Medicinal cannabis: Journals & articles

Abstract
Background: There is a need to explore pharmacological options for syndrome (FMS), such as medical cannabis. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize and analyze the available information about the effectiveness/efficacy and safety of cannabis-based products for medical use (CBPMs) and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs), in patients with FMS.

Methods: Interventional or observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analysis regarding the effectiveness/efficacy and safety of CBPMs and CBMs in patients with FMS were retrieved from the PubMed/Medline database until April 2024. Then, the information was summarized in tables, with the type of CBPM and CBM, the method used in the study and the effective-ness/efficacy and safety outcomes.

Results: 19 publications were selected from the search or form the relevant references. Different CBPM and CBM were used across the studies. Also, different instruments for measuring the effectiveness were used. In general, the use of CBPMs and CBM showed an important improvement in pain, quality of life, and sleep habits. There were no serious adverse events.

Conclusions: The results show that CBMPs and CBMs could be effective and safe in patients with FMS; however, the evidence is limited and there is a need for high-quality clinical studies conducted with improved methodological design.

Abstract
The legalization of cannabis for medical and recreational purposes has progressed internationally. Cannabis and cannabinoids are advocated for a plethora of medical indications. An increasing number of medical and nonmedical users regularly consume large doses of delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active component of cannabis. Aim: to summarize the evidence on (1) risks of recreational cannabis use and (2) effectiveness and safety of medicinal cannabis. Findings on recreational use: Cannabis is mostly used to experience its acute rewarding effects. Regular use of high THC products can produce addiction (cannabis use disorder or CUD). Acute consumption of high THC doses (including unintentionally) can cause time-limited mental, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular problems and motor vehicle accidents. Chronic patterns of cannabis use have been associated with multiple adverse outcomes that are of particular concern among adolescents and young adults, such as, disrupted learning, impaired cognitive performance, reduced educational attainment and an increased risk of CUD, psychosis/schizophrenia, mood and anxiety disorders and suicidal behaviors. There is debate about the extent to which cannabis use is a cause of these adverse outcomes. Physical health risks (e.g., respiratory and cardiovascular, prematurity and restricted fetal growth, hyperemesis syndrome among others) have also been linked with repeated consumption of cannabis with a high THC content. Findings on medical cannabis use: Herbal cannabis, medicines from extracted or synthetized cannabinoids-often used as adjuvants to standard medicines-may produce small to modest benefits. This is primarily the case in treating chronic pain, muscle spasticity, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and refractory epilepsy (in the case of cannabidiol, CBD). The evidence is inconclusive on their value in treating mental disorders and other medical conditions. Safety: Cannabis-based medicine is generally well tolerated. There is a risk of mild to moderate adverse effects and CUD.

Abstract
Importance: Cannabis is increasingly being used to treat medical symptoms, but the effects on brain function in those using cannabis for these symptoms are not known.

Objective: To test whether 1 year of cannabis use for medical symptoms after obtaining a medical cannabis card was associated with increased brain activation during working memory, reward, and inhibitory control tasks, areas of cognition affected by cannabis.

Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study was conducted from July 2017 to July 2020 among participants from the greater Boston area who were recruited as part of a clinical trial of individuals seeking medical cannabis cards for anxiety, depression, pain, or insomnia symptoms. Participants were aged between 18 and 65 years. Exclusion criteria were daily cannabis use and cannabis use disorder at baseline. Data analysis was conducted from August 2021 to April 2024.

Main outcomes and measures: Outcomes were whole brain functional activation during tasks involving working memory, reward, and inhibitory control at baseline and after 1 year of medical cannabis card ownership.

Results: Imaging was collected from participants before and 1 year after obtaining medical cannabis cards, with 57 participants at baseline (38 female [66.7%]; 6 [10.5%] Black and 45 [78.9%] White participants; 1 [1.8%] Hispanic participant; median [IQR] age, 34.0 [24.0-51.0] years) and 54 participants at 1 year (37 female [68.5%]; 4 [7.4%] Black and 48 [88.9%] White participants; 1 [1.9%] Hispanic participant, median [IQR] age, 36.5 [25.0-51.0] years). Imaging was also collected in 32 healthy control participants at baseline (22 female [68.8%]; 2 [6.2%] Black and 27 [84.4%] White participants; 3 [9.4%] Hispanic participants; median [IQR] age, 33.0 [24.8-38.2] years). In all groups and at both time points, functional imaging revealed canonical activations of the probed cognitive processes. No statistically significant difference in brain activation between the 2 time points (baseline and 1 year) in those with medical cannabis cards and no associations between changes in cannabis use frequency and brain activation after 1 year were found.

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of adults obtaining medical cannabis cards for medical symptoms, no significant association between brain activation in the areas of cognition of working memory, reward, and inhibitory control and 1 year of cannabis use was observed. The results warrant further studies that probe the association of cannabis at higher doses, with greater frequency, in younger age groups, and with larger, more diverse cohorts.

Keywords: Adverse events; Health policy; Medical cannabis; Medicines regulation; Special access scheme.

Abstract
Introduction: Strong patient interest in the use of medicinal cannabis to treat various clinical indications has sparked global legislative changes. Practitioners are vital in implementing regulatory changes and facilitating patient access to medicinal cannabis, however, little is currently known about the factors influencing practitioners' uptake. Recent rapid increases in practitioner applications to prescribe medicinal cannabis in Australia provides a unique backdrop to examine the current factors influencing prescribing behaviours. This qualitative study examined Australian practitioners' perspectives on prescribing medicinal cannabis to provide a comprehensive exploration of the potential factors influencing uptake in clinical practice.

Methods: Seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian health-care practitioners. Transcripts were analysed using the Framework approach to thematic analysis and cross-mapped to appropriate domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Results: We identified four themes related to the barriers and facilitators to prescribing medicinal cannabis: (i) clinical capabilities needed to prescribe; (ii) prescribing an unapproved therapeutic good; (iii) negative attitudes towards prescribers in the medical community; and (iv) divergent beliefs about clinical utility.

Discussion and conclusions: Practitioners face multiple pervasive barriers to prescribing medicinal cannabis. Beliefs about clinical utility appear to be highly influential in shaping prescribing behaviours. Moreover, our findings suggest that a medicinal cannabis 'specialisation' has emerged within the Australian medical community. Findings demonstrate that a range of complex and multifaceted factors influence practitioners' medicinal cannabis prescribing behaviours. We highlight several considerations for policy and practice to support safe and appropriate patient access to medicinal cannabis in this emerging area of clinical practice.

Abstract
Objectives: The use of cannabis-based medicine (CBM) as a therapeutic has surged in Australia over the past 5 years. Historically, the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) prohibited cannabis use in Europe, the USA, the UK and Australia, leading to legislative resistance and limited preclinical data on CBM. Existing safety monitoring systems for CBM are poorly structured and do not integrate well into the workflows of busy health professionals. As a result, postmarketing surveillance is inconsistent. This review aims to evaluate international systems for monitoring CBM side effects and adverse events.

Design: To undertake a scoping review with a systematic approach, we used the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) framework to develop keyword elements, and two search queries to maximise search sensitivity and specificity.

Data sources: Search queries were entered into Embase and Scopus for peer-reviewed literature, and additional searches for grey literature were conducted on 23 June 2023.

Eligibility criteria: We included 54 full-text articles in the review: 39 from peer-reviewed searches, 8 from grey literature and 7 from citations of relevant texts.

