ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Abstract and Figures

Cannabis has been employed medicinally throughout history, but its recent legal prohibition, biochemical complexity and variability, quality control issues, previous dearth of appropriately powered randomised controlled trials, and lack of pertinent education have conspired to leave clinicians in the dark as to how to advise patients pursuing such treatment. With the advent of pharmaceutical cannabis-based medicines (Sativex/nabiximols and Epidiolex), and liberalisation of access in certain nations, this ignorance of cannabis pharmacology and therapeutics has become untenable. In this article, the authors endeavour to present concise data on cannabis pharmacology related to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) et al., methods of administration (smoking, vaporisation, oral), and dosing recommendations. Adverse events of cannabis medicine pertain primarily to THC, whose total daily dose-equivalent should generally be limited to 30mg/day or less, preferably in conjunction with CBD, to avoid psychoactive sequelae and development of tolerance. CBD, in contrast to THC, is less potent, and may require much higher doses for its adjunctive benefits on pain, inflammation, and attenuation of THC-associated anxiety and tachycardia. Dose initiation should commence at modest levels, and titration of any cannabis preparation should be undertaken slowly over a period of as much as two weeks. Suggestions are offered on cannabis-drug interactions, patient monitoring, and standards of care, while special cases for cannabis therapeutics are addressed: epilepsy, cancer palliation and primary treatment, chronic pain, use in the elderly, Parkinson disease, paediatrics, with concomitant opioids, and in relation to driving and hazardous activities.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
European Journal of Internal Medicine
journal homepage:
Review Article
Practical considerations in medical cannabis administration and dosing
Caroline A. MacCallum
, Ethan B. Russo
Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, BC, Canada
International Cannabis and Cannabinoids Institute, Prague, Czech Republic
Drug abuse
Adverse events
Cannabis has been employed medicinally throughout history, but its recent legal prohibition, biochemical
complexity and variability, quality control issues, previous dearth of appropriately powered randomised con-
trolled trials, and lack of pertinent education have conspired to leave clinicians in the dark as to how to advise
patients pursuing such treatment. With the advent of pharmaceutical cannabis-based medicines (Sativex/na-
biximols and Epidiolex), and liberalisation of access in certain nations, this ignorance of cannabis pharmacology
and therapeutics has become untenable. In this article, the authors endeavour to present concise data on can-
nabis pharmacology related to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) et al., methods of administration
(smoking, vaporisation, oral), and dosing recommendations. Adverse events of cannabis medicine pertain pri-
marily to THC, whose total daily dose-equivalent should generally be limited to 30 mg/day or less, preferably in
conjunction with CBD, to avoid psychoactive sequelae and development of tolerance. CBD, in contrast to THC, is
less potent, and may require much higher doses for its adjunctive benets on pain, inammation, and at-
tenuation of THC-associated anxiety and tachycardia. Dose initiation should commence at modest levels, and
titration of any cannabis preparation should be undertaken slowly over a period of as much as two weeks.
Suggestions are oered on cannabis-drug interactions, patient monitoring, and standards of care, while special
cases for cannabis therapeutics are addressed: epilepsy, cancer palliation and primary treatment, chronic pain,
use in the elderly, Parkinson disease, paediatrics, with concomitant opioids, and in relation to driving and
hazardous activities.
1. Introduction
Cannabis has a history of medical application likely exceeding that
of the written word, including mainstream usage in Europe and North
America for a century between 1840 and 1940 [1,2]. It is only in the
last century that quality control issues, the lack of a dened chemistry,
and above all, politically and ideologically motivated prohibition re-
legated it planta non grata. The discovery and elucidation of the en-
docannabinoid system [3], coupled with a popular tidal wave of an-
ecdotal accounts and renaissance of therapeutic clinical trials renders
that status quo ante untenable.
One preparation, Sativex®(USAN: nabiximols), an oromucosal
cannabis-based medicine with 2.7 mg of THC and 2.5 mg CBD plus
terpenoids per spray has attained regulatory approval in 29 countries
for treatment of spasticity in multiple sclerosis, having met the
standards of safety, ecacy and consistency required of any pharma-
ceutical. The problem for physicians with respect to treatment with
herbal cannabis remains acute, however: How does the responsible
healer and medical scientist approach the desperate patient for whom
conventional medicine has failed and wishes to avail themselves of a
purportedly healing herb that has been an international societal outlaw
for decades? The answer is simple: educational and scientic standards
apply to the cannabis controversy equally with that of any other pu-
tative therapy.
Unfortunately, physicians of the world remain profoundly un-
educated with respect to cannabis and the endocannabinoid system
(ECS) that underlies much of its activity. A recent USA study [4]
documented that 89.5% of surveyed residents and fellows felt un-
prepared to prescribe, while only 35.3% even felt ready to answer
cannabis questions. Additionally, only 9% of American medical schools
Received 27 October 2017; Accepted 1 January 2018
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: (C.A. MacCallum), (E.B. Russo).
Abbreviations: 5-HT
, serotonin 1A receptor; AE, adverse events; AIDS, acquired immunodeciency syndrome; CB
, cannabinoid-one receptor; CB
, cannabinoid-two receptor; CBD,
cannabidiol; CBDA, cannabidiolic acid; CRISP-R, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats; ECS, endocannabinoid system; GAP, Good Agricultural Practice; GCP, Good
Clinical Practice; GMP, Good Manufacturing Practice; HIV, human immunodeciency virus; MS, multiple sclerosis; PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; RCT, randomised controlled
trial; THC, Δ
-tetrahydrocannabinol; THCA, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid; TRPV1, transient receptor potential cation channel vanilloid subfamily receptor 1; USAN, United States Adopted
European Journal of Internal Medicine 49 (2018) 12–19
Available online 04 January 2018
0953-6205/ © 2018 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
documented pertinent clinical cannabis content in their curricula.
While it remains a common complaint that cannabis therapeutics
lacks adequate documentation, according to a recent publication [5],
scientist and clinicians are recognising the limitations of randomised
controlled studies in their generalisability to populations vs. customi-
sation of best evidence based practices for individual patients. In-
dividualized evidence based medicine may be delivered to a patient
using an N-of-1, or single clinical trial, whereby the patient is the sole
unit of observation for ecacy and side eects of various interventions.
This method can be applied to a medical cannabis patient to nd an
optimal intervention or sweet spotcombination of plant varieties and
dosage forms that provide superior symptom control.
In this article, two experienced clinicians, internist and neurologist,
respectively, oer their review of the literature and personal observa-
tions that might serve as an initial guide to suggested Good Clinical
Practice (GCP) as applied to cannabis. These include our opinion that
cannabis medicines, whether prescription or over-the-counter, should
be ideally cultivated organically according to Mendelian selective
breeding techniques without the necessity of genetic modication or
CRISPR technology according to Good Agricultural Practice (GAP), be
extracted and processed under Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) [6],
and be made available to consumers with full information as to can-
nabinoid and terpenoid proles, and certication that the material is
free of pesticide [7], microbial or heavy metal contamination.
2. Cannabis pharmacology in brief
Cannabis produces phytocannabinoids (plant cannabinoids) in
greatest abundance in the unfertilised female owers in acid form, most
abundantly tetrahydrocannabinolic acid-A (THCA-A) and cannabidiolic
acid (CBDA), which are most frequently utilised after heating either by
smoking, vaporisation, or baking in confections to produce decarbox-
ylation of the more familiar neutral cannabinoids, tetra-
hydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (see graphical abstract)
THC is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis, working
primarily as a weak partial agonist on CB
and CB
receptors with well-
known eects on pain, appetite, digestion, emotions and thought pro-
cesses mediated through the endocannabinoid system, a homeostatic
regulator of myriad physiological functions [9], found in all chordates.
THC can cause psychoactive adverse events depending on dose and
patient previous tolerance. Its use is applicable for many symptoms and
conditions including; pain, nausea, spasticity/spasms, appetite stimu-
lation, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), in-
somnia et al.
CBD, in contrast, has little anity for these receptors directly, but
rather is a negative allosteric modulator of CB
[10], with protean
pharmacological eects on various other receptor systems including
, adenosine A2A and non-receptor mechanisms (re-
viewed [11]), productive of analgesic, anti-inammatory, anti-anxiety,
and anti-psychotic eects among many others. CBD is non-intoxicating,
and has been shown to help with similar symptoms, with added benet
as an anticonvulsant, anti-psychotic, neuroprotectant, and anti-in-
ammatory (including autoimmune conditions). Cannabis is a multi-
modal treatment. It can be used to treat multiple symptoms and con-
ditions concurrently, which can therefore help to reduce polypharmacy
There are thousands of individual cannabis types, which patients
and purveyors may erroneously refer to as strains, whereas the pre-
ferred term is chemical variety or chemovar[12]. Each chemovar
contains varying concentrations of cannabinoids and other components
with important pharmacological and modulatory eects include the
monoterpenoids [8,11] myrcene (analgesic, sedating), limonene (anti-
depressant and immune-stimulating), pinene (acetylcholinesterase in-
hibitor alleviating short-term memory impairment from THC) and the
sesquiterpenoid beta-caryophyllene (anti-inammatory analgesic and
selective full agonist at the CB
receptor). The relative proportions of
these and other components are the primary determinants of the
pharmacological eects and adverse events associated with a particular
cannabis chemovar, and is critical information that should be available
to patients and physicians recommending such treatment. Until recent
years, the vast majority of chemovars in Europe [13] and North
America [14] were THC-predominant (Type I cannabis). Con-
temporaneously, there has been greater interest in mixed THC:CBD
(Type II) and CBD-predominant (Type III cannabis) chemovars with
broader mechanisms of action and improved therapeutic indexes [12].
