[Cannabis medicines in pain management : Interim analysis of the survey accompanying the prescription of cannabis-based medicines in Germany with regard to pain as primarily treated symptom]

Patient Experiences With Prescription Cannabinoids in Germany: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Exploratory, and Anonymous Web-Based Survey

BACKGROUND

Medical cannabinoids are controversial. Their use is comparatively rare, but it is rising. Since 2017, cannabinoids can be prescribed in Germany for a broader range of indications. Patient surveys on these drugs are hampered by the stigmatization of cannabinoids and their (still) low prevalence in medical contexts. Against this background, patients' willingness to provide information is limited. Moreover, it is logistically challenging to reach them with a survey. A thorough knowledge of currently ongoing therapies and their effects and side effects, however, is important for a more appropriate and effective use of cannabinoids in the future.

OBJECTIVE

This study is an exploratory data collection using a representative sample. The main goal is to provide a detailed picture of the current use of medical cannabinoids in Germany. It is intended to identify subgroups that may benefit particularly well or poorly.

METHODS

We are conducting a representative, anonymous, cross-sectional, one-time, web-based survey based on mixed methods in 3 German federal states. Health conditions under cannabinoid therapy and before are documented with validated, symptom-specific questionnaires. This allows an estimation of the effect sizes of these therapies. The selection of parameters and questionnaires was based on the results of independent qualitative interviews in advance. Representative samples of the hard-to-reach study population are obtained by cluster sampling via contracted physicians of the statutory health insurance companies.

RESULTS

Recruitment was ongoing until the end of June 2022, with 256 enrolled participants. Validated questionnaires on pain, spasticity, anorexia or wasting, multiple sclerosis, nausea or vomiting, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were selected. Symptom scores are being assessed for both current conditions under cannabinoid therapy and conditions prior to this therapy (in retrospect). Validated questionnaires are also used for treatment satisfaction and general quality of life. These are supplemented by existing diagnoses, a detailed medication history, any previous experiences with cannabis or illegal substances, experiences with the prescription process, and sociodemographic data. Based on the results of the previous qualitative interviews, questions were added regarding prior experience with relaxation methods and psychotherapy, personal opinions about cannabinoids, pre-existing or symptom-related psychological trauma, and different experiences with different cannabis-based therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The exploratory mixed methods approach of this project is expected to provide valid and relevant data as a basis for future clinical research. The study design may be representative for a large proportion of outpatients treated with cannabinoids in the German federal states studied. It may have less bias toward social desirability and may provide valuable information in addition to existing studies. Due to the observational and cross-sectional nature of this study, various limitations apply. Causal relations cannot be drawn.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00023344; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00023344.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/38814.

Long-term and serious harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain: a systematic review of non-randomised studies

OBJECTIVE

To establish the prevalence of long-term and serious harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CENTRAL from inception to 1 April 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Non-randomised studies reporting on harms of medical cannabis or cannabinoids in adults or children living with chronic pain with ≥4 weeks of follow-up.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

A parallel guideline panel provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of adverse events for consideration. Two reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used random-effects models for all meta-analyses and the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We identified 39 eligible studies that enrolled 12 143 adult patients with chronic pain. Very low certainty evidence suggests that adverse events are common (prevalence: 26.0%; 95% CI 13.2% to 41.2%) among users of medical cannabis for chronic pain, particularly any psychiatric adverse events (prevalence: 13.5%; 95% CI 2.6% to 30.6%). Very low certainty evidence, however, indicates serious adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, cognitive adverse events, accidents and injuries, and dependence and withdrawal syndrome are less common and each typically occur in fewer than 1 in 20 patients. We compared studies with <24 weeks and ≥24 weeks of cannabis use and found more adverse events reported among studies with longer follow-up (test for interaction p<0.01). Palmitoylethanolamide was usually associated with few to no adverse events. We found insufficient evidence addressing the harms of medical cannabis compared with other pain management options, such as opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

There is very low certainty evidence that adverse events are common among people living with chronic pain who use medical cannabis or cannabinoids, but that few patients experience serious adverse events.

NSW Cannabis Medicines Advisory Service preliminary survey results - Enquirer perceptions and patient outcomes

Background

In 2018, an innovative, State government‐funded cannabis medicines drug information service was established for health professionals in New South Wales (NSW). The NSW Cannabis Medicines Advisory Service (CMAS) provides expert clinical guidance and support to medical practitioners considering prescribing a cannabis medicine to their patient(s).

Aims

This research examines quality assurance and patient outcomes related to enquirers' experience with NSW CMAS.

Methods

Data collection involved an online, anonymous survey with two components. Following a health professional enquiry, quality assurance data were collected about the enquirers' experience with NSW CMAS. The second survey focussed on patient outcomes and provides real‐world observational data about cannabis medicines safety and effectiveness across a wide range of indications.