Data extraction and synthesis: Our search yielded two main forms of monitoring systems: databases and registries. Out of the 24 monitoring systems identified, there were 10 databases and 14 registries, with databases often created by regulatory authorities. Systems differed in methods of causality assessment, level of detail collected, terminology and affiliations.

Results: Within the monitoring systems with enough published data for analysis, all except one remain active at the time of this review. VigiBase is the largest centralised monitoring system, receiving international case reports, however data heterogeneity persists.

Conclusions: Our study emphasises the need for a centralised, consistent and accessible system for the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and adverse events associated with medicinal cannabis use.

Abstract
Background: Cannabis was legalised for medical purposes in 2016. Uptake was initially slow, but since 2019 there has been a large increase in the number of Australians who have been prescribed cannabis for medical reasons. Yet a significant number of consumers continue to treat their medical conditions via illicitly-sourced cannabis. Little is known about how these two groups of medical cannabis consumers differ.

Methods: The anonymous Cannabis-As-Medicine Survey 2022-2023 (CAMS-22) was available for completion online from December 2022 to April 2023 to adult Australians who had used cannabis to treat a medical condition in the previous year. Recruitment occurred through social media, consumer forums, and medical practices. Questions included demographic characteristics, patterns of cannabis use, conditions treated, and self-rated effectiveness.

Results: Of the 3323 respondents included in these analyses, 2352 (73%) mainly used prescribed medical cannabis, 871 (27%) mainly used illicit. Prescribed users were significantly more likely than illicit users to have had their health condition diagnosed (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.3, 2.2), to consume their cannabis via oral (OR = 1.9; CI 1.5, 2.4) or vaporised (OR = 5.2; CI 4.0, 6.8) routes, and to be sure of the composition of their medical cannabis (OR = 25.0; CI 16.7, 50.0). Prescribed users were significantly less likely to have used cannabis non-medically before medical use (OR = 0.6, CI 0.5, 0.7), consume cannabis via smoked routes (OR = 0.2, CI 0.1, 0.2), and to report any side effects (OR = 0.1; CI 0.1, 0.2). The most common conditions among both prescribed and illicit users were pain (37%), mental health (36%), and sleep (15%) conditions. Prescribed users were significantly more likely to use cannabis to mainly treat a pain (OR = 1.3; CI 1.1, 1.5) or sleep condition (OR = 1.4; CI 1.1, 1.7) and less likely to treat a mental health condition (OR = 0.8; CI 0.7, 0.9). There were no between-group differences in effectiveness with 97% saying medical cannabis had improved their symptoms.

Conclusions: From a harm-reduction perspective there is much to recommend prescribed medical cannabis; it has fewer side-effects than illicit, is used more safely (oral or vaporised versus smoked routes), gives consumers greater certainty regarding the composition and quality of their medicine, and does not risk exposure to the criminal justice system. Of concern, however, is the apparent willingness of prescribers to prescribe for indications for which there is limited evidence of efficacy, such as mental health and sleep conditions.

Abstract
Background: Distressing symptoms are common in advanced cancer. Medicinal cannabinoids are commonly prescribed for a variety of symptoms. There is little evidence to support their use for most indications in palliative care. This study aims to assess a 1:20 delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD) cannabinoid preparation in the management of symptom distress in patients with advanced cancer undergoing palliative care.

Methods and design: One hundred and fifty participants will be recruited across multiple sites in Queensland, Australia. A teletrial model will facilitate the recruitment of patients outside of major metropolitan areas. The study is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomised, placebo-controlled, two-arm trial of escalating doses of an oral 1:20 THC/CBD medicinal cannabinoid preparation (10 mg THC:200 mg CBD/mL). It will compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of a titrated dose range of 2.5 mg THC/50mgCBD to 30 mg THC/600 mg CBD per day against a placebo. There is a 2-week patient-determined titration phase, to reach a dose that achieves symptom relief or intolerable side effects, with a further 2 weeks of assessment on the final dose. The primary objective is to assess the effect of escalating doses of a 1:20 THC/CBD medicinal cannabinoid preparation against placebo on change in total symptom distress score, with secondary objectives including establishing a patient-determined effective dose, the effect on sleep quality and overall quality of life. Some patients will be enrolled in a sub-study which will more rigorously evaluate the effect on sleep.

Discussion: MedCan-3 is a high-quality, adequately powered, placebo-controlled trial which will help demonstrate the utility of a THC:CBD 1:20 oral medicinal cannabis product in reducing total symptom distress in this population. Secondary outcomes may lead to new hypotheses regarding medicinal cannabis' role in particular symptoms or in particular cancers. The sleep sub-study will test the feasibility of using actigraphy and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) in this cohort. This will be the first large-scale palliative care randomised clinical trial to utilise the teletrial model in Australia. If successful, this will have significant implications for trial access for rural and remote patients in Australia and internationally.

Abstract
Importance: The use of cannabis as a medicine is becoming increasingly prevalent. Given the diverse range of conditions being treated with medical cannabis, as well as the vast array of products and dose forms available, clinical evidence incorporating patient-reported outcomes may help determine safety and efficacy.

Objective: To assess whether patients using medical cannabis report improvements in health-related quality of life over time.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective case series study was conducted at a network of specialist medical clinics (Emerald Clinics) located across Australia. Participants were patients who received treatment for any indication at any point between December 2018 and May 2022. Patients were followed up every mean (SD) 44.6 (30.1) days. Data for up to 15 follow-ups were reported. Statistical analysis was conducted from August to September 2022.

Exposure: Medical cannabis. Product types and cannabinoid content varied over time in accordance with the treating physician's clinical judgement.

Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome measure was health-related quality of life as assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire.

Results: In this case series of 3148 patients, 1688 (53.6%) were female; 820 (30.2%) were employed; and the mean (SD) age was 55.9 (18.7) years at baseline before treatment. Chronic noncancer pain was the most common indication for treatment (68.6% [2160 of 3148]), followed by cancer pain (6.0% [190 of 3148]), insomnia (4.8% [152 of 3148]), and anxiety (4.2% [132 of 3148]). After commencing treatment with medical cannabis, patients reported significant improvements relative to baseline on all 8 domains of the SF-36, and these improvements were mostly sustained over time. After controlling for potential confounders in a regression model, treatment with medical cannabis was associated with an improvement of 6.60 (95% CI, 4.57-8.63) points to 18.31 (95% CI, 15.86-20.77) points in SF-36 scores, depending on the domain (all P < .001). Effect sizes (Cohen d) ranged from 0.21 to 0.72. A total of 2919 adverse events were reported, including 2 that were considered serious.

Conclusions and relevance: In this case series study, patients using medical cannabis reported improvements in health-related quality of life, which were mostly sustained over time. Adverse events were rarely serious but common, highlighting the need for caution with prescribing medical cannabis

Abstract
Background: One in five individuals live with chronic pain globally, which often co-occurs with sleep problems, anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders. Although these conditions are commonly managed with cannabinoid-based medicines (CBM), health care providers report lack of information on the risks, benefits, and appropriate use of CBM for therapeutic purposes. Aims: We present these clinical practice guidelines to help clinicians and patients navigate appropriate CBM use in the management of chronic pain and co-occurring conditions. Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies investigating the use of CBM for the treatment of chronic pain. Articles were dually reviewed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Clinical recommendations were developed based on available evidence from the review. Values and preferences and practical tips have also been provided to support clinical application. The GRADE system was used to rate the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence. Results: From our literature search, 70 articles met inclusion criteria and were utilized in guideline development, including 19 systematic reviews and 51 original research studies. Research typically demonstrates moderate benefit of CBM in chronic pain management. There is also evidence for efficacy of CBM in the management of comorbidities, including sleep problems, anxiety, appetite suppression, and for managing symptoms in some chronic conditions associated with pain including HIV, multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, and arthritis. Conclusions: All patients considering CBM should be educated on risks and adverse events. Patients and clinicians should work collaboratively to identify appropriate dosing, titration, and administration routes for each individu

Abstract
Objectives: Cannabis is increasingly being used for chronic pain management, but cannabis' effects remain poorly characterized in chronic nociplastic pain (NPP), which is posited to be caused by disturbances in nervous system pain processing. In this cross-sectional study (n=1213), we used the 2011 Fibromyalgia (FM) Survey Criteria as a surrogate measure for degree of NPP among individuals using medical cannabis for chronic pain.