The acid cannabinoids have received much less research interest,
but possess fascinating pharmacological properties. THCA has been
noted to produce anti-inammatory eects via antagonism of tumour
necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α)[15], to be a strong anti-emetic [16] and
was recently demonstrated to be an agonist of the PPAR-γnuclear re-
ceptor with neuroprotective eects [17], as well as anticonvulsant ef-
cacy [18]. CBDA is also a powerful anti-emetic [19] and anti-anxiety
agent [20] in rodents, and both acid cannabinoids have prominent
anecdotal reports of benet on skin and other tumors.
3. Pharmacokinetic considerations
Absorption, distribution, and metabolism determine the onset and
duration of action of each dosage form. Absorption has the most
variability, and is aected by product lipophilicity, bioavailability as
well as the inherent organ tissue dierences (i.e., alveolar, dermal vs.
gastric). Cannabinoids are lipophilic and have low water solubility.
Therefore, for topical or oral routes, they are best absorbed in the
presence of fat, oils or polar solvents, such as ethanol. There is sug-
gestion that newer technology such as using nano- or ionized particles
or the use omega fats in carrier oil can enhance absorption; or for to-
picals preparations, using ingredients to mildly disrupt the skin barrier
may allow greater absorption of active ingredient. Factors such as re-
cent meals, depth of inhalation, duration of breath holding, tempera-
ture of vaporizer all aect cannabis absorption, which can vary from
20%30% orally, up to 1060% for inhalation [21]. Clinicians will
benet from an understanding of these factors to prescribe or re-
commend cannabis to enable estimation of a target quantity of dried
product for their patients. See Dosing strategies and clinical pearls
section for more details.
4. Modes of administration
This information is summarised (Table 1,Table 2)[7,2127].
5. Therapeutic uses
Cannabis can be a useful tool in the treatment of many complex
diseases or rare conditions which lack eective conventional ther-
apeutic options, or where the side eects burden of such treatments
outweigh the benets, for example, central sensitivity syndromes (-
bromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, migraines, irritable bowel), or
multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain, and refractory nausea. An assess-
ment of current evidence in various indications is summarised (Table 3)
6. Dosing strategies and clinical pearls
There is insucient evidence to support the necessity of a trial of
synthetic cannabinoids prior to initiating cannabis-based medicine
treatment, unless legal availability is not an option.
General approach to cannabis initiation is start low, go slow, and
stay low.
For cannabis inhalation, patients should start with 1 inhalation and
wait 15 min. Then, they may increase by 1 inhalation every
1530 min until desired symptom control has been achieved.
C.A. MacCallum, E.B. Russo European Journal of Internal Medicine 49 (2018) 12–19
Higher THC concentrations of herbal cannabis may allow utilization
of lower amounts. Patients should titrate accordingly to avoid ad-
verse events.
THC-mediated side eects such as fatigue, tachycardia and dizziness
are avoidable when starting dose is low and titration is slow.
Slow upward dose titration promotes tolerance to psychoactive se-
quelae of THC, which is especially important for naïve users.
Medical cannabis patients, in contrast to recreational users, fre-
quently use CBD-predominant chemovars with the smallest amount
of THC to get the greatest improvement in symptom control, func-
tion, and quality of life, with fewest adverse events.
Attainment of euphoric eects is not required to attain symptom
For chronic conditions and symptoms, long acting oral preparations
are the mainstay of treatment.
Vaporisation can be utilised as an add-on prn technique for episodic
exacerbations of symptoms.
CBD can balance THC side eects, especially in daytime use, or
when driving is required.
Cannabis should be stored in a safe place, or lock box in the home.
Physicians must clearly communicate the potential risks and safety
of cannabis, no dierently than with any psychoactive medication.
We suggest documentation in a standard treatment agreementform
for medical-legal purposes. (See https://www.drcarolinemaccallum.
Patients should keep a symptom inventorychart indicating re-
sponse or ecacy for each cannabis product for each symptom as
and aid for physicians in determining treatment response to can-
nabis in follow up visits. (See https://www.drcarolinemaccallum.
Most patients use 13 g of herbal cannabis per day. < 5% of pa-
tients use > 5 g per day [34]. Tolerance does not develop to the
benets. Over time dose escalation is not generally observed
[22,34,35]. Additional needs require reassessment.
Table 1
Cannabis routes of administration.
Cannabis routes of administration
Smoking Vaporisation Oral Other routes
Most common route of administration, but
not recommended (joints, bongs, pipes, etc.)
Combustion at 600900 °C producing toxic
biproducts: tar, PAH (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons), carbon monoxide (CO),
ammonia (NH
Chronic use associated with respiratory
symptoms (bronchitis, cough, phlegm), but
not lung cancer nor COPD (if cannabis only).
Patients may mix with tobacco increasing
respiratory/cancer risk
3050% of cannabis is lost to side-stream
Heats cannabis at 160230 °C.
Reduced CO, but not complete
elimination of PAH
demonstrated to date.
Vaporisation produces
signicantly less harmful
biproducts vs. smoking.
Decreased pulmonary
symptoms reported compared to
Oils, capsules and other po routes
increasingly popular due to convenience and
accuracy of dosing.
Edibles (brownies/cookies) may be more
dicult to dose.
Juicing and cannabis teas do not allow for
adequate decarboxylation of raw plant
Nabiximols oromucosal spray is currently
the only cannabis-based prescription that
delivers standardised dosage of CBD/THC in
a 1:1 ratio with extensive research
Tinctures and lozenges intermediate onset
with limited research
Topicals ideal for localised symptoms
(dermatological conditions, arthritis), with
limited research evidence
Suppositories possibly indicated for specic
populations (cancer, GI symptoms, young/
elderly, etc.) with variable absorption. THC-
hemisuccinate may allow for best absorption
with limited research.
Recreational routes include shatter,dabs,
concentrates. Deliver very high doses of THC
with high risk of euphoria, impairment,
reinforcement, toxic psychosis, orthostatic
hypotension. Inappropriate for medical
Table 2
Administration factors in cannabis delivery methods.
Issue Smoking/vaporisation Oral Oromucosal Topical
Onset (min) 510 60180 1545 Variable
Duration (h) 246868 Variable
Pro Rapid action, advantage for acute or
episodic symptoms (nausea/pain)
Less odor, convenient and discrete,
advantage for chronic disease/
Pharmaceutical form (nabiximols) available,
with documented ecacy and safety.
Less systemic eect, good for
localised symptoms
Con Dexterity required, vaporisers may be
expensive, and not all are portable
Titration challenges due to delayed
Expensive, spotty availability Only local eects
Table 3
Levels of evidence for cannabis-based medicines in various conditions.
Cannabis and nabiximols supporting evidence
Level of evidence Benets
Conclusive or
substantial evidence
of ecacy
Adult chronic pain treatment
Multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting
Treatment of intractable seizures in Dravet and
Lennox-Gastaut syndromes (CBD)
Moderate evidence of
Improving outcomes in individuals with sleep
disturbances associated with chronic pain, multiple
sclerosis, bromyalgia, obstructive sleep apnea
Decreasing intraocular pressure in glaucoma
Limited evidence of
Symptoms of dementia
Symptoms of Parkinson disease
Positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia
Symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder
Appetite and decreasing weight loss associated with
Multiple sclerosis spasticity (clinician-measured)
Traumatic brain injury/intracranial haemorrhage
associated disability, mortality, and other outcomes
Symptoms of anxiety in social anxiety disorders
Symptoms of Tourette syndrome
Limited evidence of
Depressive symptoms in chronic pain or multiple
sclerosis patients
Insucient evidence of
ecacy or
Addiction abstinence
Symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome
Cancers, including glioma
Cancer-associated anorexia, cachexia syndrome and
anorexia nervosa
Symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Chorea and some neuropsychiatric symptoms
associated with Huntington disease
C.A. MacCallum, E.B. Russo European Journal of Internal Medicine 49 (2018) 12–19
Most patients require 68 sprays of nabiximols per day for symp-
tomatic relief with a limit of 12. Above this dose, adverse events are
increased without improved ecacy.
Cannabis medicine doses must be individually determined, as this
depends on underlying endocannabinoid tone.
Use of homemade oral oils or topicals may require much higher
dried cannabis than utilised for inhalation.
CBD-predominant preparations have fewer untoward psychotropic
eects, and may require higher dosing.
7. Tactics in titration
Oral THC preparation eects are usually easier to judge vs inhala-
tion as the concentrations should be available from the producer.
Vaporisation is subject to more variables which can inuence estimated
dose: size of chamber, depth of inhalation, breath holding, strength of
THC in the chemovar, etc. Ideally, the patient would start using a THC-
predominant preparation at bedtime to limit adverse events and en-
courage development of tolerance. However, this is not a must.
Days 12: 2.5 mg THC-equivalent at bedtime. (may start at 1.25 mg
if young, elderly, or other concerns).