Results

Data collection occurred between January 2020 and June 2021. Preliminary analyses were based on 68 quality assurance and 50 patient outcomes survey responses. General practitioners represented the highest proportion of survey responses (n = 33; 49%). The most common enquiry involved ‘patient‐specific advice’ (n = 50; 74%). Patient‐specific information provided by the service was mainly used for prescribing decision support (n = 45; 90%).

Conclusions

Preliminary findings highlight the impact of an innovative cannabis medicines drug information service in supporting health professional clinical practice in an area of rapid knowledge translation. Quality assurance data indicate that the service is perceived well by the majority of enquirers. Patient outcomes data across a wide range of indications suggest some effectiveness and a reasonable safety profile for prescribed cannabis medicines for most patients.

[Cannabis and cannabinoids for the treatment of acute and chronic pain]

Since the Act on the medical use of cannabis, at which cannabis-based medicines and cannabinoids became law, there has been an exponential increase in prescriptions for the acquisition of cannabis for medical purposes. The aim of this leading article is to compile and assess the currently available relevant clinical evidence for the use of cannabis and cannabinoids for treatment of acute and chronic pain. Based on the systematic literature review "Cannabis-Potential and risks (CAPRIS)" commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the recently published recommendations of the European Pain Federation EFIC, this article aims to give an orientation aid for the decision-making process in the clinical routine.

Evaluation of Patient Reported Safety and Efficacy of Cannabis From a Survey of Medical Cannabis Patients in Canada

With the medical use of cannabis permitted in Canada since 2001, patients seek to use this botanical drug to treat a range of medical conditions. However, many healthcare practitioners express the need for further scientific evidence around the use of medical cannabis. This real-world evidence study aimed to address the paucity of scientific data by surveying newly registered medical cannabis patients, before beginning medical cannabis treatment, and at one follow up 6 weeks after beginning medical cannabis treatment. The goal was to collect data on efficacy, safety and cannabis product type information to capture the potential impact medical cannabis had on patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and several medical conditions over a 6-week period using validated questionnaires. The 214 participants were mainly male (58%) and 57% of the population was older than 50. The most frequently reported medical conditions were recurrent pain, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, sleep disorders [including restless leg syndrome (RLS)], and arthritis and other rheumatic disorders. Here we report that over 60% of our medical cannabis cohort self-reported improvements in their medical conditions. With the use of validated surveys, we found significant improvements in recurrent pain, PTSD, and sleep disorders after 6 weeks of medical cannabis treatment. Our findings from patients who reported arthritis and other rheumatic disorders are complex, showing improvements in pain and global activity sub-scores, but not overall changes in validated survey scores. We also report that patients who stated anxiety as their main medical condition did not experience significant changes in their anxiety after 6 weeks of cannabis treatment, though there were QOL improvements. While these results show that patients find cannabis treatment effective for a broad range of medical conditions, cannabis was not a remedy for all the conditions investigated. Thus, there is a need for future clinical research to support the findings we have reported. Additionally, while real-world evidence has not historically been utilized by regulatory bodies, we suggest changes in public policy surrounding cannabis should occur to reflect patient reported efficacy of cannabis from real-world studies due to the uniqueness of medical cannabis's path to legalization.

[Cannabis as Medicine: Safe Use of Special Regulations]

In 2017, the legislator created a special regulation for medical cannabis in Germany. Medical cannabis can also be prescribed without marketing authorization at the expense of the statutory health insurance, if other forms of therapy are not sufficiently effective. Before starting therapy with a cannabis medicine outside of approved indications, an application for reimbursement must be submitted to the health insurance company. Cannabis medicines are mainly prescribed for the treatment of chronic pain. There are some rules to be observed when prescribing cannabis medicines: The information according to Section 9 of the Narcotic Drugs Prescription Ordinance must be complete and clear. Data on the therapeutic success and the safe use of the cannabis medicines are collected in a five-year follow-up survey. According to first interim results of this survey, many side effects have an influence on the vigilance of patients. The risk of falling is increased, especially in older patients. In the medium term, the special regulation described above should become dispensable due to the approval of cannabis-based finished medicinal products.

[Three years of cannabis as medicine-preliminary results of the survey accompanying the prescription of medical cannabis in Germany]

In Deutschland sind Ärztinnen und Ärzte, die Cannabisarzneimittel zulasten der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung verschreiben, verpflichtet, an einer bis zum 31.03.2022 laufenden nichtinterventionellen Begleiterhebung zur Anwendung dieser Cannabisarzneimittel teilzunehmen.