Methods: Using a quartile-split, we investigated associations between the degree of NPP and medication use, cannabis use characteristics, and symptom relief. Continuous variables were assessed using one-way analysis of variance and categorical variables with Pearson χ 2 test and binomial logistic regression for calculation of odds ratios.

Results: Participants were predominately female (59%), with a mean ± SD age of 49.4±13.6 years. Higher FM scores were associated with less self-reported improvement in pain and health since initiating medical cannabis use, as well as more cannabis-related side effects. Paradoxically, higher FM scores were also associated with higher usage of concomitant medication use (including opioids and benzodiazepines) but also with substituting cannabis for significantly more medication classes, including opioids and benzodiazepines.

Discussion: This article presents evidence that individuals in higher NPP quartiles have higher analgesic intake, higher odds of substituting cannabis for medications, higher side effect burden, and lower therapeutic effect from cannabis. These seemingly contradictory findings may reflect higher symptom burden, polypharmacy at baseline, or that NPP may be challenging to treat with cannabis. Further research is necessary to further explain cannabinoid effects in NPP.

Abstract
Background: How cannabis products are being used by cancer patients and survivors in the United States is poorly understood. This study reviewed observational data to understand the modes, patterns, reasons, discontinuation, and adverse experiences of cannabis use.

Methods: PubMed and PsycINFO database searches were conducted between May 2022 and November 2022. Of the 1162 studies identified, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. The intercoder agreement was strong (0.81).

Results: The majority (74%) of the studies were cross-sectional in design. Study samples were approximately equal proportions of men and women and majority White participants. The prevalence of cannabis use based on national samples ranged between 4.8% and 22%. The most common modes of cannabis intake were topical application (80%), smoking (73%), vaping (12%), and ingestion of edible products (10%). Younger age, male gender, being a current or former smoker, and higher socioeconomic status were associated with greater likelihood of cannabis use. The main motive for cannabis use was management of symptoms due to cancer or cancer treatment such as pain, nausea, lack of sleep, and anxiety. A majority of the participants across studies reported that cannabis helped reduce these symptoms. Lack of symptom improvement, side effects such as fatigue and paranoia, cost, and social stigma were identified as some of the reasons for discontinuing cannabis use.

Conclusions: It appears that cannabis may help cancer patients and survivors manage symptoms. However, more longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether positive experiences of cannabis use outweigh adverse experiences over time in this vulnerable population.

Abstract
Aims: Patients with chronic health conditions not responding to conventional treatment can access medicinal cannabis (MC) prescriptions from clinicians in Australia. We aimed to assess overall health-related quality of life (HRQL), pain, fatigue, sleep, anxiety, and depression in a large real-world sample of patients accessing prescribed medicinal cannabis. We hypothesized that all patient-reported outcomes (PROs) would improve from baseline to 3-months.

Methods: The QUEST Initiative is a large prospective multicenter study of patients with any chronic health condition newly prescribed medicinal cannabis between November 2020 and December 2021. Eligible patients were identified by 120 clinicians at medical centers across six Australian states. Consenting participants completed the EuroQol Group EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire; European Organization for Research & Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire (QLQ-C30); Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Forms in Fatigue and Sleep Disturbance, and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21) before starting therapy, at 2-weeks titration, then monthly for 3-months.

Results: Of the 2762 consenting participants, 2327 completed baseline and at least one follow-up questionnaire. Ages ranged between 18-97 years (mean 51y; SD = 15.4), 62.8% were female. The most commonly treated conditions were chronic pain (n = 1598/2327; 68.7%), insomnia (n = 534/2327; 22.9%), generalized anxiety (n = 508/2327; 21.5%), and mixed anxiety and depression (n = 259/2327; 11%). Across the whole cohort both EQ-5D-5L utility scores and QLQ-C30 summary scores showed clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL from baseline to mean follow-up with d = 0.54 (95%CI:0.47 to 0.59) and d = 0.64 (95%CI:0.58 to 0.70) respectively; and clinically meaningful improvement in fatigue (d = 0.54; 95%CI:0.48 to 0.59). There was clinically meaningful reduction of pain for those with chronic pain (d = 0.65; 95%CI:0.57 to 0.72); significant improvements for those with moderate to extremely severe anxiety (X2 = 383; df = 4; p<0.001) and depression (X2 = 395; df = 4; p<0.001); and no changes in sleep disturbance.

Conclusions: We observed statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvements in overall HRQL and fatigue over the first 3-months in patients with chronic health conditions accessing prescribed medical cannabis. Anxiety, depression, and pain also improved over time, particularly for those with corresponding health conditions. The study continues to follow-up patients until 12-months to determine whether improvements in PROs are maintained long-term.

Keywords: autism spectrum; biochemical safety; cannabis; disorder; medical; pediatric.

Keywords: CBD; Cannabidiol; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; Substance-related disorders; THC.

Keywords: Anandamide; CBD, Epilepsy; Cannabidiol; Cannabis; Marijuana; Refractory seizure; THC.

Abstract
Aim: To investigate medicinal cannabis users' intentions to transition to the new prescription Medicinal Cannabis Scheme (MCS) in New Zealand.

Method: An online survey of 3,634 past-year medicinal cannabis users completed prior to implementation of the MCS in New Zealand in April 2020. Logistic regression models were fitted to identify predictors of intended future engagement with the MCS.

Results: Seventy-eight percent of respondents were aware of the new MCS and 66% intended to use it. Higher income (OR=1.57), younger age (OR=1.02) and smoking cannabis (v. vaping (OR=2.0) or oral ingestion in edible form (OR=2.22)) predicted intention to engage with the MCS. Conversely, Māori (OR=0.63) and those who grew their own cannabis (OR=0.52) were less likely to intend to engage with the new prescription MCS.

Conclusion: The lower intended engagement with the MCS by Māori, lower income groups and those who home-grow cannabis may reflect their perceptions of the MCS as restrictive and expensive.

Abstract
Cannabis has been used as a medicine for millennia. Prohibition in the mid-20th century precluded early scientific investigation. 'Cannabis' describes three separate forms - herbal cannabis, 'hemp' products, pharmaceutical-grade regulated cannabinoid-based medical products (CBMP). In Australia, CBMP became available for prescription in November 2016. Herbal cannabis with Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is illegal, and cannabidiol (CBD) in herbal extracts, are both unregulated and unreliable sources of cannabinoids. The endocannabinoid system (ECS), delineated in the late 1990s, has increased the understanding and interest in research for appropriate clinical indications. The ubiquitous ECS has homeostatic and anti-inflammatory effects and comprises cannabinoid receptors, endocannabinoids and degrading enzymes. Phytocannabinoids are partial agonists of the ECS. In pre-clinical studies, THC and CBD produce beneficial effects in chronic pain, anxiety, sleep and inflammation. Systematic reviews often conflate herbal cannabis and CBMP, confusing the evidence. Currently large randomised controlled trials are unlikely to be achieved. Other methodologies with quality end-points are required. Rich, valuable high-quality real-world evidence for the safe and effective use of CBMP provides an opportunity to examine benefits and potential harms. Evidence demonstrates benefit of CBMP in multiple sclerosis, chronic neuropathic pain, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, resistant paediatric epilepsy, anxiety and insomnia. CBMP are well tolerated with few serious adverse events. Additional clinical benefits are promising in many other resistant chronic conditions. Pharmaceutical grade prescribed CBMP has proven clinical benefits and provides another clinical option in the physician's pharmacopeia.