Days 34: if previous dose tolerated, increase by 1.252.5 mg THC
at bedtime.
Days 56: continue to increase by 1.252.5 mg THC at bedtime
every 2 days until desired eect is obtained. In event of side eects,
reduce to previous, best tolerated dose.
Some patients require THC for daytime use depending on their
symptoms. Consider use of a more stimulating chemovar unless seda-
tion is a desired result. Most patients dose orally two to three times per
Consider the following regimen:
Days 12: 2.5 mg THC-equivalent once a day
Days 34: 2.5 mg THC twice a day
Increase as needed and as tolerated to 15 mg THC-equivalent di-
vided BID-TID
Doses exceeding 2030 mg/day may increase adverse events or in-
duce tolerance without improving ecacy.
Use of high doses of THC-predominant cannabis above 5 g per day
are probably unjustied, except in the case of primary cancer treatment
(vide infra), and suggest possible tolerance or misuse. THC tolerance
may be readily abrogated via a drug vacation of at least 48 h, and
preferably longer. Patients may then nd that much lower doses pro-
vide symptomatic benet equal to or better than previously experi-
enced (see suggested regimen devised by Dustin Sulak, DO: www.
CBD-predominant chemovars produce fewer adverse events, but
there are no established dosing guidelines or maximum doses estab-
lished except in psychosis (800 mg) [30]and seizure disorders (2500 mg
or 2550 mg/kg) [29]. For other indications, many patients obtain
benets with much lower doses, starting with 520 mg per day of oral
preparations divided BID-TID, which may reduce attendant expense.
8. Contraindications
Cannabis is generally contraindicated in pregnancy and lactation,
despite a long history of usage [36], and foetal/neonatal sequelae re-
main controversial [37,38]. It is also contraindicated in psychosis (ex-
cept CBD-predominant preparations [30]). Cannabis should be utilised
with caution in unstable cardiac conditions, such as angina, due to ta-
chycardia and possible hypotension due to THC, but produces no QTc
issues [39]. Use in children and teens remains the subject of debate (see
below), as does its use in addiction and dependency. Smoking should be
avoided in COPD and asthma.
9. Adverse events
Cannabis has a superior safety prole in comparison to many other
medications, with no reported deaths due to overdose, due to a lack of
receptors in brainstem cardiorespiratory centres [40].
THC-mediated side eects are most pertinent and rate-limiting, and
are dose-dependent. Using a start low and go slowdosing strategy
mitigates most adverse events of THC. Also, combining CBD with THC
can further reduce those eects (Fig. 1). Patients develop tolerance to
psychoactive eects of cannabis quickly over period of days, without
concomitant tolerance to the benets, and therefore maintain the same
daily dose of many years [34,35], in stark contrast to opioids. A recent
large review of herbal cannabis in Canada revealed no increase in
serious adverse events in chronic administration, no harm on cognitive
function, pulmonary function tests, biochemistry (creatinine, liver
function test, and CBC) [34], conrming patterns seen in decades-long
usage in the USA [35].
Common AEs are listed (Table 4)[34,41,42], and their reduction
with lower doses and slow titration with nabiximols [42,43] are
documented (Fig. 1).
The critical nature of dose and preparation are additionally ex-
emplied (Fig. 2), demonstrating that whereas even 1015 mg of pure
Fig. 1. Graphic comparison of nabiximols adverse events en-
countered in > 3% of multiple sclerosis RCT patients with rapid ti-
tration and higher dosing (blue) vs. slower titration and capping
dosing at 12 sprays per day (red) (32.4 mg THC, 30 mg CBD). (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
C.A. MacCallum, E.B. Russo European Journal of Internal Medicine 49 (2018) 12–19
oral THC may induce toxic psychosis in the naïve or susceptible in-
dividual [44], such reactions were only identied in 4 of 260 exposures
to high dose nabiximols for a Phase I RCT containing 48.6 mg of THC by
virtue of its CBD and terpenoid prole [39]. Extrapolation of data in
Figs. 1 and 2 suggest that other Type II oral preparations may produce
similar results with slow titration.
10. Drug interactions
Most drug interactions are associated with concurrent use of other
CNS depressants with cannabis. Clinically, signicant drug interactions
have proven rare [7], and there is no drug that cannot be used with
cannabis, if necessary. THC is oxidised by (CYP) 2C9, 2C19, and 3A4.
Therefore, serum levels may increase with inhibitors, or decrease with
enzyme inducers. Pertinent drug interaction studies are few [45,46].
Existing studies have not demonstrated toxicity/ loss of eect of con-
comitant medications, but still theoretically possible [47]. One excep-
tion is high dose CBD with clobazam, wherein high levels of a sedating
metabolite, N-desmethyl clobazam will require a dose reduction for that
drug [29].
11. Monitoring
Depending on the patient, they may need to be seen in follow up
every 16 months depending on several factors such as; their familiarity
with cannabis, comorbid medical conditions, ability to adhere to
treatment plan instructions and keep an inventory of cannabis ecacy
on individual symptoms/conditions. This should involve appropriate
monitoring for ecacy (consider changing dosage routes, dose, and/or
plant varieties if needed), side eects of THC, review of concomitant
medication changes, and when it is appropriate to initiate a gentle drug
taper to minimise withdrawal symptoms, which are rarely problematic
in medicinal cannabis patients [4850]. Finally, consider implementing
validated questionnaires and quality of life assessments to allow for
documentation of objective measures to capture improvement in
symptoms and function.
12. Special cases
12.1. Epilepsy
Cannabis has a long traditional use in treatment of seizures [51], but
has frequently been contraindicated in that context in RCTs due to the
observed association of THC with proconvulsant eects in rodents at
high doses. In contrast, CBD displays only anticonvulsant properties
and as Epidiolex®cannabis extract, has been proven safe and eective
in a variety of intractable epilepsies, such as Dravet and Lennox-Gastaut
syndromes in both observational settings [52] and Phase III clinical
trials [29]. Regulatory approval in the USA is expected in 2018. CBD in
the latter settings has often required very high doses, as much as
2500 mg/d., whereas some clinicians have claimed similar ecacy at
much lower doses when CBD is utilised in preparations containing
concomitant low dose THC, THCA and even the anticonvulsant terpe-
noid, linalool [18].
12.2. Cancer
The anti-emetic eects of THC in association with cancer che-
motherapy have long been known and a synthetic form was approved
for such use in the USA in 1985. Benets as a palliative for sleep [53],
and particularly for opioid-resistant cancer pain have also been de-
monstrated in two Phase II clinical trials of nabiximols [54,55], but
unfortunately were not proven denitively in subsequent Phase III
studies. Cancer pain remains an indication in Canada under a Notice of
Compliance with conditions.
Cannabis has also been an historical primary treatment for cancer
[2], with extensive basic science documentation of its cytotoxic eects
with cytopreservative eects on normal cells. Initial trials and case
reports support the acute need for more formal investigation [5659].
Thousands of patients worldwide are pursuing such treatment, most
often without benet of appropriate medical monitoring. Both basic
science [60,61] and anecdotal clinical reports suggest that cannabis-
based treatment is most eective in conjunction with conventional
approaches, whether chemotherapy or radiation. High doses (up to
1000 mg/d), preferably of mixed phytocannabinoids (as in cannabis
extracts), for up to 3 months may be required to eradicate some ma-
lignancies, but emphasis is required that this approach remains
Table 4
Adverse events associated with cannabis-based medicines.
Side eect Most common Common Rare
Dry mouth
Cough, phlegm, bronchitis
(Smoking only)
Cognitive eects
Blurred vision
Orthostatic hypotension
Toxic psychosis/paranoia
Tachycardia (after titration)
Cannabis hyperemesis
Fig. 2. Graphical comparison of threshold dosing of THC vs. na-
biximols producing toxic psychosis.
C.A. MacCallum, E.B. Russo European Journal of Internal Medicine 49 (2018) 12–19
anecdotal without benet of large published RCTs. High doses of THC-
containing preparations require slow titration over 2 weeks to induce
tolerance to psychoactive sequelae. There is some anecdotal evidence
supporting use of acid cannabinoids in much lower doses, and CBDA
may improve the pharmacokinetics of CBD [47]. Prolonged main-
tenance of cannabis therapy, at some lower dosage may be similarly
required to prevent recurrences. It should be borne in mind that cure
of cancer can only be claimed after a 5-year interval without evidence
of tumour. Further objective evidence is needed to support adjunctive
cannabis-based medicine treatment of cancer.
12.3. Pain
Cannabis treatment has not generally been useful in relation to
treatment of acute pain [62]. In contrast, both THC and CBD-pre-
dominant cannabis preparations have proven safe and eective in nu-
merous RCTs of chronic non-cancer pain, whether somatic or neuro-
pathic, peripheral or central (reviewed [22]) and examination in
national programs, as in Canada [34].
12.4. The elderly
Whereas vigilance toward adverse events, particularly attributable
to polypharmacy are necessary in the elderly patient, monitoring of
adverse events with nabiximols reveal no specic increased suscept-
ibility to problems in this age group [42]. THC has been used to ad-
vantage to treat agitation in dementia [32], and the neuroprotective
eects of it and CBD portend to oer possible advantages in this, and
related pathologies [63]. Slow titration is required to avoid AEs, in-
cluding falls and orthostatic hypotension.
