Background. Chronic pain brings on many lifestyle changes. Redesign your Everyday Activities and Lifestyle with Occupational Therapy (REVEAL(OT)) is an evidence-based Danish intervention that benefits the daily functioning of individuals living with chronic pain. Purpose. To understand the perspectives of patients, clinicians and managers about REVEAL(OT) and identify format- and content-related modifications that are necessary to adapt to the Canadian context. Method. Based on a qualitative descriptive approach, focus groups and individual interviews with partners (n = 45 participants in total) were conducted in two Montreal specialized pain clinics. The interview guide was inspired by Proctor's implementation model and a qualitative rapid analysis was performed. Findings. Participants recognized the need for (a) a flexible, personalized and hands-on intervention, (b) integrating multimodal approaches, (c) support to develop and implement healthy life habits, (d) addressing gaps in care supporting the need for an OT intervention, and (e) pragmatic organisational considerations for implementation. Conclusion. REVEAL(OT) is capable of addressing the occupational needs of patients but adaptations are required to fit within a new healthcare ecosystem. Our findings promote the use of lifestyle-oriented interventions along with current care and will generate the initial intervention manual to be tested and refined.

Many patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) are prescribed opioid medication. However, concerns have been raised about the use of high opioid doses and the misuse of opioids in these patients. Research is needed to better understand the factors that influence day-to-day opioid intake patterns and opioid misuse behaviors in patients with CNCP. The first objective of this study was to examine the contribution of pain intensity, psychological factors, and physical dependence symptoms to daily opioid craving and opioid intake in patients with CNCP. The contribution of these factors to opioid misuse was also examined. In this ecological momentary assessment study, patients with CNCP prescribed short-acting opioids completed diaries, in between opioid doses, for 10 consecutive days. Diaries assessed a host of pain, psychological, and opioid-related variables. Diaries also assessed total daily morphine equivalent doses (MED) used by patients. Multilevel analyses indicated that intra-day increases in pain intensity, negative affect, catastrophizing, and withdrawal symptoms were associated with higher opioid craving (all P's < 0.05). Day-to-day increases in pain intensity, catastrophizing, and craving were associated with greater opioid intake (ie, MED) (all P's < 0.05). Patients' daily opioid craving contributed to daily opioid misuse even after accounting for other daily variables (P < 0.05). Our findings provide new insights into the factors contributing to daily opioid craving, opioid intake, and opioid misuse among patients with CNCP. Interventions targeting these factors could potentially prevent opioid dose escalations and opioid-related harms among those maintained on opioid therapy.

Chronic pain is a multifactorial condition presenting significant diagnostic and prognostic challenges. Biomarkers for the classification and the prediction of chronic pain are therefore critically needed. In this multi-dataset study of over 523,000 participants, we applied machine learning to multi-dimensional biological data from the UK Biobank to identify biomarkers for 35 medical conditions associated with pain (e.g., clinical diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, stroke, gout, etc.) or self-reported chronic pain (e.g., back pain, knee pain, etc). Biomarkers derived from blood immunoassays, brain and bone imaging, and genetics were effective in predicting medical conditions associated with chronic pain (area under the curve (AUC) 0.62–0.87) but not self-reported pain (AUC 0.50–0.62). Among the biomarkers identified was a composite blood-based signature that predicted the onset of various medical conditions approximately nine years in advance (AUC 0.59–0.72). Notably, all biomarkers worked in synergy with psychosocial factors, accurately predicting both medical conditions (AUC 0.69–0.91) and self-report pain (AUC 0.71–0.92). Over a period of 15 years, individuals scoring high on both biomarkers and psychosocial risk factors had twice the cumulative incidence of diagnoses for pain-associated medical conditions (Hazard Ratio (HR): 2.26) compared to individuals scoring high on biomarkers but low on psychosocial risk factors (HR: 1.06). In summary, we identified various biomarkers for chronic pain conditions and showed that their predictive efficacy heavily depended on psychological and social influences. These findings underscore the necessity of adopting a holistic approach in the development of biomarkers to enhance their clinical utility.

