Mary-Ann Fitzcharles’s research while affiliated with McGill University Health Centre and other places

Objective There are numerous reports of people substituting medical cannabis (MC) for medications. Our obejctive was to investigate the degree to which this substitution occurs among people with rheumatic conditions. Methods In a secondary analysis from a cross‐sectional survey conducted with patient advocacy groups in the US and Canada, we investigated MC use and medication substitution among people with rheumatic conditions. We subgrouped by whether participants substituted MC for medications and investigated differences in perceived symptom changes and use patterns, including methods of ingestion, cannabinoid content (cannabidiol vs delta‐9‐tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]), and use frequency. Results Among 763 participants, 62.5% reported substituting MC products for medications, including nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (54.7%), opioids (48.6%), sleep aids (29.6%), and muscle relaxants (25.2%). Following substitution, most participants reported decreases or cessation in medication use. The primary reasons for substitution were fewer adverse effects, better symptom management, and concerns about withdrawal symptoms. Substitution was associated with THC use and significantly higher symptom improvements (including pain, sleep, anxiety, and joint stiffness) than nonsubstitution, and a higher proportion of substitutors used inhalation routes than those who did not. Conclusion Although the determination of causality is limited by our cross‐sectional design, these findings suggest that an appreciable number of people with rheumatic diseases substitute medications with MC for symptom management. Inhalation of MC products containing some THC was most commonly identified among those substituting, and disease characteristics did not differ by substitution status. Further study is needed to better understand the role of MC for symptom management in rheumatic conditions.

Purpose of Review Medical cannabis (MC) has entered mainstream medicine by a unique route. Regulatory acceptance as a medical product in many jurisdictions has bypassed the traditional evidence-based pathway required for therapies. Easier access to MC, especially related to recreational legalization of cannabis, has led to widespread use by patients for symptom relief of a variety of medical conditions and often without medical oversight. Musculoskeletal pain remains the most common reason for MC use. This review examines real-world issues pertaining to MC and offers some guidance for clinical care of patients with rheumatic diseases being treated with MC. Recent Findings Controlled clinical studies of cannabis products in patients with rheumatic diseases have been small and tested a range of compounds, routes of administration, and clinical populations, limiting our ability to generate conclusions on MC’s effectiveness in this population. Observational cohort studies and surveys suggest that use of MC and related products in patients with rheumatic diseases improves pain and associated symptoms but is commonly accompanied by mild to moderate side effects. Conflicting evidence contributes to practitioner and patient uncertainty regarding the use of MC for rheumatic disease-related pain. Summary Despite promising preclinical and observational evidence that MC and cannabis-derived compounds are useful in the management of rheumatic disease-related pain, there remains limited high-quality clinical evidence to substantiate these findings. There are a significant number of clinical trials on this topic currently planned or underway, however, suggesting the next decade may yield more clarity. Nevertheless, given that many people with rheumatic diseases are using cannabis products, healthcare professionals must remain apprised of the evidence pertaining to cannabinoids, communicate such evidence to patients in a meaningful way that is free from personal bias and stigma, and maintain strong collaborative clinical care pertaining to MC.

Background The diagnosis, etiology, and optimal management of fibromyalgia remains contentious. This uncertainty may result in variability in clinical management. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies examining physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding fibromyalgia. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed from inception to February 2023 for cross-sectional surveys evaluating physicians’ attitudes toward, and management of, fibromyalgia. Pairs of independent reviewers conducted article screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We used random-effects meta-analysis to pool proportions for items reported by more than one study and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to summarize the certainty of evidence. Results Of 864 citations, 21 studies (8904 participants) were eligible for review. Most physicians endorsed fibromyalgia as a distinct clinical entity (84%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74–92), and half (51%; 95% CI, 40–62) considered fibromyalgia a psychosocial condition. Knowledge of formal diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia was more likely among rheumatologists (69%, 95% CI, 45–89) versus general practitioners (38%, 95% CI, 24–54) ( P = .04). Symptom relief was endorsed as the primary management goal by most physicians (73%, 95% CI, 52–90). Exercise, physiotherapy, antidepressants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and non-opioid analgesics were most endorsed for management of fibromyalgia, but with wide variability between surveys. Opioids and most complementary and alternative interventions (e.g., homeopathy, chiropractic, and massage) received limited endorsement. Conclusion There is moderate certainty evidence to suggest that physicians are divided regarding whether fibromyalgia is a biomedical or psychosocial disorder. Physicians typically prioritize symptom relief as the primary goal of management, and often endorse management with exercise, non-opioid analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antidepressants, and physiotherapy (moderate to high certainty evidence); however, important practice variation exists.

Synthetic cannabinoids are compounds made in the laboratory to structurally and functionally mimic phytocannabinoids from the Cannabis sativa L. plant, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) can signal via the classical endogenous cannabinoid system (ECS) and the greater endocannabidiome network, highlighting their signalling complexity and far-reaching effects. Dronabinol and nabilone, which mimic THC signalling, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy and/or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). However, there is ongoing interest in these two drugs as potential analgesics for a variety of other clinical conditions, including neuropathic pain, spasticity-related pain, and nociplastic pain syndromes including fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, and postoperative pain, among others. In this review, we highlight the signalling mechanisms of FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoids, discuss key clinical trials that investigate their analgesic potential, and illustrate challenges faced when bringing synthetic cannabinoids to the clinic.

Chronic pain in rheumatic diseases (RDs), a symptom often neglected, is prevalent and an important contributor to poor health and reduced quality of life. Various studies report that up to a third of patients with inflammatory RDs have persistent pain, often attributed to pain sensitization, even when the underlying disease is controlled.

Objective To assess the safety, immunogenicity and cellular responses following the Moderna Spikevax primary series in rheumatic disease. Methods We conducted a 12-month, prospective, non-randomised, open-label, comparative trial of adults with either rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n=131) on stable treatment; systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, n=23) on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF); other rheumatic diseases on prednisone ≥10 mg/day (n=8) or age-matched/sex-matched controls (healthy control, HC, n=58). Adverse events (AEs), humoral immune responses (immunogenicity: IgG positivity for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and its receptor binding domain, neutralising antibodies (NAbs)), cellular responses (ELISpot) and COVID-19 infection rates were assessed. Results Frequency of solicited self-reported AEs following vaccination was similar across groups (HC 90%, RA 86%, SLE 90%); among them, musculoskeletal AEs were more frequent in RA (HC 48% vs RA 66% (Δ95% CI CI 3 to 32.6)). Disease activity scores did not increase postvaccination. No vaccine-related serious AEs were reported. Postvaccination immunogenicity was reduced in RA and SLE (RA 90.2%, SLE 86.4%; for both, ΔCIs compared with HC excluded the null). Similarly, NAbs were reduced among patients (RA 82.6%, SLE 81.8%). In RA, age >65 (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.8) and rituximab treatment (OR 0.003, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.02) were negative predictors of immunogenicity. ELISpot was positive in 16/52 tested RA and 17/26 HC (ΔCI 11.2–53.3). During the study, 11 HC, 19 RA and 3 SLE patients self-reported COVID-infection. Conclusion In COVID-19 Vaccine in Immunosuppressed Adults with Autoimmune Diseases, the Moderna Spikevax primary series was safe. MMF, RA age >65 and rituximab were associated with reduced vaccine-induced protection.