Summary
The Australian Federal Government legalised access to medicinal cannabis in 2016.
More than 100 different cannabis products are now available to prescribe. Most are oral
preparations (oils) or capsules containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or cannabidiol. Driedflower products are also available.
As most products are unregistered drugs, prescribing requires approval under the Therapeutic Goods Administration Special Access Scheme-B or Authorised Prescriber Scheme. Special Access Scheme Category B applications can be made online, with approval usually being given within 24–48 hours. However, supply chain problems may delay dispensing by the pharmacy.
By the end of 2019, over 28,000 prescribing approvals had been issued to patients, involving more than 1400 doctors, mostly GPs. More than 70,000 approvals are projected by the end of 2020.
Most prescriptions are for chronic non-cancer pain, anxiety, cancer-related symptoms, epilepsy
and other neurological disorders. However, the evidence supporting some indications is limited.
Many doctors are cautious about prescribing cannabis. While serious adverse events are rare,
there are legitimate concerns around driving, cognitive impairment and drug dependence with
products containing delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol. Cannabidiol-only products pose fewer risks.

Abstract
Background: Medical cannabis (MC) utilization continues to expand in the United States, as a growing body of evidence supports the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in the treatment of a range of chronic conditions. To date, gender-related differences in MC use are not widely reported, and little is known regarding physicians' support of patients' use of MC to address symptoms associated with chronic conditions. Materials and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of MC users in Illinois (n = 361). We summarized participants' qualifying conditions, symptoms treated with MC, perceived physician support for MC use, use of MC and prescription medications, then analyzed differences by participant gender. Results: Bivariate analyses indicate that men report higher levels of support for MC use from both specialist and primary care physicians. Women were significantly more likely to increase use of cannabis after acquiring an MC card, and to discontinue prescription medications through MC use. Multivariable analyses indicate that being a woman, using MC to treat multiple symptoms, and reporting higher levels of support for MC use from a primary care provider significantly increased the likelihood of discontinuing prescription medication through MC use. Discussion: Women are more likely to report decreased use of prescription medications to treat symptoms, and report lower levels of support from physicians for MC use. Future research on gender differences in this population may benefit from more detailed data related to symptomology, utilization, dosing, and outcomes associated with MC, and interactions with the health care system to extend these findings.

Real-world evidence (RWE) studies provide the opportunity to fill gaps in our understanding where randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may fall short. Using electronic health records or linked large databases of routinely collected health information like insurance claims and physician fee codes, these studies provide new opportunities to develop broader evidence to support clinical decisions in a timely fashion.

Abstract
A patient presented to the emergency department with his brother due to recent onset of paranoid behavior that escalated over the past month. The patient endorsed paranoid delusions of people watching him and following him in a black truck. The patient admitted to being unable to sleep for the past two weeks and to having hypervigilant behavior whenever he leaves the house. Due to the patient's presentation, the differential diagnosis included schizophrenia, substance-induced psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to another medical condition, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder with mood incongruent psychotic features. Upon interview, the patient stated he was using marijuana to decrease his self-reported anxiety and other social stressors since the age of 13 years. Over the past month, the patient says he has been "dabbing," which is a highly concentrated form of cannabis mainly consumed by experienced users. These "dabs" have an extremely high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content (up to 80%), which is the main psychoactive component in cannabis products. Since the patient began using this potent form of cannabis, he has had increasing difficulty functioning at work and worsening symptoms of psychosis. After eliciting this information and noting the patient had a positive urine drug screen for cannabis, a diagnosis of cannabis-induced psychosis along with severe cannabis use disorder was made. There is a trend towards increasing THC concentrations in cannabis products. This case highlights the importance of being aware of these highly potent cannabis products and their potential harms. Patients should approach these products with caution, as they are not only more dangerous to manufacture but also have the potential to induce psychosis in susceptible populations.

Abstract
For nearly a century, Cannabis has been stigmatized and criminalized across the globe, but in recent years, there has been a growing interest in Cannabis due to the therapeutic potential of phytocannabinoids. With this emerging interest in Cannabis, concerns have arisen about the possible contaminations of hemp with pesticides, heavy metals, microbial pathogens, and carcinogenic compounds during the cultivation, manufacturing, and packaging processes. This is of particular concern for those turning to Cannabis for medicinal purposes, especially those with compromised immune systems. This review aims to provide types of contaminants and examples of Cannabis contamination using case studies that elucidate the medical consequences consumers risk when using adulterated Cannabis products. Thus, it is imperative to develop universal standards for cultivation and testing of products to protect those who consume Cannabis.

Abstract
Background: Cannabis has been documented for use in alleviating anxiety. However, certain research has also shown that it can produce feelings of anxiety, panic, paranoia and psychosis. In humans, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has been associated with an anxiogenic response, while anxiolytic activity has been attributed mainly to cannabidiol (CBD). In animal studies, the effects of THC are highly dose-dependent, and biphasic effects of cannabinoids on anxiety-related responses have been extensively documented. A more precise assessment is required of both the anxiolytic and anxiogenic potentials of phytocannabinoids, with an aim towards the development of the 'holy grail' in cannabis research, a medicinally-active formulation which may assist in the treatment of anxiety or mood disorders without eliciting any anxiogenic effects.

Objectives: To systematically review studies assessing cannabinoid interventions (e.g. THC or CBD or whole cannabis interventions) both in animals and humans, as well as recent epidemiological studies reporting on anxiolytic or anxiogenic effects from cannabis consumption.

Method: The articles selected for this review were identified up to January 2020 through searches in the electronic databases OVID MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and PsycINFO.

Results: Acute doses of CBD were found to reduce anxiety both in animals and humans, without having an anxiogenic effect at higher doses. Epidemiological studies tend to support an anxiolytic effect from the consumption of either CBD or THC, as well as whole plant cannabis. Conversely, the available human clinical studies demonstrate a common anxiogenic response to THC (especially at higher doses).

Conclusion: Based on current data, cannabinoid therapies (containing primarily CBD) may provide a more suitable treatment for people with pre-existing anxiety or as a potential adjunctive role in managing anxiety or stress-related disorders. However, further research is needed to explore other cannabinoids and phytochemical constituents present in cannabis (e.g. terpenes) as anxiolytic interventions. Future clinical trials involving patients with anxiety disorders are warranted due to the small number of available human studies.