Zum Zeitpunkt der Zwischenauswertung am 11.05.2020 lagen 10.010 vollständige Datensätze vor. Am häufigsten wurden Schmerzen (73 %) als primär therapierte Symptomatik genannt, gefolgt von Spastik (10 %) sowie Anorexie/Wasting (6 %). Verordnet wurden in 65 % der Fälle Dronabinol (z. B. als Rezeptur oder Marinol® [AbbVie, IL, USA]), in 18 % Cannabisblüten, in 13 % Sativex® (GW Pharma, Cambridge, UK), in 0,3 % Nabilon (z. B. Canemes® [AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG, Wien, Österreich]) und in 4 % (mit zunehmender Tendenz) Cannabisextrakt. Die Fallzahl von 6485 Fällen erlaubt bei Dronabinol bereits die Auswertung von Subgruppen hinsichtlich der therapeutischen Wirksamkeit. Für Cannabis typische Nebenwirkungen, wie Müdigkeit, Schwindel, Schläfrigkeit, Übelkeit und Mundtrockenheit, traten bei der Verwendung aller Cannabisarzneimittel auf und sind bereits aus den Fachinformationen der cannabisbasierten Fertigarzneimittel bekannt. Potenziell schwerwiegende Nebenwirkungen wie Depression, Suizidgedanken, Wahnvorstellungen, Halluzinationen, Dissoziation und Sinnestäuschungen sind in jeweils mehr als einem von 1000 Fällen gemeldet worden.

Mit Cannabisblüten behandelte Personen sind deutlich jünger und weisen einen erheblich höheren Männeranteil auf. Sie werden häufiger hausärztlich behandelt (Allgemeinmedizin, innere Medizin), weichen häufiger von den üblicherweise behandelten Diagnosen (Schmerz, Spastik und Anorexie/Wasting) ab und verfügen über mehr Vorerfahrungen mit Cannabis. Das in der Begleiterhebung bestehende Underreporting betrifft diese Fallgruppe am stärksten.

Translational hurdles with cannabis medicines

PURPOSE

Internationally, there has been widespread medical use of cannabis medicines before rigorous evaluations in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Some advocates of medicinal use of cannabis argue that real-world evidence (RWE) can be a substitute for or at least supplement evidence from RCTs. We explore the utility, limitations and impact of RWE in the translation of cannabis medicines research into clinical practice using the established literature.

METHODS

A literature search was performed via Embase and Medline using a diverse range of cannabinoid and RWE search terms. The review provides a snapshot of cannabis medicine RWE initiatives from around the world.

RESULTS

Diverse and novel sources of real-world data and RWE include international cannabis registries, surveys, post-marketing data collection and use of electronic or digital health records. The strengths and limitations of using RWE in translational research are highlighted, along with the identification of barriers to RCTs involving cannabis medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

RWE promises to play a significant role in the evaluation of cannabis medicines around the world. When used appropriately RWE may complement RCT data by providing valuable insights into cannabis medicine safety and effectiveness.

TAKE HOME MESSAGES

It is important that real-world evidence (RWE) is used to complement rather than replace randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence on cannabis medicines. Technological advances have created the opportunity to explore diverse and novel sources of cannabis medicine RWE. Although RWE may be more reflective of real-world clinical practice, it cannot provide conclusive evidence of the safety and efficacy of cannabis medicines. While acknowledging its limitations, RWE may nonetheless provide some guidance on safety and adverse events of cannabis medicines. RWE has already had a significant impact on the regulation of cannabis medicines.

[Position paper on medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines in pain medicine]

Since March 2017, the prescription of medical cannabis at the expense of the statutory health insurance is possible after approval by the respective medical services. Chronic pain is the most common indication, as health claims data and the accompanying survey show. From the point of view of the law, a prescription is indicated in cases of serious illness, missing or not indicated established therapeutic approaches and a not entirely remote prospect of improvement of the illness or its symptoms. This describes a broader indication spectrum than can currently be based on randomised controlled clinical trials. There is weak evidence of low efficacy for neuropathic pain. For pain related to spasticity and cancer-related pain there is evidence of improvements in quality of life, but effects on pain are of little relevance. For all other indications, only an individual therapeutic trial can be justified based on the available external evidence. However, this usually corresponds to the demand of "a not entirely remote prospect" of a noticeably positive effect of medical cannabis. It is also problematic that almost no long-term studies for the application and efficacy of flowers and extracts are available.Current knowledge on the use of cannabis-based drugs and, more clearly, medical cannabis for chronic pain is insufficient. The increase in the number of countries with marketing authorisations or exemptions for medicinal cannabis or cannabis-based drugs for chronic pain will also pave the way for larger empirical and population-based studies that will further improve the evidence base of research and clinical use.