug-drug interaction information is listed in this article and online supplementary material as a PRECIPITANT (cannabinoid) medication that either INHIBITS/INDUCES the metabolism or competes for the same SUBSTRATE target (metabolic enzyme) of an OBJECT (OTHER) medication. In addition to a comprehensive list of drug-drug interactions, we also provide a list of 57 prescription medications displaying a narrow therapeutic index that are potentially impacted by concomitant cannabinoid use (whether through prescription use of cannabinoid medications or therapeutic/recreational use of cannabis and its extracts).

High Doses of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Might Impair Irinotecan Chemotherapy: A Review of Potentially Harmful Interactions

This review proposes the hypothesis that the effectiveness of irinotecan chemotherapy might be impaired by high doses of concomitantly administered Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The most important features shared by irinotecan and THC, which might represent sources of potentially harmful interactions are: first-pass hepatic metabolism mediated by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme CYP3A4; glucuronidation mediated by uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferase (UGT) enzymes, isoforms 1A1 and 1A9; transport of parent compounds and their metabolites via canalicular ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters ABCB1 and ABCG2; enterohepatic recirculation of both parent compounds, which leads to an extended duration of their pharmacological effects; possible competition for binding to albumin; butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) inhibition by THC, which might impair the conversion of parent irinotecan into the SN-38 metabolite; mutual effects on mitochondrial dysfunction and induction of oxidative stress; potentiation of hepatotoxicity; potentiation of genotoxicity and cytogenetic effects leading to genome instability; possible neurotoxicity; and effects on bilirubin. The controversies associated with the use of highly concentrated THC preparations with irinotecan chemotherapy are also discussed. Despite all of the limitations, the body of evidence provided here could be considered relevant for human-risk assessments and calls for concern in cases when irinotecan chemotherapy is accompanied by preparations rich in THC.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Kinetics and Interactions

Cannabis sativa and related products are widely used, but their potential to cause significant clinical interactions remains unclear, particularly for cannabinoid-enriched or otherwise concentrated products. The pharmacokinetics of most cannabis products is not known. Where information is known, there is wide variation. Extrapolation of limited clinical data is complicated by the complexity and variability of cannabis products as well as their delivery through various routes of administration. In vitro evidence shows that the major cannabinoids are substrates for numerous metabolic enzymes, including the cytochrome P450 metabolizing enzymes. Whereas many consumers consider cannabis products to be safe relative to alternative prescription or narcotic drugs, clinical reports of cannabis-related drug interactions and adverse events are increasing in frequency. Patients using these products, whether for medical or nonmedical purposes, together with conventional therapeutic agents may be at increased risk of adverse events, including therapeutic failure, and require enhanced monitoring.

Opportunities for cannabis in supportive care in cancer

Cannabis has the potential to modulate some of the most common and debilitating symptoms of cancer and its treatments, including nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, and pain. However, the dearth of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of cannabis in treating these symptoms in patients with cancer poses a challenge to clinicians in discussing this option with their patients. A review was performed using keywords related to cannabis and important symptoms of cancer and its treatments. Literature was qualitatively reviewed from preclinical models to clinical trials in the fields of cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and others, to prudently inform the use of cannabis in supportive and palliative care in cancer. There is a reasonable amount of evidence to consider cannabis for nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, and pain as a supplement to first-line treatments. There is promising evidence to treat chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, gastrointestinal distress, and sleep disorders, but the literature is thus far too limited to recommend cannabis for these symptoms. Scant, yet more controversial, evidence exists in regard to cannabis for cancer- and treatment-related cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Adverse effects of cannabis are documented but tend to be mild. Cannabis has multifaceted potential bioactive benefits that appear to outweigh its risks in many situations. Further research is required to elucidate its mechanisms of action and efficacy and to optimize cannabis preparations and doses for specific populations affected by cancer.

Future Aspects for Cannabinoids in Breast Cancer Therapy

Cannabinoids (CBs) from Cannabis sativa provide relief for tumor-associated symptoms (including nausea, anorexia, and neuropathic pain) in the palliative treatment of cancer patients. Additionally, they may decelerate tumor progression in breast cancer patients. Indeed, the psychoactive delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), non-psychoactive cannabidiol (CBD) and other CBs inhibited disease progression in breast cancer models. The effects of CBs on signaling pathways in cancer cells are conferred via G-protein coupled CB-receptors (CB-Rs), CB1-R and CB2-R, but also via other receptors, and in a receptor-independent way. THC is a partial agonist for CB1-R and CB2-R; CBD is an inverse agonist for both. In breast cancer, CB1-R expression is moderate, but CB2-R expression is high, which is related to tumor aggressiveness. CBs block cell cycle progression and cell growth and induce cancer cell apoptosis by inhibiting constitutive active pro-oncogenic signaling pathways, such as the extracellular-signal-regulated kinase pathway. They reduce angiogenesis and tumor metastasis in animal breast cancer models. CBs are not only active against estrogen receptor-positive, but also against estrogen-resistant breast cancer cells. In human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer cells, blocking protein kinase B- and cyclooxygenase-2 signaling via CB2-R prevents tumor progression and metastasis. Furthermore, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), including tamoxifen, bind to CB-Rs; this process may contribute to the growth inhibitory effect of SERMs in cancer cells lacking the estrogen receptor. In summary, CBs are already administered to breast cancer patients at advanced stages of the disease, but they might also be effective at earlier stages to decelerate tumor progression.

The Potential Clinical Implications and Importance of Drug Interactions Between Anticancer Agents and Cannabidiol in Patients With Cancer

The objective of this review was to identify and examine the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between cannabidiol (CBD)-only products, such as CBD oil, and anticancer agents. A literature search of PubMed (1980 to September 2018) and the Cochrane Collection (1980 to September 2018) was performed using the following search terms: "cannabidiol," "cancer," "cannabis," "marijuana," and "interaction," as well as any combination of these terms. Literature was excluded if it did not appear in the search when limited to the "full text" filter on PubMed, if it was not published in the English language, or if it did not explore potential pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic interactions of CBD and anticancer agents. There were 10 studies that met these inclusion criteria. The majority of the facts regarding the interactions with CBD were found using in vitro studies and the true in vivo implications are not well-known. Minimal data were available regarding the interactions between CBD and anticancer agents. However, pharmacists should always consider the possibility of interactions and their consequences whenever they are aware of a patient using CBD products.

Medicinal Cannabis-Potential Drug Interactions

The endocannabinoids system (ECS) has garnered considerable interest as a potential therapeutic target in various carcinomas and cancer-related conditions alongside neurodegenerative diseases. Cannabinoids are implemented in several physiological processes such as appetite stimulation, energy balance, pain modulation and the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics interactions could be perceived in drug combinations, so in this short review we tried to shed light on the potential drug interactions of medicinal cannabis. Hitherto, few data have been provided to the healthcare practitioners about the drug⁻drug interactions of cannabinoids with other prescription medications. In general, cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, but bidirectional effects may be expected with concomitant administered agents via affected membrane transporters (Glycoprotein p, breast cancer resistance proteins, and multidrug resistance proteins) and metabolizing enzymes (Cytochrome P450 and UDP-glucuronosyltransferases). Caution should be undertaken to closely monitor the responses of cannabis users with certain drugs to guard their safety, especially for the elderly and people with chronic diseases or kidney and liver conditions.