Abstract
A systematic review was performed to evaluate the biological effects of Cannabidiol (CBD), one of the major components of Cannabis Sativa, on normal human healthy cell populations in terms of cell viability, proliferation, migration, apoptosis and inflammation. Inclusion criteria were: studies on cell lines and primary cell culture from healthy donors, CBD exposure as variable, no CBD exposure as control and published in English language. Quality assessment was based on ToxR tool, with a score of reliability ranging from 15 to 18.Following the PRISMA statement, three independent reviewers performed both a manual and an electronic search using MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane. From a total of 9437eligible articles, 29 studies have been selected. The average quality assessment score was 16.48.Theresults showed heterogeneous CBD concentration exposure (0.01-50 μM or 0.1 nmol/mL-15 mg/mL). The definition of a threshold limit would allow the identification of specific effects on expected outcomes. From the data obtained CBD resulted to inhibit cell viability in a dose-dependent manner above 2 μM, while in oral cell populations the inhibitory concentration is higher than 10 μM. Moreover, it was observed a significantly inhibition of cell migration and proliferation. On the contrary, it was highlighted a stimulation of apoptosis only at high doses (from 10 μM).Finally, CBD produced an anti-inflammatory effect, with a reduction of the pro-inflammatory cytokine gene expression and secretion. CBD down-regulated ROS production, although at high concentrations (16 μM) increased ROS-related genes expression. The diffusion of CBD for therapeutic and recreational uses require a precise definition of its potential biological effects. A thorough knowledge of these aspects would allow a safe use of this substance without any possible side effects.

Abstract
Chronic pain affects up to 40% of adults, contributing to high medical expenses, the loss of productivity, reduced quality of life (QoL), and disability. Chronic pain requires detailed diagnostic assessment, treatment and rehabilitation, yet approx. 80% of patients report inadequate pain management. As new treatment options are needed, we aimed to explore the effectiveness of medical cannabis-based products in managing chronic pain, with a particular focus on treatment patterns.We searched the PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases using keywords related to cannabinoids and chronic pain syndromes. In total, 3,954 articles were identified, and 74 studies involving 12,562 patients were included. The effectiveness of cannabis-based products varied across studies. Cannabinoids were most effective in treating chronic secondary headache and orofacial pain, chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain, chronic secondary visceral pain, and chronic neuropathic pain. Properly qualifying patients is the first crucial step in managing chronic pain, considering pain characteristics, comorbidities and other treatment options. Treatment should start with low doses of cannabinoids, which are then increased to achieve the desired therapeutic effect while minimizing adverse effects.This narrative review revealed significant gaps in the evidence regarding precise treatment patterns, particularly for the long-term maintenance treatment needed by patients with chronic pain. Medical cannabis can be considered an option for carefully selected patients with chronic pain syndromes when other treatment options fail to achieve an adequate response, and when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. However, there is still a need for well-designed clinical research to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of cannabinoids.

Abstract
Cannabis sativa (L), a plant with an extensive history of medicinal usage across numerous cultures, has received increased attention over recent years for its therapeutic potential for gynecological disorders such as endometriosis, chronic pelvic pain, and primary dysmenorrhea, due at least in part to shortcomings with current management options. Despite this growing interest, cannabis inhabits an unusual position in the modern medical pharmacopoeia, being a legal medicine, legal recreational drug, and an illicit drug, depending on jurisdiction. To date, the majority of studies investigating cannabis use have found that most people are using illicit cannabis, with numerous obstacles to medical cannabis adoption having been identified, including outdated drug-driving laws, workplace drug testing policies, the cost of quality-assured medical cannabis products, a lack of cannabis education for healthcare professionals, and significant and persistent stigma. Although currently lacking robust clinical trial data, a growing evidence base of retrospective data, cohort studies, and surveys does support potential use in gynecological pain conditions, with most evidence focusing on endometriosis. Cannabis consumers report substantial reductions in pelvic pain, as well as common comorbid symptoms such as gastrointestinal disturbances, mood disorders such as anxiety and depression, and poor sleep. Substitution effects were reported, with >50% reduction or cessation in opioid and/or non-opioid analgesics being the most common. However, a substantial minority report not disclosing cannabis consumption to their health professional. Therefore, while such deprescribing trends are potentially beneficial, the importance of medical supervision during this process is paramount given the possibility for withdrawal symptoms.

Abstract
Purpose of review: Cannabis has been used since ancient times for medical and recreational research. This review article will document the validity of how medical cannabis can be utilized for chronic nonmalignant pain management.

Recent findings: Current cannabis research has shown that medical cannabis is indicated for symptom management for many conditions not limited to cancer, chronic pain, headaches, migraines, and psychological disorders (anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder). Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are active ingredients in cannabis that modulate a patient's symptoms. These compounds work to decrease nociception and symptom frequency via the endocannabinoid system. Research regarding pain management is limited within the USA as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) classifies it as a schedule one drug. Few studies have found a limited relationship between chronic pain and medical cannabis use. A total of 77 articles were selected after a thorough screening process using PubMed and Google Scholar. This paper demonstrates that medical cannabis use provides adequate pain management. Patients suffering from chronic nonmalignant pain may benefit from medical cannabis due to its convenience and efficacy.

Abstract in English, Spanish
Background: Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids.

Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain.

Search methods: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023.

Selection criteria: We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

Main results: We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis). We found no studies using herbal cannabis.

Authors' conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.

Abstract
Introduction: Cannabinoids are being used by patients to help with chronic pain management and to address the 2 primary chronic pain comorbidities of anxiety and sleep disturbance. It is necessary to understand the biphasic effects of cannabinoids to improve treatment of this symptom triad.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted to identify whether biphasic effects of cannabinoids on pain severity, anxiolysis, and sleep disturbance have been reported. The search included the Embase, Biosis, and Medline databases of clinical literature published between 1970 and 2021. The inclusion criteria were (1) adults more than 18 years of age, (2) data or discussion of dose effects associated with U-shaped or linear dose responses, and (3) measurements of pain and/or anxiety and/or sleep disturbance. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers (with a third reviewer used as a tiebreaker) and subjected to a thematic analysis.

Results: After the database search and study eligibility assessment, 44 publications met the final criteria for review. Eighteen publications that specifically provided information on dose response were included in the final synthesis: 9 related to pain outcomes, 7 measuring anxiety, and 2 reporting sleep effects.

Conclusions: This scoping review reports on biphasic effects of cannabinoids related to pain, sleep, and anxiety. Dose-response relationships are present, but we found gaps in the current literature with regard to biphasic effects of cannabinoids in humans. There is a lack of prospective research in humans exploring this specific relationship.

Abstract
Background: The following study evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients enrolled in the UK Medical Cannabis Registry, who were treated with inhaled dried flower (Adven® EMT2, Curaleaf International, Guernsey), and sublingual/oral medium-chain triglyceride-based oils (Adven, Curaleaf International, Guernsey) for chronic pain.

Methods: In this cohort study, the primary outcomes were changes in validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1, 3, and 6 months compared to baseline, and adverse event analysis. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.050.

Results: Three hundred and forty-eight (45.7%), 36 (4.7%), and 377 (49.5%) patients were treated with oils, dried flower, or both, respectively. Patients treated with oils or combination therapy recorded improvements within health-related quality of life, pain, and sleep-specific PROMs at 1, 3, and 6 months (p < 0.050). Patients treated with combination therapy recorded improvements in anxiety-specific PROMs at 1, 3, and 6 months (p < 0.050). 1,273 (167.3%) adverse events were recorded, with previously cannabis naïve users, ex-cannabis users, and females more likely to experience adverse events (p < 0.050).

Conclusions: This study observed an association between initiation of CBMP treatment and improved outcomes for chronic pain patients. Prior cannabis use and gender were associated with adverse event incidence. Placebo-controlled trials are still necessary to establish the efficacy and safety of CBMPs for chronic pain.

Keywords: Primary Care; Pain management.

A ROLE for cannabidiol (CBD) in pain relief is yet to be supported by high quality studies, with new Australian research finding it is no better than placebo as an adjunct medication for relieving acute low back pain.