Abstract Background Integrated primary care programs for patients living with chronic pain which are accessible, interdisciplinary, and patient-centered are needed for preventing chronicity and improving outcomes. Evaluation of the implementation and impact of such programs supports further development of primary care chronic pain management. This study examined patient-reported outcomes among individuals with low back pain (LBP) receiving care in a novel interdisciplinary primary care program. Methods Patients were referred by primary care physicians in four regions of Quebec, Canada, and eligible patients received an evidence-based interdisciplinary pain management program over a six-month period. Patients were screened for risk of chronicity. Patient-reported outcome measures of pain interference and intensity, physical function, depression, and anxiety were evaluated at regular intervals over the six-month follow-up. A multilevel regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between patient characteristics at baseline, including risk of chronicity, and change in pain outcomes. Results Four hundred and sixty-four individuals (mean age 55.4y, 63% female) completed the program. The majority (≥ 60%) experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity and interference at six months. Patients with moderate (71%) or high risk (81%) of chronicity showed greater improvement in pain interference than those with low risk (51%). Significant predictors of improvement in pain interference included a higher risk of chronicity, younger age, female sex, and lower baseline disability. Conclusion The outcomes of this novel LBP program will inform wider implementation considerations by identifying key components for further effectiveness, sustainability, and scale-up of the program.

Introduction: Cannabidiol (CBD) has been shown to maintain bone integrity in pre-clinical models, but little is known about the effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on bone turnover. In this study we explored the effects of two oral medical cannabis products on normal bone homeostasis through evaluation of markers of bone resorption (carboxyl-terminal collagen crosslinks, CTx) and bone formation (procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide, P1NP; alkaline phosphatase, ALP). Methods: This study is an analysis of secondary data from two Phase 1 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of Spectrum Yellow (0.9 mg THC, 20 mg CBD/mL of oil) and Spectrum Red (2.5 mg THC, 0.3 mg CBD/softgel). Healthy participants (n=38 men, 45 women) were randomized to receive 5-20 mg THC (CBD levels varied as a function of administered product) or placebo daily (BID) for 7 days. Bone markers were assessed at baseline, upon completion of product administration (day 8), and after a 5-day washout (day 13). Results: All bone markers were significantly higher in men at baseline (p≤0.008). For CTx, there was a significant day×group interaction (F=3.23, p=0.04); CTx levels were significantly lower in participants treated with Spectrum Red (b=-164.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], -328 to -0.29; p=0.04) and marginally lower in participants treated with Spectrum Yellow (b=-157.31; 95% CI, -323 to 8.68; p=0.06) versus placebo on day 8. For P1NP and ALP, there were no significant differences between treatments across study days. Bone marker values outside the reference range (RR) were observed; CTx > RR (n=71) was predominantly (85.9%) observed in male participants, whereas P1NP > RR (n=100) was more evenly distributed between sexes (53.0% in men). These were not considered clinically significant and did not differ between treatment groups. Conclusions: These are the first interventional human data on the effect of cannabinoids on biomarkers of bone turnover. Short-term treatment with CBD- or THC-dominant medical cannabis products resulted in attenuation of a marker of bone resorption. Although the attenuation was not clinically significant, this finding may be indicative of protective properties of cannabinoids in bone. Further research over longer dosing durations in individuals exhibiting bone-specific conditions (e.g., osteoporosis) is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: ACTRN12619001723178 and ACTRN12619001450101.

Introduction Published data on the safety of natural medical cannabis (MC) when used in the real-world clinical practice setting are lacking. This study aimed to describe adverse events (AEs) reported across three years following MC initiation. Methods The Quebec Cannabis Registry (QCR) was a prospective registry of adults enrolled through participating physicians when they initiated MC between May 2015 and October 2018. Follow-up ended at MC discontinuation, loss to follow-up, three years, or end of data collection (May 2019). Data were collected at baseline and at follow-up visits every three months for the first two years, then once in the third year. Physicians filled adverse event (AE) reports, which were coded using MedDRA ® preferred terms (PTs), and descriptive analyses were conducted. Results A total of 2991 patients were enrolled (mean age 50.9 years, 50.2% females). During follow-up, 108 patients (3.6%) experienced moderate or severe AEs, yielding 111 AE reports (three patients had two reports) and 214 AEs (average 1.9 AEs per report). Mild AEs were recorded as a reason for MC discontinuation for nine patients, but no AE reports were available. The most common PTs for ingested MC (62 reports) were dizziness (12.9%), nausea (11.3%), somnolence (9.7%), and vomiting (8.1%), and for inhaled MC (23 reports), headache (13.0%) was the most common. The most frequent PTs associated with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-dominant MC (25 reports) were dizziness and somnolence (12.0% each); for cannabidiol (CBD)-dominant MC (20 reports), vomiting (20.0%) was most common; and dizziness (17.2%), nausea (13.8%), somnolence (10.3%), and headache (8.6%) were the most frequent for balanced MC (58 reports). Conclusion No new safety concerns were identified relative to the published literature, although notable differences in AE profile between modes of administration and cannabinoid content ratios should be considered by health professionals. Further work identifying and managing risk factors for AEs is warranted to maintain a favorable benefit-risk balance for MC.