12.5. Parkinson disease
receptors are densely expressed in the basal ganglia, and can-
nabis has shown variable ecacy in various clinical studies [64]. Ad-
ditional investigation is required, however, to establish the optimal
composition of components. Anecdotal surveys suggest that acid can-
nabinoids given orally over prolonged intervals (3 months) may be
necessary to achieve clinical improvement [65]. Slow titration is re-
12.6. Paediatrics
Use of cannabis as medicine in children remains another forbidden
territory [1], but as in any other context, the relative risks and benets
must be weighed. Recent review has supported ecacy in nausea sec-
ondary to chemotherapy and in seizures [66]. It should be stated em-
phatically that there is a world of dierence scientically and ethically
between judicious administration of low doses of cannabinoids for
therapeutic purposes as compared to chronic use of high-dose THC for
recreational purposes by teenagers. Even synthetic THC has been used
to advantage in children with severe static encephalopathies with
spasticity and seizures in Germany where warranted [67,68]. Historical
data [1] and modern experience in treatment of nausea secondary to
chemotherapy [69] support the fact that children under the age of 10
are remarkably resistant to psychoactive sequelae of THC, and are able
to tolerate doses, when necessary, that might be more problematic in
the adult patient.
In those at risk, younger age of rst cannabis use is associated with
earlier onset of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and worse outcomes
[70,71]. CBD-predominant preparations, and even THCA, may be a
useful therapy for children (or adults) with severe developmental/self-
harm, schizophrenia, seizures, brain tumors, refractory or rare diseases.
In these conditions, CBD (with low or no THC) may be more ecacious
with fewer AEs than traditional therapies. (i.e., opioids, antiepileptic
etc). Risks and benets need to be considered.
12.7. Opioid and other addictions
Nineteenth century observations of the use of cannabis with opioids
[72,73] attested to its additive analgesic benets, reduction of adverse
events and even benet to withdrawal symptoms. This has been sup-
ported by basic science investigation [74], and a variety of observa-
tional studies [7577] and epidemiological evidence of decreased
opioid overdose mortality in US states with medical cannabis access
[78], as well as lowered costs for analgesics including opioids in such
states in the Medicare (elderly) [79] and Medicaid (low-income) [80]
populations. An intriguing nding from a long-term safety study of
nabiximols in survivors of a Phase IIA trial of cancer pain non-re-
sponsive to optimised opioids showed no increase in cannabis dosing
requirements over ensuing months, without the expected escalation of
opioid requirements with continued disease progression and eventual
demise [81]. Studies do not report an increase in opioid serum levels
when used with cannabis [82].
12.8. Driving and safety sensitive occupations
It is important to include evaluation of social and occupational
history during a medical cannabis consultation. This may include de-
termining if a patient works outside the home, has a safety sensitive
occupation, drives a motor vehicle, engages in childcare, etc. A rea-
sonable and conservative cannabis regimen for this patient population
would be CBD-predominant preparations during working hours, and
THC-predominant ones after work or before sleeping.
Patients should not drive or utilise power tools or heavy equipment
until accustomed to the eects of the medicine [7]. It is recommended
that driving should be avoided for 4 h after inhaled cannabis use, 6 h
after ingested cannabis use, or 8 h if euphoria was experienced. If a
patient feels impaired, regardless of cause, they should not be driving or
working safety sensitive jobs.
In clinical practice we have observed that medical cannabis pa-
tients, using daily, appropriate low doses of THC develop tolerance and
experience minimal if any impairment, as has been documented for
multiple sclerosis patients [83]. There are no serum assays that enable
measurement of impairment due to THC accurately. Urine toxicology
tests metabolites of THC which merely indicate THC ingestion some-
time in the past two to three weeks. The authors believe a combination
of neurocognitive testing, along with physical examination or perfor-
mance specic activities to capture reaction time, coordination, bal-
ance, decision making et al. will prove more valuable in comparison to
bodily uid THC levels.
12.9. Standard of care
The authors believe that the standard of care for cannabis is no
dierent than that for any speciality in the practice of medicine. The
requirements are: examination of prior medical records whenever
available, a comprehensive history and physical, a thorough discussion
of the pros and cons of cannabis, plans for appropriate follow-up care,
proper documentation of the consultation, and appropriate commu-
nication with other care-givers.
13. Conclusions
As cannabis-based medicines return to mainstream usage, it is es-
sential that clinicians gain a greater understanding of their pharma-
cology, dosing and administration to maximise therapeutic potential
and minimise associated problems. With standardised modern products,
and educated caregivers, these are worthy and attainable goals.
This study did not receive any specic grant from funding agencies
C.A. MacCallum, E.B. Russo European Journal of Internal Medicine 49 (2018) 12–19
in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.
[1] Russo EB. The pharmacological history of Cannabis. In: Pertwee R, editor.
Handbook of cannabinoids. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press;
2014. p. 2343.
[2] Russo EB. History of cannabis and its preparations in saga, science and sobriquet.
Chem Biodivers 2007;4:262448.
[3] Pacher P, Batkai S, Kunos G. The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of
pharmacotherapy. Pharmacol Rev 2006;58:389462.
[4] EvanoAB, Quan T, Dufault C, Awad M, Bierut LJ. Physicians-in-training are not
prepared to prescribe medical marijuana. Drug Alcohol Depend 2017;180:1515.
[5] Frieden TR. Evidence for health decision making - beyond randomized, controlled
trials. N Engl J Med 2017;377:46575.
[6] Upton R, Craker L, ElSohly M, Romm A, Russo E, Sexton M. Cannabis inorescence:
Cannabis spp.: standards of identity, analysis and quality control. American Herbal
Pharmacopoeia: Scotts Valley, CA, USA; 2013.
[7] Russo EB. Current therapeutic cannabis controversies and clinical trial design issues.
Front Pharmacol 2016;7:309.
[8] Russo EB, Marcu J. Cannabis pharmacology: the usual suspects and a few promising
leads. Adv Pharmacol 2017;80:71138.
[9] Di Marzo V, Melck D, Bisogno T, De Petrocellis L. Endocannabinoids: endogenous
cannabinoid receptor ligands with neuromodulatory action. Trends Neurosci
[10] Laprairie RB, Bagher AM, Kelly ME, Denovan-Wright EM. Cannabidiol is a negative
allosteric modulator of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor. Br J Pharmacol
[11] Russo EB. Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpe-
noid entourage eects. Br J Pharmacol 2011;163:134464.
[12] Lewis MA, Russo EB, Smith KM. Pharmacological foundations of Cannabis che-
movars: no strain, no gain. Planta Med 2017.
122240. [in press, PubMed:
[13] Potter DJ, Clark P, Brown MB. Potency of delta 9-THC and other cannabinoids in
cannabis in England in 2005: implications for psychoactivity and pharmacology. J
Forensic Sci 2008;53:904.
[14] Mehmedic Z, Chandra S, Slade D, Denham H, Foster S, Patel AS, et al. Potency
trends of delta(9)-THC and other cannabinoids in conscated cannabis preparations
from 1993 to 2008. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(5):120917.
[15] Verhoeckx KC, Korthout HA, van Meeteren-Kreikamp AP, Ehlert KA, Wang M, van
der Greef J, et al. Unheated Cannabis sativa extracts and its major compound THC-
acid have potential immuno-modulating properties not mediated by CB1 and CB2
receptor coupled pathways. Int Immunopharmacol 2006;6:65665.
[16] Rock EM, Sticht MA, Parker LA. Eects of phytocannabinoids on nausea and vo-
miting. In: Pertwee RG, editor. Handbook of cannabis. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press; 2014. p. 43554.
[17] Nadal X, Del Rio C, Casano S, Palomares B, Ferreiro-Vera C, Navarrete C, et al.
Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid is a potent PPARgamma agonist with neuroprotective
activity. Br J Pharmacol 2017;174(23):426376.
[18] Sulak D, Saneto R, Goldstein B. The current status of artisanal Cannabis for the
treatment of epilepsy in the United States. Epilepsy Behav 2017;70:32833.
[19] Bolognini D, Rock EM, Cluny NL, Cascio MG, Limebeer CL, Duncan M, et al.
Cannabidiolic acid prevents vomiting in Suncus murinus and nausea-induced be-
haviour in rats by enhancing 5-HT1A receptor activation. Br J Pharmacol
[20] Rock EM, Limebeer CL, Petrie GN, Williams LA, Mechoulam R, Parker LA. Eect of
prior foot shock stress and Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiolic acid, and
cannabidiol on anxiety-like responding in the light-dark emergence test in rats.
Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2017;234:220717.
[21] Huestis MA. Human cannabinoid pharmacokinetics. Chem Biodivers
[22] Russo EB, Hohmann AG. Role of cannabinoids in pain management. In: Deer T,
Gordin V, editors. Comprehensive treatment of chronic pain by medical, interven-
tional and behavioral approaches. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 18197.
[23] Tashkin DP. Eects of marijuana smoking on the lung. Ann Am Thorac Soc
[24] Abrams DI, Vizoso HP, Shade SB, Jay C, Kelly ME, Benowitz NL. Vaporization as a
smokeless cannabis delivery system: a pilot study. Clin Pharmacol Ther
[25] Bloor RN, Wang TS, Spanel P, Smith D. Ammonia release from heated street
cannabis leaf and its potential toxic eects on cannabis users. Addiction
[26] Earleywine M, Smucker Barnwell S. Decreased respiratory symptoms in cannabis
users who vaporize. Harm Reduct J 2007;4:11.