As a pain specialist, I often have patients asking me whether they should try medicinal cannabis. There’s a common perception it can be an effective way to manage chronic pain.

But two expert groups have recently recommended against medicinal cannabis for people suffering persistent non-cancer pain.

The International Association for the Study of Pain published a position statement last week after its presidential taskforce summarised the evidence on the topic.

And yesterday the Faculty of Pain Medicine of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists published guidance for health practitioners in the form of a Choosing Wisely recommendation. (Choosing Wisely is an initiative of NPS Medicinewise which aims to highlight low-value health care.)

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.

Abstract
This narrative review represents an output from the International Association for the Study of Pain's global task force on the use of cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis-based medicines (CBM) for pain management, informed by our companion systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies in this area. Our aims in this review are: 1) to describe the value of studying cannabinoids and endogenous cannabinoid (endocannabinoid) system modulators in preclinical/animal models of pain; 2) to discuss both pain-related efficacy and additional pain-relevant effects (adverse and beneficial) of cannabinoids and endocannabinoid system modulators as they pertain to animal models of pathological or injury-related persistent pain; and 3) to identify important directions for future research. In service of these goals, this review a) provides an overview of the endocannabinoid system and the pharmacology of cannabinoids and endocannabinoid system modulators, with specific relevance to animal models of pathological or injury-related persistent pain; b) describes pharmacokinetics of cannabinoids in rodents and humans; and c) highlights differences and discrepancies between preclinical and clinical studies in this area. Preclinical (rodent) models have advanced our understanding of the underlying sites and mechanisms of action of cannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system in suppressing nociceptive signaling and behaviors. We conclude that substantial evidence from animal models supports the contention that cannabinoids and endocannabinoid system modulators hold considerable promise for analgesic drug development, although the challenge of translating this knowledge into clinically useful medicines is not to be underestimated.

Abstract
We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies which assessed the antinociceptive efficacy of cannabinoids, cannabis-based medicines, and endocannabinoid system modulators on pain-associated behavioural outcomes in animal models of pathological or injury-related persistent pain. In April 2019, we systematically searched 3 online databases and used crowd science and machine learning to identify studies for inclusion. We calculated a standardised mean difference (SMD) effect size for each comparison and performed a random effects meta-analysis. We assessed the impact of study design characteristics and reporting of mitigations to reduce the risk of bias. We meta-analysed 374 studies in which 171 interventions were assessed for antinociceptive efficacy in rodent models of pathological or injury-related pain. Most experiments were conducted in male animals (86 %). Antinociceptive efficacy was most frequently measured by attenuation of hypersensitivity to evoked limb withdrawal. Selective CB1, CB2, non-selective cannabinoid receptor agonists (including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; THC), and PPAR-alpha agonists (predominantly palmitoylethanolamide; PEA) significantly attenuated pain-associated behaviours in a broad range of inflammatory and neuropathic pain models. Fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) inhibitors, monoacylglycerol lipase (MGL) inhibitors and cannabidiol (CBD) significantly attenuated pain-associated behaviours in neuropathic pain models but yielded mixed results in inflammatory pain models. The reporting of criteria to reduce the risk of bias was low, therefore the studies have an unclear risk of bias. The value of future studies could be enhanced by improving the reporting of methodological criteria, the clinical relevance of the models and behavioural assessments. Notwithstanding, the evidence supports the hypothesis of cannabinoid-induced analgesia.

An introduction to the IASP Presidential Task Force on Cannabis and Cannabinoid Analgesia position statement.

Abstract
Purpose: Medical cannabis for patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) has been the focus of numerous health care recommendations. We conducted a systematic review to identify and summarize the currently available evidence-based recommendations.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and websites for clinical guidelines and recommendations. We summarized the type of the publications, developers, approach of health care recommendation development, year and country of publication, and conditions that were addressed. We categorized the direction and strength of each recommendation.

Results: We identified 12 eligible publications. Publication years ranged from 2007 to 2019; four (33.3%) of them were published in 2018. Canada ranked first for the number of publications (n = 4, 33.3%). Most (n = 11, 92%) of the included recommendations were based on both a systematic review of the best evidence and expert consensus. All the included publications provided a recommendation supporting medical cannabis for CNCP in general and for the specific conditions of neuropathic pain, chronic pain in people living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and chronic abdominal pain, with detailed information sharing and comprehensive consideration of a patient's own values and preferences.

Conclusion: Clinicians can attend to the guidance currently offered, being aware that only weak recommendations are available for medical cannabis in patients with CNCP, as a third- or fourth-line therapy. Detailed discussions with patients regarding the benefits in reducing pain and potential adverse effects are required before its prescription.

Abstract
Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We summarised efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of these types of drugs for treating pain using randomised controlled trials: in people of any age, with any type of pain, and for any treatment duration. Primary outcomes were 30% and 50% reduction in pain intensity, and AEs. We assessed risk of bias of included studies, and the overall quality of evidence using GRADE. Studies of <7 and >7 days treatment duration were analysed separately. We included 36 studies (7217 participants) delivering cannabinoids (8 studies), cannabis (6 studies), and CBM (22 studies); all had high and/or uncertain risk of bias. Evidence of benefit was found for cannabis <7 days (risk difference 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.46; 2 trials, 231 patients, very low-quality evidence) and nabiximols >7 days (risk difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.12; 6 trials, 1484 patients, very low-quality evidence). No other beneficial effects were found for other types of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in our primary analyses; 81% of subgroup analyses were negative. Cannabis, nabiximols, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol had more AEs than control. Studies in this field have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had GRADE rating of low- or very low-quality evidence. We have little confidence in the estimates of effect. The evidence neither supports nor refutes claims of efficacy and safety for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in the management of pain.

Abstract
Purpose of review: The prevalence of cancer pain will continue to rise as pain is common among the survivorship and general cancer population. As interest in cannabis and cannabinoids for medicinal use including pain management continues to rise, there is growing need to update and review the current state of evidence for their use. The literature was searched for articles in English with key words cannabis, cannabinoids, and cancer pain. The sources of articles were PubMed, Embase, and open Google search.

Recent findings: In a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial including a 3-week treatment period of nabiximol for advanced cancer patients with pain refractory to optimized opiate therapy, improvements in average pain were seen in the intention to treat population (P = 0.0854) and per- protocol population (P = 0.0378).

Summary: To date, preclinical data has demonstrated evidence to suggest promising potential for cancer pain and the urgent need to translate this into clinical practice. Unfortunately, due to limited data, for adults with advanced cancer being treated with opiate therapy, the addition of cannabis or cannabinoids is not currently supported to address cancer pain effectively.

Abstract
Purpose of review: Cannabis products have been used for various ailments since ancient times. But their use diminished in the medical community due to the legal and social concerns of substance abuse. With evolving evidence of their use in alleviating various symptoms, resurgence of interest in their medicinal use is seen in the past decade.

Recent findings: Clinical evidence for cannabis products in treating various ailments has been far from robust. Their use is based on anecdotal and low-quality evidence. This review attempts to revisit the recent medical literature available on the merits and demerits of cannabinoid use in palliative medicine.

Summary: A few symptoms in palliative care setting can be difficult to treat in a few patients with the available treatment measures. Anecdotal reports and early clinical data have proved cannabinoids to be a promising pharmacological option in managing this subset of patients. However, absence of robust clinical data in proving that cannabinoids have definitely favorable risk-benefit ratio, precludes the inclusion of cannabinoids in the routine recommendation for palliative symptom management. Before cannabinoids enter the broader market with patient-driven and industry-driven hype, high-quality clinical evidence is emergently needed.