Objective: To investigate the safety and effectiveness of medical cannabis (MC) in the real-world clinical practice setting. Design: A 4-year prospective noncomparative registry of adult patients who initiated MC for a variety of indications. This paper reports on patients followed for up to 12 months, with interim visits at 3, 6, and 9 months after enrollment. Setting: Public or private outpatient clinics certified to authorize MC in the province of Quebec, Canada. Participants: Overall, 2991 adult (age ≥18 years) patients (mean age 51 years; 50.2% women) were enrolled between May 2015 and October 2018, with the last follow-up ending in May 2019. Interventions/Exposures: Cannabis products (dried, oil, or other) purchased from a Canadian licensed cannabis producer as authorized by physicians. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes were self-reported pain severity, interference and relief (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]), symptoms using the Revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) and health-related quality of life dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) at baseline and each follow-up visit. The secondary outcomes were self-reported adverse events (AEs) and characteristics of cannabis treatment. Results: All patient-reported outcomes (BPI, ESAS-r, and EQ-5D-5L) showed a statistically significant improvement at 3 months (all p<0.01), which was maintained or further improved (for pain interference, tiredness, and well-being) over the remainder of the 12-month follow-up. Results also revealed clinically significant improvements in pain interference and tiredness, anxiety, and well-being from baseline. There were 79 AE reports (77 patients), 16 met the regulatory definition of seriousness, in which only 8 AEs were certainly or probably related to MC. Conclusions: MC directed by physicians appears to be safe and effective within 3 months of initiation for a variety of medical indications.

Introduction: Cannabidiol (CBD) is primarily consumed through ingestion and inhalation. Little is known about how CBD pharmacokinetics differ between routes of administration, and duration of pulmonary exposure. Methods: Pharmacokinetics, brain distribution, and urinary elimination of CBD and its major metabolites (6-hydroxy-cannabidiol [6-OH-CBD], 7-hydroxy-cannabidiol [7-OH-CBD], 7-carboxy-cannabidiol [7-COOH-CBD], and CBD-glucuronide) were evaluated in adult Sprague-Dawley rats following a single oral CBD ingestion (10 mg/kg in medium chain triglyceride oil; 24 male animals), and 1 or 14 days of repeated inhalation (0.9-13.9 mg/kg in propylene glycol [41%/59% by weight]; 5 male and 5 female animals per dose). Blood and brain tissue were collected at a single time point from each animal. Collection times were staggered from 5 min to 24 h postoral gavage or first (blood only) and final inhalation. Urine was collected 24 h postoral gavage or final inhalation. Samples were analyzed through liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Results: CBD was more rapidly absorbed following inhalation than ingestion (Tmax=5 min and 2 h, respectively). Inhalation resulted in a dose-responsive increase in CBD Cmax and AUClast. CBD Cmax was 24-fold higher following the highest pulmonary dose (13.9 mg/kg) versus an oral dose of comparable concentration (10 mg/kg). Cmax and AUClast (0-16 h) trended higher following repeated exposure. Elimination was notably faster with repeated CBD inhalation (t1/2=5.3 and 2.4 h on days 1 and 14, respectively). While metabolites were detectable in plasma, AUClast (0-2 h) was at least 10- (7-OH-CBD, 7-COOH-CBD) to 100- (6-OH-CBD) fold lower than the parent compound. Metabolite concentration trended higher following repeated inhalation (6.7 mg/kg CBD); AUClast (0-16 h) was ∼1.8-, ∼1.4-, and ∼2.4-fold higher following 14 days of exposure for 6-OH-CBD, 7-OH-CBD, and 7-COOH-CBD, respectively. CBD was detectable in brain homogenate tissue 24-h after 14-day inhalation (>3.5 mg/kg deposited dose) or a single oral administration. CBD metabolites were only measurable in brain tissue following the highest inhaled dose (13.9 mg/kg CBD). CBD, but not metabolites, was detectable in urine for all dose groups following 2 weeks of CBD inhalation. Neither CBD nor metabolites were present in urine after oral administration. Conclusion: CBD pharmacokinetics differ across oral and pulmonary routes of administration and acute or repeated dosing.