[27] Loin M, Earleywine MA. New method of cannabis ingestion: the dangers of dabs?
Addict Behav 2014;39:14303.
[28] National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (U.S.). Committee on the
health eects of marijuana: an evidence review and research agenda. The health
eects of cannabis and cannabinoids: the current state of evidence and re-
commendations for research. Washington, DC: the National Academies Press; 2017.
p. 1. (online resource, xviii, 468 pages).
[29] Devinsky O, Cross JH, Laux L, Marsh E, Miller I, Nabbout R, et al. Trial of canna-
bidiol for drug-resistant seizures in the Dravet syndrome. N Engl J Med
[30] Leweke FM, Piomelli D, Pahlisch F, Muhl D, Gerth CW, Hoyer C, et al. Cannabidiol
enhances anandamide signaling and alleviates psychotic symptoms of schizo-
phrenia. Transl Psychiatry 2012;2:e94.
[31] Hill MN, Bierer LM, Makotkine I, Golier JA, Galea S, McEwen BS, et al. Reductions
in circulating endocannabinoid levels in individuals with post-traumatic stress
disorder following exposure to the World Trade Center attacks.
Psychoneuroendocrinology 2013;38:295261.
[32] Volicer L, Stelly M, Morris J, McLaughlin J, Volicer BJ. Eects of dronabinol on
anorexia and disturbed behavior in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Int J Geriatr
Psychiatry 1997;12:9139.
[33] Bergamaschi MM, Queiroz RH, Chagas MH, de Oliveira DC, De Martinis BS,
Kapczinski F, et al. Cannabidiol reduces the anxiety induced by simulated public
speaking in treatment-naive social phobia patients. Neuropsychopharmacology
[34] Ware MA, Wang T, Shapiro S, Collet JP, team Cs. Cannabis for the management of
pain: assessment of safety study (COMPASS). J Pain 2015;16:123342.
[35] Russo EB, Mathre ML, Byrne A, Velin R, Bach PJ, Sanchez-Ramos J, et al. Chronic
cannabis use in the compassionate investigational new drug program: an ex-
amination of benets and adverse eects of legal clinical cannabis. J Cannabis Ther
[36] Russo E. Cannabis treatments in obstetrics and gynecology: a historical review. J
Cannabis Ther 2002;2:535.
[37] Grant KS, PetroR, Isoherranen N, Stella N, Burbacher TM. Cannabis use during
pregnancy: pharmacokinetics and eects on child development. Pharmacol Ther
2017. [in press].
[38] Conner SN, Bedell V, Lipsey K, Macones GA, Cahill AG, Tuuli MG. Maternal mar-
ijuana use and adverse neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:71323.
[39] Sellers EM, Schoedel K, Bartlett C, Romach M, Russo EB, Stott CG, et al. A multiple-
dose, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group QT/QTc study
to evaluate the electrophysiologic eects of THC/CBD spray. Clin Pharmacol Drug
Dev 2013;2:28594.
[40] Herkenham M, Lynn AB, Little MD, Johnson MR, Melvin LS, de Costa BR, et al.
Cannabinoid receptor localization in brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
[41] Wang T, Collet JP, Shapiro S, Ware MA. Adverse eects of medical cannabinoids: a
systematic review. CMAJ 2008;178:166978.
[42] Russo EB, Etges T, Stott C, Wright S, Mohammed A, Robson P. Sativex safety prole
is improving over time. 21st Annual Symposium on the Cannabinoids. St. Charles,
IL, USA: International Cannabinoid Research Society; 2011. p. GW1.
[43] Novotna A, Mares J, Ratclie S, Novakova I, Vachova M, Zapletalova O, et al. A
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, enriched-design
study of nabiximols* (Sativex((R))), as add-on therapy, in subjects with refractory
spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol 2011;18:112231.
[44] Favrat B, Menetrey A, Augsburger M, Rothuizen L, Appenzeller M, Buclin T, et al.
Two cases of cannabis acute psychosisfollowing the administration of oral can-
nabis. BMC Psychiatry 2005;5:17.
[45] Zendulka O, Dovrtelova G, Noskova K, Turjap M, Sulcova A, Hanus L, et al.
Cannabinoids and cytochrome P450 interactions. Curr Drug Metab
[46] Stott C, White L, Wright S, Wilbraham D, Guy GA. Phase I, open-label, randomized,
crossover study in three parallel groups to evaluate the eect of rifampicin, keto-
conazole, and omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of THC/CBD oromucosal spray
in healthy volunteers. 2. SpringerPlus; 2013. p. 236.
[47] Ujvary I, Hanus L. Human metabolites of cannabidiol: a review on their formation,
biological activity, and relevance in therapy. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res
[48] Wade DT, Makela PM, House H, Bateman C, Robson PJ. Long-term use of a can-
nabis-based medicine in the treatment of spasticity and other symptoms in multiple
sclerosis. Mult Scler 2006;12:63945.
[49] Notcutt W, Langford R, Davies P, Ratclie S, Potts R. A placebo-controlled, parallel-
group, randomized withdrawal study of subjects with symptoms of spasticity due to
multiple sclerosis who are receiving long-term Sativex(R) (nabiximols). Mult Scler
[50] Serpell MG, Notcutt W, Collin C. Sativex long-term use: an open-label trial in pa-
tients with spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2013;260:28595.
[51] Russo EB. Cannabis and epilepsy: an ancient treatment returns to the fore. Epilepsy
Behav 2017;70:2927.
[52] Devinsky O, Marsh E, Friedman D, Thiele E, Laux L, Sullivan J, et al. Cannabidiol in
patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy: an open-label interventional trial. Lancet
Neurol 2016;15:2708.
[53] Russo EB, Guy GW, Robson PJ. Cannabis, pain, and sleep: lessons from therapeutic
clinical trials of Sativex, a cannabis-based medicine. Chem Biodivers
[54] Johnson JR, Burnell-Nugent M, Lossignol D, Ganae-Motan ED, Potts R, Fallon MT.
Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of
the ecacy, safety, and tolerability of THC:CBD extract and THC extract in patients
with intractable cancer-related pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2010;39:16779.
[55] Portenoy RK, Ganae-Motan ED, Allende S, Yanagihara R, Shaiova L, Weinstein S,
et al. Nabiximols for opioid-treated cancer patients with poorly-controlled chronic
pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled, graded-dose trial. J Pain 2012;13:43849.
[56] Guzman M, Duarte MJ, Blazquez C, Ravina J, Rosa MC, Galve-Roperh I, et al. A
pilot clinical study of delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent
glioblastoma multiforme. Br J Cancer 2006;95:197203.
[57] Foroughi M, Hendson G, Sargent MA, Steinbok P. Spontaneous regression of septum
pellucidum/forniceal pilocytic astrocytomaspossible role of Cannabis inhalation.
C.A. MacCallum, E.B. Russo European Journal of Internal Medicine 49 (2018) 12–19
Childs Nerv Syst 2011;27:6719.
[58] Singh Y, Bali C. Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leu-
kemia with a Philadelphia chromosome mutation. Case Rep Oncol 2013;6:58592.
[59] GW Pharmaceuticals. GW pharmaceuticals achieves positive results in phase 2
proof of concept study in glioma. 2017.
[60] Torres S, Lorente M, Rodriguez-Fornes F, Hernandez-Tiedra S, Salazar M, Garcia-
Taboada E, et al. A combined preclinical therapy of cannabinoids and temozolo-
mide against glioma. Mol Cancer Ther 2011;10:90103.
[61] Caarel MM, Andradas C, Mira E, Perez-Gomez E, Cerutti C, Moreno-Bueno G, et al.
Cannabinoids reduce ErbB2-driven breast cancer progression through Akt inhibi-
tion. Mol Cancer 2010;9:196.
[62] Holdcroft A, Maze M, Dore C, Tebbs S, Thompson S. A multicenter dose-escalation
study of the analgesic and adverse eects of an oral cannabis extract (Cannador) for
postoperative pain management. Anesthesiology 2006;104:10406.
[63] Hampson AJ, Grimaldi M, Axelrod J, Wink D. Cannabidiol and ()delta9-tetra-
hydrocannabinol are neuroprotective antioxidants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
[64] Fernandez-Ruiz J, Moreno-Martet M, Rodriguez-Cueto C, Palomo-Garo C, Gomez-
Canas M, Valdeolivas S, et al. Prospects for cannabinoid therapies in basal ganglia
disorders. Br J Pharmacol 2011;163:136578.
[65] Venderova K, Ruzicka E, Vorisek V, Visnovsky P. Survey on cannabis use in
Parkinson's disease: subjective improvement of motor symptoms. Mov Disord
[66] Wong SS, Wilens TE. Medical cannabinoids in children and adolescents: a sys-
tematic review. Pediatrics 2017;140(5).
1818. pii: e20171818.
[67] Lorenz R. On the application of cannabis in paediatrics and epileptology.
Neuroendocrinol Lett 2004;25. [In Press].