Abstract
Background: Prior to nonmedical cannabis legalization in Canada, individuals were only able to access cannabis legally through licensed producers with medical authorization. Now with an additional legal access system designed for nonmedical purposes, it is unclear what factors influence cancer survivors' decisions to medicate or not medicate cannabis as a complementary therapy to alleviate their cancer symptoms.

Methods: We recruited cancer survivors via social media. Interested individuals were purposively sampled to ensure maximization in terms of age, sex, and province of residence. Constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior were explored during the telephone interviews as participants described what influenced their decisions to medicate or not medicate cannabis to manage their symptoms.

Results: Interviews were conducted with 33 cancer survivors. All individuals believed that cannabis would manage their cancer symptoms. Those that chose to medicate with cannabis provided a variety of reasons, including that cannabis was a more natural alternative; that it reduced their overall number of prescription drugs; and that safer products had become available with the legalization of nonmedical cannabis. Some individuals also indicated that support from physicians and validation from family and friends were important in their decision to medicate with cannabis. Individuals who opted not to medicate with cannabis raised concerns about the lack of scientific evidence and/or possible dependency issues. Some also felt their physician's disapproval was a barrier to considering cannabis use.

Conclusions: The findings revealed that recreational legalization made using cannabis appear safer and easier to access for some cancer survivors. However, physicians' censure of cannabis use for symptom management was a barrier for survivors considering its use.

Abstract
Background: Although studied in a few randomized controlled trials, the efficacy of medical cannabis (MC) for chronic pain remains controversial. Using an alternative approach, this multicentre, questionnaire-based prospective cohort was aimed to assess the long-term effects of MC on chronic pain of various aetiologies and to identify predictors for MC treatment success.

Methods: Patients with chronic pain, licensed to use MC in Israel, reported weekly average pain intensity (primary outcome) and related symptoms before and at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months following MC treatment initiation. A general linear model was used to assess outcomes and identify predictors for treatment success (≥30% reduction in pain intensity).

Results: A total of 1,045 patients completed the baseline questionnaires and initiated MC treatment, and 551 completed the 12-month follow-up. At 1 year, average pain intensity declined from baseline by 20% [-1.97 points (95%CI = -2.13 to -1.81; p < 0.001)]. All other parameters improved by 10%-30% (p < 0.001). A significant decrease of 42% [reduction of 27 mg; (95%CI = -34.89 to 18.56, p < 0.001)] from baseline in morphine equivalent daily dosage of opioids was also observed. Reported adverse effects were common but mostly non-serious. Presence of normal to long sleep duration, lower body mass index and lower depression score predicted relatively higher treatment success, whereas presence of neuropathic pain predicted the opposite.

Conclusions: This prospective study provides further evidence for the effects of MC on chronic pain and related symptoms, demonstrating an overall mild-to-modest long-term improvement of the tested measures and identifying possible predictors for treatment success.

Abstract
Chronic pain can be recurrent or constant pain that lasts for longer than 3 months and can result in disability, suffering, and a physical disturbance. Related to the complex nature of chronic pain, treatments have a pharmacological and non-pharmacological approach. Due to the opioid epidemic, alternative therapies have been introduced, and components of the plant Cannabis Sativa, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) have gained recent interest as a choice of treatment. The exact mechanism for CBD is currently unknown, but unlike the CBD's psychoactive counterpart, THC, the side effects of CBD itself have been shown to be overall much more benign. The current pharmaceutical products for the treatment of chronic pain are known as nabiximols, and they contain a ratio of THC combined with CBD, which has been promising. This review focuses on the treatment efficacy of CBD, THC: CBD-based treatments for chronic pain and adverse events with each.

Abstract
Background: Little is known about medical cannabis (MC)-related care for patients with cancer using MC.

Methods: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in a convenience sample of individuals (n = 24) with physician-confirmed oncologic diagnoses and state/district authorization to use MC (Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, New York, and Washington, DC) from April 2017 to March 2019. Standard qualitative techniques were used to assess the degree of MC-related health care oversight, MC practices, and key information sources.

Results: Among 24 participants (median age, 57 years; range, 30-71 years; 16 women [67%]), MC certifications were typically issued by a professional new to a patient's care after a brief, perfunctory consultation. Patients disclosed MCuse to their established medical teams but received little medical advice about whether and how to use MC. Patients with cancer used MC products as multipurpose symptom management and as cancer-directed therapy, sometimes in lieu of standard-of-care treatments. Personal experimentation, including methodical self-monitoring, was an important source of MC know-how. Absent formal advice from medical professionals, patients relied on nonmedical sources for MC information.

Conclusions: Patients with cancer used MC with minimal medical oversight. Most received MC certifications through brief meetings with unfamiliar professionals. Participants desired but were often unable to access high-quality clinical information about MC from their established medical teams. Because many patients are committed to using MC, a product sustained by a growing industry, medical providers should familiarize themselves with the existing data for MM and its limitations to address a poorly met clinical need.

Abstract
Purpose of review: The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive update of the different known components of the endogenous cannabinoid system and the mechanisms of action, as it applies to analgesia.

Recent findings: Following the discovery of the endogenous cannabinoid system in the early 1990s and the subsequent characterization of the cannabinoid receptor, there has been a renewed interest in cannabinoid research. Recent work has demonstrated its efficacy as a pharmacologic agent. There is limited evidence in the literature about the understanding of the endocannabinoid system and its role in the treatment and management of acute and chronic pain. Further work may elucidate additional roles for the endocannabinoid system within our nervous system and, moreover, additional subtypes of cannabinoid receptors have yet to be discovered. Cannabinoid compounds mediate their biological effects via binding and subsequent activation of cannabinoid receptors. These receptors are located throughout the body and make up the endocannabinoid system. These receptors are best understood and have been cloned, type 1 (CB1) and type 2 (CB2). The CB2 receptor is located primarily in the immune system. CB1 receptors are primarily located in the nervous system with the highest concentrations in the brain and lower concentrations in the spine and peripheral nervous tissues. Cannabinoids may be promising treatments for neuropathic pain with limited evidence, whereas, the evidence for other uses is insufficient.

Abstract
This review examines evidence for the effectiveness of cannabinoids in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and addresses gaps in the literature by: considering differences in outcomes based on cannabinoid type and specific CNCP condition; including all study designs; and following IMMPACT guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in July 2017. Analyses were conducted using Revman 5.3 and Stata 15.0. A total of 91 publications containing 104 studies were eligible (n = 9958 participants), including 47 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 57 observational studies. Forty-eight studies examined neuropathic pain, 7 studies examined fibromyalgia, 1 rheumatoid arthritis, and 48 other CNCP (13 multiple sclerosis-related pain, 6 visceral pain, and 29 samples with mixed or undefined CNCP). Across RCTs, pooled event rates (PERs) for 30% reduction in pain were 29.0% (cannabinoids) vs 25.9% (placebo); significant effect for cannabinoids was found; number needed to treat to benefit was 24 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15-61); for 50% reduction in pain, PERs were 18.2% vs 14.4%; no significant difference was observed. Pooled change in pain intensity (standardised mean difference: -0.14, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.08) was equivalent to a 3 mm reduction on a 100 mm visual analogue scale greater than placebo groups. In RCTs, PERs for all-cause adverse events were 81.2% vs 66.2%; number needed to treat to harm: 6 (95% CI 5-8). There were no significant impacts on physical or emotional functioning, and low-quality evidence of improved sleep and patient global impression of change. Evidence for effectiveness of cannabinoids in CNCP is limited. Effects suggest that number needed to treat to benefit is high, and number needed to treat to harm is low, with limited impact on other domains. It seems unlikely that cannabinoids are highly effective medicines for CNCP.