OBJECTIVE:Many patients with fibromyalgia (FM) report using cannabis as a strategy to improve pain. Given that pain often co-occurs with symptoms of anxiety and depression (i.e., negative affect) and sleep problems among patients with FM, improvements in these symptoms might indirectly contribute to reductions in pain intensity following cannabis use. The main objective of the study was to examine whether changes in pain intensity following initiation of medical cannabis among patients with FM could be attributed to concurrent changes (i.e., reductions) in negative affect and sleep problems. METHODS:This was a 12-month prospective cohort study among patients with FM (n = 323) initiating medical cannabis under the care of physicians. Patients were assessed at baseline, and follow-up assessment visits occurred every 3 months after initiation of medical cannabis. Patients' levels of pain intensity, negative affect, and sleep problems were assessed across all visits. RESULTS:Multilevel mediation analyses indicated that reductions in patients' levels of pain intensity were partly explained by concurrent reductions in sleep problems and negative affect (both P < 0.001). This remained significant even when accounting for patients' baseline characteristics or changes in medical cannabis directives over time (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION:Our findings provide preliminary insight into the potential mechanisms of action underlying pain reductions among patients with FM who are using medical cannabis. Given the high attrition rate (i.e., 75%) observed in the present study at 12 months, our findings cannot be generalized to all patients with FM who are using medical cannabis.

Background:Medical cannabis (MC) is used by Canadian Veterans to manage a wide range of health issues. However, there is little information comparing the reasons for MC use and its perceived effectiveness between Veterans and non-Veterans.Objects:We compared MC use among a convenience sample of Canadian Veterans and with non-Veteran controls, including demographics, reasons and patterns of use, and perceived effectiveness.Methods:Between November and December 2021, Canadian Veterans using cannabis were invited to participate in a survey using a national press release, social media, and announcements on online platform dedicated to promoting health among Canadian Veterans and non-Veterans during the pandemic (www.MissionVav.com). The survey was also mentioned in a monthly newsletter from Veteran Affairs Canada. Self-reported effectiveness was evaluated using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (0 being not all effective, 10 being the most effective).Results:The survey was completed by 157 people, including 108 (69%) males and 49 (31%) females. The mean age was 57 years (range 19 to 84). Among responders, 90 (63%) identified as Veterans. The most common reasons for MC use among Veterans included: insomnia (80%), anxiety (73%), and depression (52%). Veterans reported medical conditions such as chronic pain (88%) and arthritis (51%). Compared with non-Veterans, Veterans were significantly more likely to be male (83% vs. 49%), have a higher BMI (35.2 vs. 30.9), to report problems with sleep, anxiety, depression, and PTSD, and to use cannabis in edible form (51% vs. 22%). Self-reported mean effectiveness scores for MC were highest for PTSD (8.4), insomnia (8.2), anxiety (8.1), depression (8.0), and chronic pain (7.6).Conclusions:We found important differences in user characteristics and cannabis use patterns between Canadian Veterans and non-Veterans. Further controlled studies are required to validate these findings, but these data suggest that orally administered cannabis products may be worth further study.

