Cannabidiol (CBD) in Rheumatic Diseases (Musculoskeletal Pain)

NSW cannabis medicines advisory service retrospective enquiry analysis to inform clinical guidance resource development

BACKGROUND

An innovative New South Wales government funded statewide Cannabis Medicines Advisory Service (CMAS) operated between January 2018 and June 2022. The service provided comprehensive patient-specific and evidence-based information to support health professionals in prescribing and patient care decisions. This study aimed to describe real-world data collected by CMAS.

METHODS

A sub-set of de-identified, patient-specific enquiries collected between January 2021 and June 2022 (n = 123/567; 21.7%) were analyzed using R version 4.2.1. Diagnosis, indication, and comorbidities were coded using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terminology.

RESULTS

Most patient-specific enquiries from medical practitioners were from general practitioners (n = 103/123; 83.7%). Female (n = 53/123; 43.1%) and male (n = 59/123; 48.0%) patients were similarly represented. Sex was not specified for 8.9% (n = 11/123) of patients. The mean age of patients was 52.1 years (range <10-90). The most common three diagnoses were osteoarthritis, anxiety, and chronic pain. Indications that were most frequently reported included chronic pain, anxiety, back pain, non-neuropathic pain, and insomnia. Comedications were most commonly non-opioid and opioid analgesics and antidepressants. Most practitioners were considering prescribing a cannabidiol (CBD) product for their patient. Cannabinoid composition selection guidance provided by CMAS was predominantly (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) THC:CBD ~1:1, followed by CBD-only products. CMAS was contacted by health professionals regarding the management of potential adverse events for five patients.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study shed light on the information medical practitioners were seeking to inform their clinical decision-making about medical cannabis and can inform the development of clinical guidance resources.

The Elusive Truth of Cannabinoids for Rheumatic Pain

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. 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.

Opioid and Cannabinoid Systems in Pain: Emerging Molecular Mechanisms and Use in Clinical Practice, Health, and Fitness

Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience. Adequate pain control is often challenging, particularly in patients with chronic pain. Despite advances in pain management, drug addiction, overtreatment, or substance use disorders are not rare. Hence the need for further studies in the field. The substantial progress made over the last decade has revealed genes, signalling pathways, molecules, and neuronal networks in pain control thus opening new clinical perspectives in pain management. In this respect, data on the epigenetic modulation of opioid and cannabinoid receptors, key actors in the modulation of pain, offered new perspectives to preserve the activity of opioid and endocannabinoid systems to increase the analgesic efficacy of opioid- and cannabinoid-based drugs. Similarly, upcoming data on cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive cannabinoid in the marijuana plant Cannabis sativa, suggests analgesic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anticonvulsivant and ansiolitic effects and supports its potential application in clinical contexts such as cancer, neurodegeneration, and autoimmune diseases but also in health and fitness with potential use in athletes. Hence, in this review article, we summarize the emerging epigenetic modifications of opioid and cannabinoid receptors and focus on CBD as an emerging non-psychoactive cannabinoid in pain management in clinical practice, health, and fitness.

Cannabinoid products for pain management: recommendations from the São Paulo State Society of Anesthesiology

There is growing interest in using cannabinoids across various clinical scenarios, including pain medicine, leading to the disregard of regulatory protocols in some countries. Legislation has been implemented in Brazil, specifically in the state of São Paulo, permitting the distribution of cannabinoid products by health authorities for clinical purposes, free of charge for patients, upon professional prescription. Thus, it is imperative to assess the existing evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these products in pain management. In light of this, the São Paulo State Society of Anesthesiology (SAESP) established a task force to conduct a narrative review on the topic using the Delphi method, requiring a minimum agreement of 60% among panelists. The study concluded that cannabinoid products could potentially serve as adjuncts in pain management but stressed the importance of judicious prescription. Nevertheless, this review advises against their use for acute pain and cancer-related pain. In other clinical scenarios, established treatments should take precedence, particularly when clinical protocols are available, such as in neuropathic pain. Only patients exhibiting poor therapeutic responses to established protocols or demonstrating intolerance to recommended management may be considered as potential candidates for cannabinoids, which should be prescribed by physicians experienced in handling these substances. Special attention should be given to individual patient characteristics and the likelihood of drug interactions.

Analgesic and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of 1% Topical Cannabidiol Gel in Animal Models

Introduction: Cannabidiol (CBD), a phytocannabinoid isolated from cannabis plants, is an interesting candidate for studying its anti-inflammatory effects, especially in the pre-clinical and animal models. Its anti-inflammatory effects, such as reduction of edema and arthritis, have been demonstrated in animal models. However, topical CBD administration requires further evaluation of CBD dosage and efficacy in animal models and clinical settings. Methods: This in vivo study investigated the anti-inflammatory effects of topical CBD administration in an animal model. Scientific experiments, including the formalin test, writhing test, carrageenan-induced edema, histopathological examination, and detection of various proinflammatory mediators, were performed. Results: The anti-inflammatory effects in vivo after inflammation induction, represented by decreased times of paw licking, degree of paw edema, and decreased writhing response, showed that 1% of tropical CBD use had significantly comparable or better anti-inflammatory effects when compared with tropical diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory agent. Moreover, the anti-inflammatory effects were significant compared with the placebo. In addition, the histopathological examination showed that topical CBD drastically reduced leukocyte infiltration and the degree of inflammation. This study also showed that the levels of various proinflammatory mediators in the plasma of mice treated with topical CBD did not differ from those treated with diclofenac. Conclusions: The topical administration of 1% CBD gel is a potentially effective candidate for an anti-inflammatory agent. Candidate for an anti-inflammatory agent.