[68] Gottschling S. Cannbinoide bei Kindern. Gute Erfahrungen bei Schmerzen, Spastik
und in der Onkologie. Angewandte Schmerztherapie und Palliativmedizin. 2011. p.
[69] Abrahamov A, Mechoulam R. An ecient new cannabinoid antiemetic in pediatric
oncology. Life Sci 1995;56:2097102.
[70] Muller-Vahl KR, Emrich HM. Cannabis and schizophrenia: towards a cannabinoid
hypothesis of schizophrenia. Expert Rev Neurother 2008;8:103748.
[71] Robson PJ, Guy GW, Di Marzo V. Cannabinoids and schizophrenia: therapeutic
prospects. Curr Pharm Des 2014;20:2194204.
[72] Russo EB. Handbook of psychotropic herbs: A scientic analysis of herbal remedies
for psychiatric conditions. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press; 2001.
[73] Russo EB. The role of cannabis and cannabinoids in pain management. In: Cole BE,
Boswell M, editors. Weiner's pain management: a practical guide for clinicians. 7th
ed.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2006. p. 82344.
[74] Cichewicz DL. Synergistic interactions between cannabinoid and opioid analgesics.
Life Sci 2004;74:131724.
[75] Lucas P, Walsh Z. Medical cannabis access, use, and substitution for prescription
opioids and other substances: a survey of authorized medical cannabis patients. Int
J Drug Policy 2017;42:305.
[76] Reiman A. Cannabis as a substitute for alcohol and other drugs. Harm Reduct J
[77] Haroutounian S, Ratz Y, Ginosar Y, Furmanov K, SaiF, Meidan R, et al. The eect
of medicinal cannabis on pain and quality of life outcomes in chronic pain: a pro-
spective open-label study. Clin J Pain 2016;32(12):103643.
[78] Bachhuber MA, Saloner B, Cunningham CO, Barry CL. Medical cannabis laws and
opioid analgesic overdose mortality in the United States, 19992010. JAMA Intern
Med 2014;174:166873.
[79] Bradford AC, Bradford WD. Medical marijuana laws reduce prescription medication
use in Medicare part D. Health A(Millwood) 2016;35:12306.
[80] Bradford AC, Bradford WD. Medical marijuana laws may be associated with a de-
cline in the number of prescriptions for Medicaid enrollees. Health A(Millwood)
[81] Johnson JR, Lossignol D, Burnell-Nugent M, Fallon MT. An open-label extension
study to investigate the long-term safety and tolerability of THC/CBD oromucosal
spray and oromucosal THC spray in patients with terminal cancer-related pain re-
fractory to strong opioid analgesics. J Pain Symptom Manage 2013;46:20718.
[82] Abrams DI, Couey P, Shade SB, Kelly ME, Benowitz NL. Cannabinoid-opioid in-
teraction in chronic pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011;90:84451.
[83] Rekand TTHC. CBD spray and MS spasticity symptoms: data from latest studies. Eur
Neurol 2014;71(Suppl. 1):49.
C.A. MacCallum, E.B. Russo European Journal of Internal Medicine 49 (2018) 12–19
4/4/2018 1-s2.0-S0953620518300049-fx1_lrg.jpg (1186×531) 1/1
... In addition, the use of combined therapy of THC and CBD was reported in studies on other indications [e.g., chronic pain (Überall, 2020)], and the use of CBD alone is noted for the treatment of psychosis in Parkinson's disease (Zuardi et al., 2009). The patients of this study received a natural plant formulation standardized in THC and CBD (1:2) contents according to the hypothesis that the natural extract might have better tolerability and efficacy, the presence of CBD counterbalancing the psychoactive effects of THC (Niesink and van Laar, 2013;MacCallum and Russo, 2018). ...
Full-text available
Context The management of behavioral symptoms and rigidity in patients with dementia constitutes a significant challenge. Short-term studies suggest an interest in the use of medical cannabis, but long-term data are lacking. Objectives The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility and long-term safety of administering tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD) treatment as an additional drug to a poly medicated population with severe dementia, evaluate clinical improvements, and collect information on the pharmacokinetics of cannabinoids and possible drug–drug interactions. Methods A prospective observational study of patients with severe dementia living in a long-term care home to whom the physicians had prescribed a medical cannabis treatment. Data were collected over 2 years. We assessed the changes in medical cannabis dosages, safety parameters, variations in neuropsychiatric problems, agitation, rigidity, the most invalidating daily activity, and disabling behavior trouble scores. We evaluated the pharmacokinetics of cannabinoids by measuring plasma levels and analyzing the enzymatic activity. Results We assessed 19 patients (81.4 years—17 women and two men) receiving an average of 12.4 mg THC/24.8 mg CBD per day for up to 13 months, with no reported problems related to the treatment and limited adverse drug reactions. Clinical scores showed a marked improvement that was stable over time, deprescription of other medications, and care facilitated. The pharmacokinetic evaluation showed an expected slight reduction in the enzymatic activity of CYP1A2 and CYP2C19. Conclusion A long-term THC/CBD (1:2) medication can be administered safely and with overall positive clinical improvement to poly medicated older adults with severe dementia and associated problems. The results must be confirmed in a randomized trial.
... For example, THC, CBD, and cannabinol inhibit carboxylesterases, which have key roles in the bioactivation and bioinactivation of several medications, including multiple cardiovascular medica-tions such as clopidogrel, warfarin, dabigatran, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [60]. While the focus has been directed toward pharmacokinetic interactions, additive pharmacodynamics interactions between cannabis and other coadministered drugs with akin physiological effects are more clinically relevant, especially if they can induce the same undesirable side effects, such as increased tachycardia with the coadministration of cannabis and sympathomimetics or tricyclic antidepressants [61]. ...
... En el campo del dolor, no está claro si el CBD es mejor o peor analgésico que el THC. En ausencia de evidencia o de guías clínicas basadas en estudios rigurosos, se aconseja ejercer de forma precavida si se usan productos con dosis elevadas de THC (16). ...
... The latter has anti-inflammatory and analgesic traits. The THC:CBD therefore determines the product's overall effect [220]. CB1 cannabinoid receptors are found predominantly in the CNS and peripheral nervous system. ...
Neuropathic pain is a complex and challenging secondary pain condition. It is a sequela of central nervous or peripheral nervous system lesions and pathologies. It can be debilitating and affects approximately 7% of the general population. Many factors contribute to the development of this chronic neuropathic pain. It can originate from the central part of the nervous system as a result of brain or spinal cord injury, stroke, or multiple sclerosis. Peripheral neuropathic pain manifests in the peripheral nervous system, and includes large fiber and small fiber polyneuropathy, radiculopathy, and mononeuropathy. Pharmacological options include tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), and gabapentinoids. For more severe cases, interventional pain management techniques such as peripheral nerve blocks, spinal cord, or peripheral nerve stimulation may be reasonable options.
... However, several ingredients, including primarily THC and CBD, are considered to be active [2], since there is significant pre-clinical and clinical evidence about their activity. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is one of the main cannabinoids in cannabis; it has many properties, including anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory, analgetic and others [3,4]. However, not all cannabis extracts that are high in THC appear to be equally effective [5]. ...
Full-text available
Cannabis sativa is one of the oldest cultivated plants. Many of the medicinal properties of cannabis are known, although very few cannabis-based formulations became prescribed drugs. Previous research demonstrated that cannabis varieties are very different in their medicinal properties, likely due to the entourage effect—the synergistic or antagonistic effect of various cannabinoids and terpenes. In this work, we analyzed 25 cannabis extracts containing high levels of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). We used HCC1806 squamous cell carcinoma and demonstrated various degrees of efficiency of the tested extracts, from 66% to 92% of growth inhibition of cancer cells. Inflammation was tested by induction of inflammation with TNF-α/IFN-γ in WI38 human lung fibroblasts. The efficiency of the extracts was tested by analyzing the expression of COX2 and IL6; while some extracts aggravated inflammation by increasing the expression of COX2/IL6 by 2-fold, other extracts decreased inflammation, reducing expression of cytokines by over 5-fold. We next analyzed the level of THC, CBD, CBG and CBN and twenty major terpenes and performed clustering and association analysis between the chemical composition of the extracts and their efficiency in inhibiting cancer growth and curbing inflammation. A positive correlation was found between the presence of terpinene (pval = 0.002) and anti-cancer property; eucalyptol came second, with pval of 0.094. p-cymene and β-myrcene positively correlated with the inhibition of IL6 expression, while camphor correlated negatively. No significant correlation was found for COX2. We then performed a correlation analysis between cannabinoids and terpenes and found a positive correlation for the following pairs: α-pinene vs. CBD, p-cymene vs. CBGA, terpenolene vs. CBGA and isopulegol vs. CBGA. Our work, thus, showed that most of high-THC extracts demonstrate anti-cancer activity, while only certain selected extracts showed anti-inflammatory activity. Presence of certain terpenes, such as terpinene, eucalyptol, cymene, myrcene and camphor, appear to have modulating effects on the activity of cannabinoids.
... CBD dosage ranges for the treatment of anxiety disorders have been reported to be very ample and no standardized dosages currently exist. 27,28 Dosing for this study was individually adapted to each patient based on prior research examining the safety of CBD, considering the limited evidence available on clinical trials in psychiatric populations, 16,28-33 and following MacCallum and Russo's practical considerations; 34 therapy was started at a low dose between 5 and 20 mg per day, divided into two or three oral administrations per day. Afterwards, the dose was slowly increased until beneficial effects were observed in each patient without the appearance of side effects. ...