Due to a lack of published pharmacokinetic (PK) and/or pharmacodynamic (PD) data, informed physician and patient decision-making surrounding appropriate dosing of cannabis for medical purposes is limited. This Phase 1, multiple-dose study evaluated the safety, tolerability, PK and PD of Spectrum Red softgels (2.5 mg Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and <0.25 mg cannabidiol (CBD)). Participants (n = 41) were randomized to one of five groups: 5 mg THC and 0.06 mg CBD daily (Treatment A), 10 mg THC and 0.12 mg CBD daily (Treatment B), 15 mg THC and 0.18 mg CBD daily (Treatment C), 20 mg THC and 0.24 mg CBD daily (Treatment D) or placebo. Study medication was administered in divided doses, every 12 h, ∼60 min after a standardized meal, for 7 consecutive days. All treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (65/65) were of mild-to-moderate severity; none was serious. The highest number of TEAEs (30/65) occurred on the first day of treatment. The most common TEAEs included somnolence, lethargy and headache (reported by eight, seven and five participants, respectively). On Day 7, maximum observed plasma concentration of 11-carboxy-THC increased by 2.0- and 2.5-fold as the dose doubled between Treatments A and B and between Treatments B and D, respectively. Mean peak post-treatment ratings of self-reported subjective effects of 'feel any effect' and 'dazed' differed between Treatment D and placebo on Days 1, 3 and 7. Over a week of twice-daily dosing of Spectrum Red softgels, daily doses of THC up to 20 mg and of CBD up to 0.24 mg were generally safe and became better tolerated after the first day of treatment. A prudent approach to improve tolerability with Spectrum Red softgels might involve initial daily doses no higher than 10 mg THC and 0.12 mg CBD in divided doses, with titration upward over time as needed based on tolerability.

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol [DRO]) as an add-on treatment in patients with refractory chronic pain (CP). Methods An exploratory retrospective analysis of 12-week data provided by the German Pain e-Registry on adult patients with treatment refractory CP who received DRO. Results Between March 10, 2017, and June 30, 2019, the German Pain e-Registry collected information on 89,095 patients with pain, of whom 1,145 patients (1.3%) received DRO (53.8% female, mean +/- standard deviation age: 56.9 +/- 10.6 years), and 70.0% documented use for the entire 12-week evaluation period. The average DRO daily dose was 15.8 +/- 7.5 mg, typically in three divided doses (average DRO dose of 5.3 +/- 2.1 mg). Average 24-hour pain intensity decreased from 46.3 +/- 16.1 to 26.8 +/- 18.7 mm on a visual analog scale (absolute visual analog scale difference: -19.5 +/- 17.3; P < 0.001). Among patients who completed follow-up, an improvement from baseline of at least 50% was documented for pain (46.5%), activities of daily living (39%), quality of life (31.4%), and sleep (35.3%). A total of 536 patients (46.8%) reported at least one of 1,617 drug-related adverse events, none of which were serious, and 248 patients (21.7%) stopped treatment. Over the 12-week period, 59.0% of patients reported a reduction of other pain treatments, and 7.8% reported a complete cessation of any other pharmacological pain treatments. Conclusion Add-on treatment with DRO in patients with refractory CP was well tolerated and associated with a significant improvement.

Abstract Due to a lack of published pharmacokinetic (PK) and/or pharmacodynamic (PD) data, decision-making surrounding appropriate dosing of cannabis used for medical purposes is limited. This multiple-dose study evaluated the safety, tolerability, PK and PD of Spectrum Yellow oil [20 mg/mL cannabidiol (CBD)/<1 mg/mL ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)]. Participants (n = 43) were randomized to one of five groups: 120 mg CBD and 5.4 mg THC daily, 240 mg CBD and 10.8 mg THC daily, 360 mg CBD and 16.2 mg THC daily, 480 mg CBD and 21.6 mg THC daily or placebo. Study medication was administered every 12 h for 7 consecutive days. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); plasma and urine concentrations of THC, CBD and metabolites; and self-reported subjective effects were collected. Nearly all TEAEs (44/45) were of mild or moderate severity; none was serious. The highest incidence of TEAEs (67%) was in the two higher-dose treatment groups. The highest number of TEAEs (17/45) occurred on the first treatment day. Steady-state plasma CBD concentrations were reached by Day 7. On Day 7, CBD exposure showed dose proportionality (AUC0–t slope = 1.03 [0.70, 1.36], Cmax slope = 0.92 [0.53, 1.31]). Most plasma THC concentrations were below the limit of quantification. Across Days 1 and 7, there were no consistent differences in subjective effects between placebo and active study medication. A prudent approach to improve tolerability with Spectrum Yellow oil might involve initial doses no higher than 240 mg total CBD and 10.8 mg total THC daily in divided doses, with titration upward over time as needed based on tolerability.