Investigation of neuroprotective and therapeutic effects of cannabidiol in an acute coronary syndrome model

PURPOSE

The ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury seen in the heart can cause severe damage to essential organs such as the brain. Cannabidiol (CBD) obtained from Cannabis sativa is used today to treat various diseases. This study aimed to demonstrate CBD's neuroprotective and therapeutic properties in rats with brain damage caused by I/R in the heart.

MATERIALS

Rats were divided into four groups; sham, I/R, I/R + Prophylactic CBD, and I/R + Therapeutic CBD. End of the experiment, brain tissues were collected for biochemical, histopathological, and genetic examinations.

RESULTS

I/R damage increased the number of degenerative neurons, caspase-3 and TNF-α immunoexpression, total oxidant status levels, and oxidative stress index. Both prophylactic and therapeutic CBD administration reduced these increased values. In addition, the relative fold changes of AMPK, PGC-1α, SIRT1, and Bcl 2 decreased in the I/R group, and the relative fold change of Bax increased, which are indicators of ER stress and apoptosis. Both administrations of CBD reversed these genes' relative fold changes.

CONCLUSION

CBD can be protective against brain injury caused by cardiac I/R damage through antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-apoptotic mechanisms.

Medical Cannabis Use Among Canadian Veterans and Non-Veterans: A National Survey

Background

Medical cannabis (MC) is used by Canadian Veterans to manage a wide range of health issues. However, there is little information comparing the reasons for MC use and its perceived effectiveness between Veterans and non-Veterans.

Objects

We compared MC use among a convenience sample of Canadian Veterans and with non-Veteran controls, including demographics, reasons and patterns of use, and perceived effectiveness.

Methods

Between November and December 2021, Canadian Veterans using cannabis were invited to participate in a survey using a national press release, social media, and announcements on online platform dedicated to promoting health among Canadian Veterans and non-Veterans during the pandemic (www.MissionVav.com). The survey was also mentioned in a monthly newsletter from Veteran Affairs Canada. Self-reported effectiveness was evaluated using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (0 being not all effective, 10 being the most effective).

Results

The survey was completed by 157 people, including 108 (69%) males and 49 (31%) females. The mean age was 57 years (range 19 to 84). Among responders, 90 (63%) identified as Veterans. The most common reasons for MC use among Veterans included: insomnia (80%), anxiety (73%), and depression (52%). Veterans reported medical conditions such as chronic pain (88%) and arthritis (51%). Compared with non-Veterans, Veterans were significantly more likely to be male (83% vs. 49%), have a higher BMI (35.2 vs. 30.9), to report problems with sleep, anxiety, depression, and PTSD, and to use cannabis in edible form (51% vs. 22%). Self-reported mean effectiveness scores for MC were highest for PTSD (8.4), insomnia (8.2), anxiety (8.1), depression (8.0), and chronic pain (7.6).

Conclusions

We found important differences in user characteristics and cannabis use patterns between Canadian Veterans and non-Veterans. Further controlled studies are required to validate these findings, but these data suggest that orally administered cannabis products may be worth further study.

Medicinal Cannabis Use for Rheumatic Conditions in the US Versus Canada: Rationale for Use and Patient-Health Care Provider Interactions

OBJECTIVE

Understanding how medical cannabis (MC) use is integrated into medical practice for rheumatic disease management is essential. We characterized rationale for MC use, patient-physician interactions around MC, and MC use patterns among people with rheumatic conditions in the US and Canada.

METHODS

We surveyed 3406 participants with rheumatic conditions in the US and Canada, with 1727 completing the survey (50.7% response rate). We assessed disclosure of MC use to health care providers, MC authorization by health care providers, and MC use patterns and investigated factors associated with MC disclosure to health care providers in the US versus Canada.

RESULTS

Overall, 54.9% of US respondents and 78.0% of Canadians reported past or current MC use, typically because of inadequate symptom relief from other medications. Compared to those in Canada, fewer US participants obtained MC licenses, disclosed MC use to their health care providers, or asked advice on how to use MC (all P values <0.001). Overall, 47.4% of Canadian versus 28.2% of US participants rated their medical professionals as their most trusted information source. MC legality in state of residence was associated with 2.49 greater odds of disclosing MC use to health care providers (95% confidence interval: 1.49-4.16, P < 0.001) in the US, whereas there were no factors associated with MC disclosure in Canada. Our study is limited by our convenience sampling strategy and cross-sectional design.

CONCLUSION

Despite widespread availability, MC is poorly integrated into rheumatic disease care, with most patients self-directing use with minimal or no clinical oversight. Concerted efforts to integrate MC into education and clinical policy is critical.