Cannabis is an open access peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the scientific study of marijuana/cannabis from a multidisciplinary perspective. Consistent with the mission of the Research Society on Marijuana (RSMj), the journal publishes empirical research of the determinants, correlates, consequences, contexts, and assessment of marijuana use as well as the treatment of problematic marijuana use, including cannabis use disorder.

The Journal of Cannabis Research is an open-access, peer-reviewed, international journal which welcomes submissions covering all topics pertaining to cannabis. Sponsored by the Institute of Cannabis Research at Colorado State University-Pueblo, the Journal publishes a broad range of articles.

Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoids is a peer-reviewed journal offering an international forum to present and discuss recent advances in the rapidly developing and challenging field of the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids. It seeks to bridge the gap between empirical and evidence-based clinical medicine by covering current basic and applied as well as translational research topics.

Abstract
Cannabis use is increasingly common, and with a growing number of jurisdictions implementing legalization frameworks, it is likely that providers will encounter more patients who use cannabis. Therefore, it is important for providers to understand the implications of cannabis use and practical considerations for the perioperative period. Cannabis affects multiple organ systems and may influence intraoperative anesthesia, as well as postoperative pain management. The effects of cannabis and key anaesthetic considerations are reviewed here.

Abstract
Purpose of review: Growing numbers of patients, consuming cannabinoids admitted to surgery, create a challenge to anesthesia providers. This review provides a summary of recent literature related to cannabis and anesthesia, with specific recommendations to the anesthetic management of medical cannabis consumers.

Recent findings: At present, cannabis has found its way to public consensus in many countries and is penetrating slower to different medical fields. We relate and discuss recent findings investigating effects of cannabis consumption on the various aspects including perioperative measures, post-operative pain, PONV, cardiovascular stability, and anesthesia monitoring.

Summary: Recent surveys estimate that 10-20% of adult populations have consumed cannabis in the past year. Medical cannabis consumers are a newer group of cannabis users. Anesthesia providers have to update their knowledge on cannabis and possible anesthetic interaction. It is unreasonable to make recommendations that apply to the whole heterogeneous group of cannabis users, but is easier with the more homogenous group of Medical cannabis users, characterized by frequent use and relatively high cannabis doses, combined with good knowledge of administered composition and protocol, as well as adverse and withdrawal effects. Anesthesia providers have to know the effects and modify anesthetic plan accordingly. We provide perioperative anesthetic recommendations related to medical cannabis consumers. Collecting information of the effects of medical cannabis use in perioperative setting will further create a highly useful database for anesthetics in the close future.

Abstract
Purpose of review: Growing numbers of patients, consuming cannabinoids admitted to surgery, create a challenge to anesthesia providers. This review provides a summary of recent literature related to cannabis and anesthesia, with specific recommendations to the anesthetic management of medical cannabis consumers.

Recent findings: At present, cannabis has found its way to public consensus in many countries and is penetrating slower to different medical fields. We relate and discuss recent findings investigating effects of cannabis consumption on the various aspects including perioperative measures, post-operative pain, PONV, cardiovascular stability, and anesthesia monitoring.

Summary: Recent surveys estimate that 10-20% of adult populations have consumed cannabis in the past year. Medical cannabis consumers are a newer group of cannabis users. Anesthesia providers have to update their knowledge on cannabis and possible anesthetic interaction. It is unreasonable to make recommendations that apply to the whole heterogeneous group of cannabis users, but is easier with the more homogenous group of Medical cannabis users, characterized by frequent use and relatively high cannabis doses, combined with good knowledge of administered composition and protocol, as well as adverse and withdrawal effects. Anesthesia providers have to know the effects and modify anesthetic plan accordingly. We provide perioperative anesthetic recommendations related to medical cannabis consumers. Collecting information of the effects of medical cannabis use in perioperative setting will further create a highly useful database for anesthetics in the close future.

Cannabis is used as a recreational drug and commonly known as ganja, joint or weed. In India, possession or smoking of cannabis is an illegal and punishable offence. Perioperative arrhythmias in the patients with cannabis addiction are a rare entity and may pose a diagnostic dilemma if the history of its abuse has been concealed. We are reporting two cases where cannabis abusing patients sustained intraoperative severe refractory arrhythmias.

While it has been consumed globally for generations, postulated links between cannabis use and impaired brain function or cognitive dysfunction remain contentious. In this domain the hypothesis-generating findings of Holmen et al. are interesting. Their data warrant close scrutiny precisely because so many people use cannabis. Thus we must be careful that if we are to alter our approach to them clinically, such a change is justified.

Abstract
Cannabis is now legalized, for medical and/or recreational use, in numerous states. Although the cultural shift in acceptance of cannabis is apparent in the public, that sentiment has not necessarily translated to healthcare professionals. As anesthesia providers, we must understand the pharmacology of cannabis and its effects on physiology to provide safe anesthetic care to patients who consume it. The purpose of this article is to describe cannabis and its pharmacologic and physiologic effects and to review the anesthetic implications of its short-term and long-term use.

Abstract
Background: Cannabis legalization may contribute to an increased frequency of chronic use among patients presenting for surgery. At present, it is unknown whether chronic cannabis use modifies the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort study conducted at 2 academic medical centers. Twenty-seven thousand three hundred eighty-eight adult ASA 1-3 patients having general anesthesia for non-obstetric, non-cardiac procedures and receiving postoperative care in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) were analyzed in the main dataset, and 16,245 patients in the external validation dataset. The main predictor was patient reported use of cannabis in any form collected during pre-anesthesia evaluation and recorded in the chart. The primary outcome was documented PONV of any severity prior to PACU discharge, including administration of rescue medications in PACU. Relevant clinical covariates (risk factors for PONV, surgical characteristics, administered prophylactic antiemetic drugs) were also recorded.

Results: 10.0% of patients in the analytic dataset endorsed chronic cannabis use. Using Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART), we estimated that the relative risk for PONV associated with daily cannabis use was 1.19 (95 CI% 1.00-1.45). The absolute marginal increase in risk of PONV associated with daily cannabis use was 3.3% (95% CI 0.4-6.4%). We observed a lesser association between current, non-daily use of cannabis (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.94-1.21). An internal validation analysis conducted using propensity score adjustment and Bayesian logistic modeling indicated a similar size and magnitude of the association between cannabis use and PONV (OR 1.15, 90% CI 0.98-1.33). As an external validation, we used data from another hospital in our care system to create an independent model that demonstrated essentially identical associations between cannabis use and PONV.

Conclusions: Cannabis use is associated with an increased relative risk and a small increase in the marginal probability of PONV.

Abstract
The increasing availability of cannabis for both recreational and medicinal purposes means that anaesthetists will encounter an increasing number of patients taking cannabis-based medications. The existing evidence base is conflicted and incomplete regarding the indications, interactions and long-term effects of these substances. Globally, most doctors have had little education regarding the pharmacology of cannabis-based medicines, despite the endocannabinoid system being one of the most widespread in the human body. Much is unknown, and much is to be decided, including clarifying definitions and nomenclature, and therapeutic indications and dosing. Anaesthetists, Intensivists, Pain and Perioperative physicians will want to contribute to this evidence base and attempt to harness such therapeutic benefits in terms of pain relief and opiate-avoidance, anti-emesis and seizure control. We present a summary of the pharmacology of cannabis-based medicines including anaesthetic interactions and implications, to assist colleagues encountering these medicines in clinical practice.