Cannabichromene (CBC) is a phytocannabinoid commonly found in cannabis, yet its acute post-dose pharmacokinetics (PK) have not been examined in humans. This is a secondary data analysis from a trial investigating Spectrum Yellow oil, an oral cannabis product used for medical purposes that contained 20 mg cannabidiol (CBD), 0.9 mg Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and 1.1 mg CBC, per 1 mL of oil. Participants (N = 43) were randomized to one of 5 groups: 120 mg CBD, 5.4 mg THC, and 6.6 mg CBC daily; 240 mg CBD, 10.8 mg THC, and 13.2 mg CBC daily; 360 mg CBD, 16.2 mg THC, and 19.8 mg CBC daily; 480 mg CBD, 21.6 mg THC, and 26.4 mg CBC daily; or placebo. Study medication was administered every 12 h for 7 days. Plasma CBC concentrations were analyzed by a validated two-dimensional high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry assay. After a single dose and after the final dose, the Cmax of CBC increased by 1.3–1.8-fold for each twofold increase in dose; the tmax range was 1.6–4.3 h. Based on the ratio of administered CBD, THC, and CBC to the plasma concentration, the dose of CBD was 18 times higher than the dose of CBC, yet the AUC0–t of CBD was only 6.6–9.8-fold higher than the AUC0–t of CBC; the dose of THC was similar to the dose of CBC, yet THC was quantifiable in fewer plasma samples than was CBC. CBC may have preferential absorption over CBD and THC when administered together. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry #ACTRN12619001450101, registered 18 October 2019.

Background:Recent studies recommend medicinal cannabis (MC) as a potential treatment for chronic pain (CP) when conventional therapies are not successful; however, data from Australia is limited. This real-world evidence study explored how the introduction of MC related to concomitant medication use over time. Long-term safety also was examined.Methods:Data were collected by the Emerald Clinics (a network of seven clinics located across Australia) as part of routine practice from Jan 2020 toJan 2021. Medications were classified by group: antidepressants, benzodiazepines, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and total number of medications. Adverse events (AEs) were collected at each visit and subsequently coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities version 23 into the system organ class (SOC) and preferred term (PT). A total of 535 patients were analyzed.Results:The most common daily oral dose was 10 mg for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 15 mg for cannabidiol (CBD). With the introduction of MC, patients' total number of medications consumed decreased over the course of one year; significant reductions in NSAIDs, benzodiazepines, and antidepressants were observed (p < .001). However, the number of prescribed opioid medications did not differ from baseline to the end of one year (p = .49). Only 6% of patients discontinued MC treatment during the study. A total of 600 AEs were reported in 310 patients during the reporting period and 97% of them were classified as nonserious. Discussion. Though observational in nature, these findings suggest MC is generally well-tolerated, consistent with the previous literature, and may reduce concomitant use of some medications. Due to study limitations, concomitant medication reductions cannot be causally attributed to MC. Nevertheless, these data underscore early signals that warrant further exploration in randomized trials.

Introduction: Clinical trials remain the gold standard for evaluating efficacy, but there is increasing interest in using real-world evidence (RWE) to inform health care decision making. The aims of this observational study were to describe patterns of medical cannabis use, associated changes in symptom severity over time, and to evaluate change in cannabis dose over time for pain-related symptoms. Methods: Data were collected by Strainprint™, an application that is HIPAA, PIPEDA, and PHIPA compliant. A total of 629 participants recorded data between May 2017 and August 2019. A total of 65 symptoms were grouped as Pain, Mental Health, Physical Symptoms, Seizures, Headaches/Migraines, and Other. Descriptive statistics and mixed-effects modeling were applied. Results: THC-dominant products were more frequently consumed for symptoms of pain and sleep, while CBD-dominant products were more frequently consumed for anxiety and depression. Male and female participants demonstrated significant differences in the type of cannabis they consumed. Females more frequently consumed CBD-dominant products, and males more frequently consumed balanced (THC:CBD) products. Oil use was more prominent among females, while vaping was more common among males. Product use also varied by age tertiles (<31; 31-39; >40 years). CBD-dominant products were more common among younger participants, <31 years, THC-dominant products were more common among the 31-39 years category and balanced (THC:CBD) products were common among older participants >41 years. Dosages of CBD-dominant and balanced (THC:CBD) products increased over time irrespective of symptom response. THC-dominant products demonstrated a significant relationship between dose and symptom reduction over time. Conclusions: Recognizing that RWE has important methodological limitations, we observed cannabis product preferences based on demographic characteristics, such as gender and age and the primary symptom treated such as pain and anxiety. Our study offers real-world insights into how participants use and respond to cannabis products and suggests important avenues and methodologies for future research.

