"It's a big added stress on top of being so ill": The challenges facing people prescribed cannabis in the UK

BACKGROUND

This paper reports on the first qualitative study to interview people prescribed cannabis in the UK. Cannabis is a class B controlled substance under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs (MoD) Act, but a 2018 change to UK regulations provided for the prescription of cannabis for medical purposes. Relatively few people have been able to access a prescription, despite this policy change. This paper examines their experiences.

METHODS

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 people with a prescription for cannabis, or their carers. Data was analysed using a reflextive thematic analysis approach. The findings are discussed using a zemiology (social harms) perspective which provides a language for critical reflection on the current cannabis policy context.

RESULTS

All participants reported that cannabis had significantly improved their mental and/or physical health, across a broad range of conditions. Many had been able to reduce their use of conventional medicines and reported that cannabis had relatively few side effects. Despite the potentially life-enhancing benefits of cannabis medicine, patients in the UK face multiple barriers to access. These include a lack of funding streams, bureaucratic supply problems, and a lack of training for doctors and police. Even for the few people able to obtain a prescription, the ongoing criminalisation of cannabis in the UK contributed to their experiences of stigmatisation. This often made it difficult and anxiety-inducing to take their medicine in public spaces.

CONCLUSION

The UK government's lack of implementation of medical cannabis legalisation, combined with their ongoing prohibition position, is producing multiple harms to people who need cannabis medicine. The policy context is perpetuating stigmatising attitudes to cannabis which, as we demonstrate, contribute to social harms. We make recommendations on equality of patient access, and highlight the importance of education and policy change as means of combatting stigma.

Use of non-medical cannabis in epilepsy: A scoping review

Objective

The use of medical cannabis among people with epilepsy (PWE) has been garnering increasing interest. In this scoping review, we aimed to summarize the literature on recreational/non-medical cannabis (NMC) use in PWE, focusing on the experience, habits, and beliefs of PWE regarding NMC.

Methods

Four databases (OVID Medline, OVID Embase, Ovid APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science) were searched for studies describing NMC use in PWE. NMC was defined as cannabis products procured from sources other than by prescription. Studies that consisted in original research and that detailed the experience, habits, and/or beliefs of PWE regarding NMC use were included in the analysis. Data pertaining to study identification, demographics, NMC use, and epilepsy characteristics were extracted. Descriptive statistical analyses and reflexive thematic analyses were performed to map these data.

Results

In total, 3,228 records were screened, and 66 were included for analysis: 45 had mainly adult samples, whereas 21 had mainly pediatric samples. Most studies were published after 2010, originated from the USA, and were cross-sectional. The median number of PWE using cannabis in these studies was 24.5 (1-37,945). No studies showcased elderly PWE, and most had predominantly Caucasian samples. The lifetime prevalence of NMC use in PWE was variable, ranging between 0.69 and 76.8%. Factors frequently associated with NMC use in PWE were male sex, younger adult age, and lower education status. Children with epilepsy took NMC primarily for seizure control, using high CBD/THC ratios, and only orally. Adults with epilepsy took NMC for various reasons including recreationally, using variable CBD/THC ratios, and predominantly through smoking. The majority of PWE across all studies perceived that NMC aided in seizure control. Other aspects pertaining to NMC use in PWE were rarely reported and often conflicting.

Conclusion

The literature on NMC use in PWE is sparse and heterogeneous, with many salient knowledge gaps. Further research is necessary to better understanding the experience, habits, and beliefs of PWE pertaining to NMC.

The value of real world evidence: The case of medical cannabis

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have long been considered the gold standard of medical evidence. In relation to cannabis based medicinal products (CBMPs), this focus on RCTs has led to very restrictive guidelines in the UK, which are limiting patient access. There is general agreement that RCT evidence in relation to CBPMs is insufficient at present. As well as commercial reasons, a major problem is that RCTs do not lend themselves well to the study of whole plant medicines. One solution to this challenge is the use of real world evidence (RWE) with patient reported outcomes (PROs) to widen the evidence base. Such data increasingly highlights the positive impact medical cannabis can have on patients' lives. This paper outlines the value of this approach which involves the study of interventions and patients longitudinally under medical care. In relation to CBMPs, RWE has a broad range of advantages. These include the study of larger groups of patients, the use of a broader range and ratio of components of CBMPs, and the inclusion of more and rarer medical conditions. Importantly, and in contrast to RCTs, patients with significant comorbidities-and from a wider demographic profile-can also be studied, so providing higher ecological validity and increasing patient numbers, whilst offering significant cost savings. We conclude by outlining 12 key recommendations of the value of RWE in relation to medical cannabis. We hope that this paper will help policymakers and prescribers understand the importance of RWE in relation to medical cannabis and help them develop approaches to overcome the current situation which is detrimental to patients.