Full-text available
Anxiety-related disorders are one of the most common mental health issues worldwide. Mexico has reported an increase in the prevalence of these ailments secondary to the confinement derived from the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the limitations of commonly used treatments for these disorders, a need arises to develop new pharmacological treatments for these patients. This paper has the primary objective of evaluating the efficacy and safety of cannabidiol isolate in drug compounding used as a personalized treatment in patients with anxiety disorders through the presentation of four clinical cases.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Factores sociales y culturales sobre los productos basados en cannabinoides, sumados a la gran cobertura mediática sobre los potenciales terapéuticos del cannabis medicinal, aumentan el interés de la sociedad y los pacientes en esta herramienta terapéutica. Este alto interés da pié a una situación inusual y potencialmente confusa para los médicos y profesionales de la salud, dada la falta de evidencia científica para la aplicación de estos productos en muchas condiciones clínicas. A esta situación se pueden sumar confusiones de orden regulatorio, reticencia de entes científicos, expectativas de los pacientes, falta de educación de los profesionales de la salud, las cuales pueden afectar la calidad de la atención médica de los pacientes que solicitan ser tratados o serían candidatos por tratar con cannabis medicinal. Objetivos: Examinar y describir la literatura existente relacionada a las barreras reportadas por médicos y profesionales de la salud para la adopción del cannabis como medicina y el impacto de estas en la atención de los pacientes con patologías que podrían ser tratadas con cannabinoides. Metodología: Se realizó un resumen narrativo de la literatura sintetizando los hallazgos en artículos revisados por pares seleccionados luego de hacer las búsquedas en bases de datos computarizadas, búsquedas manuales y textos autorizados enfocados en las percepciones y actitudes de los médicos y profesionales de la salud sobre el cannabis medicinal, y en particular aquellos estudios que reportaban las barreras que impactan la adopción del cannabis medicinal y su efecto en la calidad del cuidado que pacientes que serían candidatos a tratamientos basados en cannabinoides. Se hizo un análisis cualitativo para extraer los temas más comunes y se describieron los resultados de acuerdo con los mismos Resultados: Este análisis de las barreras existentes reportadas en la literatura revela que, en general, los médicos y profesionales de la salud de múltiples países enfrentan importantes barreras para la adopción del cannabis medicinal, y estas radican en la falta de educación, falta de evidencia clínica, falta de confianza en su conocimiento, así como preocupaciones legales, sobre el costo del medicamento, y los estigmas que existen al emplear una sustancia psicoactiva en el contexto clínico. Estos resultados son contextualizados con el impacto que la presencia de estas barreras tiene sobre los pacientes, y ofrece comentarios relevantes para la región latinoamericana
There are intriguing theories regarding the biology of fibromyalgia. Whilst several researchers assume it is a psychogenic, others believe that fibromyalgia is a disease of neurological sensitization (an overactive alarm system). Fibromyalgia is a clinical entity that present with a mix of the symptoms including chronic widespread pain and other non-pain linked symptoms, such as poor sleep, fatigue and cognitive disturbances. Furthermore, fibromyalgia exhibits substantial variation not only between various patients, but also in the same patient during the disease course. Identifying a common language and classification to diagnose and treat fibromyalgia represent another challenge, as patients may seek care from different disciplines (such as rheumatology, general practice, neurology, psychology, or psychiatry and in some cases orthopedic surgery) with unique perspectives and terminologies. Furthermore, in concordance with other medically unexplained pain syndromes, fibromyalgia may be classified in several ways (such as functional somatic syndrome, chronic widespread pain syndrome, persistent somatoform pain disorder, somatic symptom disorder, affective spectrum condition, and central sensitivity syndrome). This chapter will discuss the debate of fibromyalgia as a bitterly controversial condition, the science of pain and where fibromyalgia fits in. It will then discuss fibromyalgia as a pain processing problem, different sources of pain in fibromyalgia patients and the wind-up theory. The chapter will expand to discuss Fibromyalgia associated comorbidities, fibromyalgia pain in the clinical setting, fibromyalgianess, neuroimaging, as well as pain pathways and the pharmacotherapy of Fibromyalgia.
Despite increasing use of Medical Cannabis (MC) among posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) patients, research is lacking on how MC treatment relates to PTSD symptomatology, in particular sleep disturbances. This study examines the time gap between MC use and sleep onset and its association with (1) number of awakenings throughout the night, (2) early awakenings, (3) nightmares. Each morning over a two week period, 77 licensed MC patients suffering from PTSD reported on the timing of previous night MC use and sleep disturbances. Within-person analyses found that shorter time gaps between previous night MC use and sleep start time was associated with lower likelihood of experiencing nightmares throughout the night, but it was not associated with nightly awakenings or waking up too early. Between-person analyses showed that individuals who used MC products with higher CBD concentrations reported fewer early awakenings. These preliminary results indicate that future research should test causal relations between MC use and sleep problems in PTSD patients. Future research is warranted in order to explore causal relationships between MC use, nightmares and insomnia in PTSD patients.
Study objectives As cannabis is increasingly used to treat sleep disorders, we performed a systematic review to examine the effects of cannabis on sleep and to guide cannabis prescribers in their recommendations to patients, specifically focusing on dosing. Methods We searched EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science and identified 4,550 studies for screening. 568 studies were selected for full-text review and 31 were included for analysis. Study results were considered positive based on improvements in sleep architecture or subjective sleep quality. Bias in randomised controlled trials was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. Results Sleep improvements were seen in 7 out of 19 randomised studies and in 7 out of 12 uncontrolled trials. There were no significant differences between the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Cannabis showed most promise at improving sleep in patients with pain-related disorders, as compared to those with neurologic, psychiatric, or sleep disorders, and showed no significant effects on healthy participants’ sleep. While subjective improvements in sleep quality were often observed, diagnostic testing showed no improvements in sleep architecture. Adverse events included headaches, sedation, and dizziness, and occurred more frequently at higher doses, though no serious adverse events were observed. Conclusion High-quality evidence to support cannabis use for sleep remains limited. Heterogeneity in cannabis types, doses, timing of administration, and sleep outcome measures limit the ability to make specific dosing recommendations.
Full-text available
Context: Legalization of medical marijuana in many states has led to a widening gap between the accessibility and the evidence for cannabinoids as a medical treatment. Objective: To systematically review published reports to identify the evidence base of cannabinoids as a medical treatment in children and adolescents. Data sources: Based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a search of PubMed, Medline, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases was conducted in May 2017. Study selection: Searching identified 2743 citations, and 103 full texts were reviewed. Data extraction: Searching identified 21 articles that met inclusion criteria, including 22 studies with a total sample of 795 participants. Five randomized controlled trials, 5 retrospective chart reviews, 5 case reports, 4 open-label trials, 2 parent surveys, and 1 case series were identified. Results: Evidence for benefit was strongest for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, with increasing evidence of benefit for epilepsy. At this time, there is insufficient evidence to support use for spasticity, neuropathic pain, posttraumatic stress disorder, and Tourette syndrome. Limitations: The methodological quality of studies varied, with the majority of studies lacking control groups, limited by small sample size, and not designed to test for the statistical significance of outcome measures. Studies were heterogeneous in the cannabinoid composition and dosage and lacked long-term follow-up to identify potential adverse effects. Conclusions: Additional research is needed to evaluate the potential role of medical cannabinoids in children and adolescents, especially given increasing accessibility from state legalization and potential psychiatric and neurocognitive adverse effects identified from studies of recreational cannabis use.
Full-text available
Cannabidiol (CBD), the main nonpsychoactive constituent of Cannabis sativa, has shown a wide range of therapeutically promising pharmacological effects either as a sole drug or in combination with other drugs in adjunctive therapy. However, the targets involved in the therapeutic effects of CBD appear to be elusive. Furthermore, scarce information is available on the biological activity of its human metabolites which, when formed in pharmacologically relevant concentration, might contribute to or even account for the observed therapeutic effects. The present overview summarizes our current knowledge on the pharmacokinetics and metabolic fate of CBD in humans, reviews studies on the biological activity of CBD metabolites either in vitro or in vivo, and discusses relevant drug-drug interactions. To facilitate further research in the area, the reported syntheses of CBD metabolites are also catalogued.
Full-text available
The broad-based legalization of cannabis use has created a strong need to understand its impact on human health and behavior. The risks that may be associated with cannabis use, particularly for sensitive subgroups such as pregnant women, are difficult to define because of a paucity of dose-response data and the recent increase in cannabis potency. Although there is a large body of evidence detailing the mode of action of Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in adults, little work has focused on understanding how cannabis use during pregnancy may impact the development of the fetal nervous system and whether additional plant-derived cannabinoids might participate. This manuscript presents an overview of the historical and contemporary literature focused on the mode of action of THC in the developing brain, comparative pharmacokinetics in both pregnant and nonpregnant model systems and neurodevelopmental outcomes in exposed offspring. Despite growing public health significance, pharmacokinetic studies of THC have focused on nonpregnant adult subjects and there are few published reports on disposition parameters during pregnancy. Data from preclinical species show that THC readily crosses the placenta although fetal exposures appear lower than maternal exposures. The neurodevelopmental data in human and preclinical species suggest that prenatal exposure to THC may lead to subtle, persistent changes in targeted aspects of higher-level cognition and psychological well-being. There is an urgent need for well-controlled studies in humans and preclinical models on THC as a developmental neurotoxicant. Until more information is available, pregnant women should not assume that using cannabis during pregnancy is safe.