Use of medical cannabis is increasing among older adults. However, few investigations have examined cannabis use in this population. We assessed the authorization patterns, safety, and effects of medical cannabis in a sub-analysis of 201 older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) who completed a 3-month follow-up during this observational study of patients who were legally authorized a medical cannabis product (N = 67). Cannabis authorization patterns, adverse events (AEs), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-revised (ESAS-r), and Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF) data were collected. The most common symptoms for which medical cannabis was authorized were pain (159, 85.0%) and insomnia (9, 4.8%). At baseline and at the 3-month follow-up, cannabidiol (CBD)-dominant products were authorized most frequently (99, 54%), followed by balanced products (76, 42%), and then delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-dominant products (8, 4.4%). The most frequent AEs were dizziness (18.2%), nausea (9.1%), dry mouth (9.1%), and tinnitus (9.1%). Significant reductions in ESAS-r scores were observed over time in the domains of drowsiness (p = .013) and tiredness (p = .031), but not pain (p = .106) or well-being (p = .274). Significant reductions in BPI-SF scores over time were observed for worst pain (p = .010), average pain (p = .012), and overall pain severity (p = 0.009), but not pain right now (p = .052) or least pain (p = .141). Overall, results suggest medical cannabis was safe, well-tolerated, and associated with clinically meaningful reductions in pain in this sample of older adults. However, the potential bias introduced by the high subject attrition rate means that all findings should be interpreted cautiously and confirmed by more rigorous studies.

OBJECTIVE To determine the benefits and harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycInfo, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos, and trial registries up to January 2021. STUDY SELECTION Randomised clinical trials of medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus any non-cannabis control for chronic pain at >= 1 month follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects models meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS A total of 32 trials with 5174 adult patients were included, 29 of which compared medical cannabis or cannabinoids with placebo. Medical cannabis was administered orally (n=30) or topically (n=2). Clinical populations included chronic non-cancer pain (n=28) and cancer related pain (n=4). Length of follow-up ranged from 1 to 5.5 months. Compared with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis probably results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing at least the minimally important difference (MID) of 1 cm (on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS)) in pain relief (modelled risk difference (RD) of 10% (95% confidence interval 5% to 15%), based on a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.50 cm (95% CI -0.75 to -0.25 cm, moderate certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally results in a very small improvement in physical functioning (4% modelled RD (0.1% to 8%) for achieving at least the MID of 10 points on the 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale, WMD of 1.67 points (0.03 to 3.31, high certainty)), and a small improvement in sleep quality (6% modelled RD (2% to 9%) for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm on a 10 cm VAS, WMD of -0.35 cm (-0.55 to -0.14 cm, high certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally does not improve emotional, role, or social functioning (high certainty). Moderate certainty evidence shows that medical cannabis taken orally probably results in a small increased risk of transient cognitive impairment (RD 2% (0.1% to 6%)), vomiting (RD 3% (0.4% to 6%)), drowsiness (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), impaired attention (RD 3% (1% to 8%)), and nausea (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), but not diarrhoea; while high certainty evidence shows greater increased risk of dizziness (RD 9% (5% to 14%)) for trials with <3 months follow-up versus RD 28% (18% to 43%) for trials with >= 3 months followup; interaction test P=0.003; moderate credibility of subgroup effect). CONCLUSIONS Moderate to high certainty evidence shows that non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids results in a small to very small improvement in pain relief, physical functioning, and sleep quality among patients with chronic pain, along with several transient adverse side effects, compared with placebo. The accompanying BMJ Rapid Recommendation provides contextualised guidance based on this body of evidence.

Abstract There is relatively little evidence around the role of cannabis and cannabinoids in the treatment of pediatric pain, leading to a reliance on limited adult research that may or may not be relevant. In this chapter, we discuss the science behind cannabinoid receptors, current indications for cannabis and cannabinoid use and associated risks, evolving evidence around their use in pain medicine, and particular considerations of treatment in children. We present a hypothetical clinical scenario to more clearly set the stage for addressing these considerations in adolescents. Finally, we discuss important points for researchers and clinicians to examine as they weigh the risk and benefit of treatment in a world where cannabis and its derivatives are available, evidence-based, and sought-after options for various conditions related to pediatric chronic pain.