Cannabis and cannabidiol use among autistic and non-autistic adults in the UK: a propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether autistic and non-autistic adults differ in their cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) use, their perceptions of cannabinoid products and their cannabinoid-related support-seeking behaviours.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Respondents to an online survey, who self-reported an autism-spectrum disorder diagnosis (autistic participants) or no issues relating to autism (controls). Exclusion criteria were: related/subclinical issues relating to autism, non-UK residence, under 16 years old. Propensity score matching was used to match autistic participants and controls on age, gender and ethnicity. The full-sample analysis included 269 participants and the propensity-matched sample analysis included 166 participants. Propensity-matched analysis was used for primary analysis and was considered robust if supported by triangulation with full-sample analysis.

RESULTS

Autistic participants were more likely to have used CBD in the past 12 months compared with controls (OR=3.52, 95% CI 1.57 to 7.87, p=0.002). They used CBD on more days in the past 12 months (M=34, SD=93) compared with controls (M=17, SD=69, p=0.002). Autistic participants reported trusting the news and doctors less as sources of cannabinoid-related information than controls (p=0.024 and p=0.003, respectively). Autistic participants endorsed the following barriers to cannabinoid-related support seeking more than controls: 'worrying they won't understand me' (OR=3.25, 95% CI 1.67 to 6.33, p<0.001), 'going somewhere unfamiliar' (OR=5.29, 95% CI 2.62 to 10.67, p<0.001) and 'being in a crowded or chaotic place' (OR=9.79, 95% CI 4.18 to 22.89, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Results indicate a higher prevalence and frequency of CBD use, but not cannabis use, among autistic individuals compared with controls. Findings also suggest appropriate methods to disseminate cannabinoid-related support to autistic individuals, and indicate differences in the potential barriers autistic and non-autistic individuals may face when seeking cannabinoid-related support.

Medical cannabis for severe treatment resistant epilepsy in children: a case-series of 10 patients

Objectives

To report the findings of a case-series of 10 children suffering with intractable epilepsies in the UK to determine the feasibility for using whole-plant cannabis medicines to treat seizures in children.

Setting

This study was conducted retrospectively through collecting clinical data from caretakers and clinicians on study outcome variables. Participants were recruited through the MedCann Support and End our Pain charity groups which are patient representative groups that support children who are using medical cannabis to treat their epilepsies. Medicines were prescribed to patients by clinicians in both National Health Service and private medical practices. Follow-up calls were conducted throughout the period January 2021 to May 2021 to keep data recorded up to date.

Participants

Ten children, 18 years old or under, with intractable epilepsies were recruited from two charities. There were no limitations on diagnosis, sex or ethnic origin.

Interventions

Participants were treated with a range of whole-plant medical cannabis oils. Individual dosing regimens were determined by clinicians.

Primary outcome measure

The primary outcome measure was seizure frequency.

Results

Seizure frequency across all 10 participants reduced by 86% with no significant adverse events. Participants reduced use of antiepileptic drugs from an average of seven to one following treatment with medical cannabis. We also noted significant financial costs of £874 per month to obtain these medicines through private prescriptions.

Conclusions

This study establishes the feasibility of whole-plant medical cannabis as an effective and well-tolerated medicine for reducing seizure frequency in children suffering with intractable epilepsies. These findings justify the potential value of further research into the reported therapeutic benefit of whole-plant medicinal cannabis products.

Current controversies in medical cannabis: Recent developments in human clinical applications and potential therapeutics

Knowledge about the therapeutic potential of medical cannabis has greatly improved over the past decade, with an ever-increasing range of developments in human clinical applications. A growing body of scientific evidence supports the use of medical cannabis products for some therapeutic indications, whilst for others, the evidence base remains disputed. For this narrative review, we incorporate areas where the current evidence base is substantial, such as intractable childhood epilepsy and multiple sclerosis, as well as areas where the evidence is still controversial, such as PTSD and anxiety. We provide a high-level summary of current developments using findings from recent major reviews, as well as real world evidence (RWE), including global database registries and other patient reported outcomes (PROs). On the one hand, our strongest empirical data supports the use of cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) for conditions with relatively small patient numbers. Yet on the other hand, the conditions, where the highest patient numbers present, often have debatable clinical evidence but good RWE, incorporating PROs of 1000s of patients. The discord between PROs and the respective strength of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) highlights the urgent need for further research. The scientific literature examining the efficacy of medical cannabis for many conditions is still developing, whilst large numbers of patients globally have been successfully using medical cannabis to treat a broad range of conditions. We conclude on the importance of systematically developing RWE databases to supplement RCTs and to bridge the current evidence gaps.