Full-text available
Rationale: Cannabis is commonly used by humans to relieve stress. Objectives and methods: Here, we evaluate the potential of intraperitoneally (i.p.) administered Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabiol (THC) and cannabidiolic acid (CBDA, the precursor of cannabidiol [CBD]) to produce dose-dependent effects on anxiety-like responding in the light-dark (LD) emergence test of anxiety-like responding in rats, when administered acutely or chronically (21 days). As well, we evaluate the potential of THC, CBDA, and CBD to reduce anxiogenic responding produced by foot shock (FS) stress 24 h prior to the LD test. Results: In the absence of the explicit FS stressor, THC (1 and 10 mg/kg) produced anxiogenic-like responding when administered acutely or chronically, but CBDA produced neither anxiogenic- nor anxiolytic-like responding. Administration of FS stress 24 h prior to the LD test enhanced anxiogenic-like responding (reduced time spent and increased latency to enter the light compartment) in rats pretreated with either vehicle (VEH) or THC (1 mg/kg); however, administration of CBDA (0.1-100 μg/kg) or CBD (5 mg/kg) prevented the FS-induced anxiogenic-like responding (an anxiolytic-like effect). The 5-hydroxytryptamine 1A (5-HT1A) receptor antagonist, WAY100635, reversed CBDA's anxiolytic effect (1 μg/kg). Combining an anxiolytic dose of CBDA (1 μg/kg) or CBD (5 mg/kg) with an anxiogenic dose of THC (1 mg/kg) did not modify THC's anxiogenic effect. Conclusion: These results suggest the anxiolytic effects of CBDA and CBD may require the presence of a specific stressor.
An advanced Mendelian Cannabis breeding program has been developed utilizing chemical markers to maximize the yield of phytocannabinoids and terpenoids with the aim to improve therapeutic efficacy and safety. Cannabis is often divided into several categories based on cannabinoid content. Type I, Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol-predominant, is the prevalent offering in both medical and recreational marketplaces. In recent years, the therapeutic benefits of cannabidiol have been better recognized, leading to the promotion of additional chemovars: Type II, Cannabis that contains both Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, and cannabidiol-predominant Type III Cannabis. While high-Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and high-myrcene chemovars dominate markets, these may not be optimal for patients who require distinct chemical profiles to achieve symptomatic relief. Type II Cannabis chemovars that display cannabidiol- and terpenoid-rich profiles have the potential to improve both efficacy and minimize adverse events associated with Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol exposure. Cannabis samples were analyzed for cannabinoid and terpenoid content, and analytical results are presented via PhytoFacts, a patent-pending method of graphically displaying phytocannabinoid and terpenoid content, as well as scent, taste, and subjective therapeutic effect data. Examples from the breeding program are highlighted and include Type I, II, and III Cannabis chemovars, those highly potent in terpenoids in general, or single components, for example, limonene, pinene, terpinolene, and linalool. Additionally, it is demonstrated how Type I – III chemovars have been developed with conserved terpenoid proportions. Specific chemovars may produce enhanced analgesia, anti-inflammatory, anticonvulsant, antidepressant, and anti-anxiety effects, while simultaneously reducing sequelae of Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol such as panic, toxic psychosis, and short-term memory impairment.
Background: While medical marijuana use is legal in more than half of U.S. states, evidence is limited about the preparation of physicians-in-training to prescribe medical marijuana. We asked whether current medical school and graduate medical educational training prepare physicians to prescribe medical marijuana. Methods: We conducted a national survey of U.S. medical school curriculum deans, a similar survey of residents and fellows at Washington University in St. Louis, and a query of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Curriculum Inventory database for keywords associated with medical marijuana. Results: Surveys were obtained from 101 curriculum deans, and 258 residents and fellows. 145 schools were included in the curriculum search. The majority of deans (66.7%) reported that their graduates were not at all prepared to prescribe medical marijuana, and 25.0% reported that their graduates were not at all prepared to answer questions about medical marijuana. The vast majority of residents and fellows (89.5%) felt not at all prepared to prescribe medical marijuana, while 35.3% felt not at all prepared to answer questions, and 84.9% reported receiving no education in medical school or residency on medical marijuana. Finally, only 9% of medical school curriculums document in the AAMC Curriculum Inventory database content on medical marijuana. Conclusions: Our study highlights a fundamental mismatch between the state-level legalization of medical marijuana and the lack of preparation of physicians-in-training to prescribe it. With even more states on the cusp of legalizing medical marijuana, physician training should adapt to encompass this new reality of medical practice.
Background and purpose: Phytocannabinoids are produced in Cannabis sativa L. in acidic form and are decarboxylated upon heating, processing, and storage. While the biological effects of decarboxylated cannabinoids such as Δ(9) -tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ(9) -THC) have been extensively investigated, the bioactivity of Δ(9) -THCA is largely unknown, despite its occurrence in different Cannabis preparations. The aim of this study was to determine whether Δ(9) -THCA modulates the PPARγ pathway and has neuroprotective activity EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: The effects of six phytocannabinoids on PPARγ binding and transcriptional activity were investigated. The effect of Δ(9) -THCA on mitochondrial biogenesis and PGC-1α expression was investigated in N2a cells. The neuroprotective effect was analysed in STHdh(Q111/Q111) cells expressing a mutated form of the huntingtin protein, and in N2a cells infected with an adenovirus carrying human huntingtin containing 94 polyQ repeats (mHtt-q94). In vivo neuroprotective activity of Δ(9) -THCA was investigated in mice intoxicated with the mitochondrial toxin 3-nitropropionic acid (3-NP). Key results: Cannabinoid acids bind and activate PPARγ with higher potency than their decarboxylated products. Δ(9) -THCA increases mitochondrial mass in neuroblastoma N2a cells, and prevents cytotoxicity induced by serum deprivation in STHdh(Q111/Q111) cells and by mutHtt-q94 in N2a cells. Δ(9) -THCA, through a PPARγ-dependent pathway, was neuroprotectant in mice intoxicated with 3-NP, improving motor deficits and preventing striatal degeneration. In addition, Δ(9) -THCA attenuated microgliosis, astrogliosis and the upregulation of proinflammatory markers induced by 3-NP. Conclusion and implications: Δ(9) -THCA shows potent neuroprotective activity, worth consideration for the treatment of Huntington´s Disease and possibly other neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory diseases.
Background The Dravet syndrome is a complex childhood epilepsy disorder that is associated with drug-resistant seizures and a high mortality rate. We studied cannabidiol for the treatment of drug-resistant seizures in the Dravet syndrome. Methods In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 120 children and young adults with the Dravet syndrome and drug-resistant seizures to receive either cannabidiol oral solution at a dose of 20 mg per kilogram of body weight per day or placebo, in addition to standard antiepileptic treatment. The primary end point was the change in convulsive-seizure frequency over a 14-week treatment period, as compared with a 4-week baseline period. Results The median frequency of convulsive seizures per month decreased from 12.4 to 5.9 with cannabidiol, as compared with a decrease from 14.9 to 14.1 with placebo (adjusted median difference between the cannabidiol group and the placebo group in change in seizure frequency, −22.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −41.1 to −5.4; P=0.01). The percentage of patients who had at least a 50% reduction in convulsive-seizure frequency was 43% with cannabidiol and 27% with placebo (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 0.93 to 4.30; P=0.08). The patient’s overall condition improved by at least one category on the seven-category Caregiver Global Impression of Change scale in 62% of the cannabidiol group as compared with 34% of the placebo group (P=0.02). The frequency of total seizures of all types was significantly reduced with cannabidiol (P=0.03), but there was no significant reduction in nonconvulsive seizures. The percentage of patients who became seizure-free was 5% with cannabidiol and 0% with placebo (P=0.08). Adverse events that occurred more frequently in the cannabidiol group than in the placebo group included diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, pyrexia, somnolence, and abnormal results on liver-function tests. There were more withdrawals from the trial in the cannabidiol group. Conclusions Among patients with the Dravet syndrome, cannabidiol resulted in a greater reduction in convulsive-seizure frequency than placebo and was associated with higher rates of adverse events. (Funded by GW Pharmaceuticals; number, NCT02091375.)
In the past twenty years, twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have passed some form of medical marijuana law. Using quarterly data on all fee-for-service Medicaid prescriptions in the period 2007-14, we tested the association between those laws and the average number of prescriptions filled by Medicaid beneficiaries. We found that the use of prescription drugs in fee-for-service Medicaid was lower in states with medical marijuana laws than in states without such laws in five of the nine broad clinical areas we studied. If all states had had a medical marijuana law in 2014, we estimated that total savings for fee-for-service Medicaid could have been $1.01 billion. These results are similar to those in a previous study we conducted, regarding the effects of medical marijuana laws on the number of prescriptions within the Medicare population. Together, the studies suggest that in states with such laws, Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries will fill fewer prescriptions.