Availability of medical cannabis services by racial, social, and geographic characteristics of neighborhoods in New York: a cross-sectional study

Contextualizing drug use and pharmacological harm in the United States: a socio-historical overview

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to navigate through the socio-historical modulations in American tolerance for different psychoactive substances, and propose a theoretical synthesis formed by two vanguard philosophical doctrines, objectivism, and constructivism. Our approach is grounded on the analysis of social historical context and objective harms that have influenced drug use tolerance in the United States based on key historical events such as: heavy drinking at the dawn of nineteenth century, the establishment and repeal of prohibition, late nineteenth century opiate and cocaine tolerance followed by early twentieth century prohibition, post-prohibition drug concerns such as marijuana prohibition in the 1930s, heroin concerns and medical depressant use in the 1950s, poly-drug use in the 1960s, crack cocaine use in the 1980s, and finally modulations in tolerance for peyote use. Evidence supports the notion of drug harms reduction for the privileged, and criminalization of drug use by marginalized groups. Over long spans of history, however, more objectively harmful drugs are rejected, while drugs that can be used regularly without serous dysfunction are tolerated and normalized. We argue that a framework of social status and pharmacological harm can account for the vacillating policy responses that have emerged to different drugs at different times. Our approach informs the role of socio-cultural conflict in drug policy development and infuse the need for empirical research on the effect of socioeconomic positioning on attitudes of medicalization and legalization of marijuana and opioid policy in contemporary America.

Chronic Disease Symptoms Self-Managed by Cannabis During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results from the COVID-19 Cannabis Health Study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted billions of people worldwide, particularly those with chronic health conditions, and has been associated with increases in substance use, including cannabis. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of cannabis use for symptom management of chronic health conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The COVID-19 Cannabis Health Study is an ongoing study among adults ≥18 who self-report cannabis use. Analyses included 1,466 responses received between March 21, 2020, and March 23, 2022, from participants who self-reported cannabis use and a chronic health condition. We examined comorbidities, symptoms managed with cannabis during the COVID-19 pandemic, and fear regarding COVID-19 diagnosis and transmission using the COVID-19 Cannabis Health Questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, Chi-squared, and T-tests were conducted. Results were stratified by those who reported using cannabis to manage a chronic health condition (medicinal cannabis user, n = 1,333) and those who did not use cannabis to manage chronic health condition (non-medicinal cannabis user, n = 133). Results: Most (90.9%, n = 1,333) of the total sample (mean age: 47.1 years [standard deviations {SD} = 15.0]) reported using cannabis to manage a chronic health condition, of which 46.1% (n = 615) reported having a medical card/recommendation, and 4.6% received recommendations to use cannabis to manage COVID-19 from health professionals. There were significant differences in age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education by medicinal cannabis use status. Comorbidities prevalent among medicinal cannabis consumers were mental health-related (66.1%), pain (58.5%), cardiometabolic-related (30.5%), immune-related (21.9%), and respiratory-related (20.8%). The most reported symptoms self-managed with cannabis during the pandemic were sleep (69.2%), chronic noncancer pain (49.7%), acute pain (46.5%), headaches/migraines (39.0%), muscle spasms (33.6%), nausea/vomiting (30.6%), and appetite stimulant (29.9%). There were no statistical differences in COVID-19 testing, fear of diagnosis, fear of transmission, or isolation due to COVID-19 between medicinal and nonmedicinal cannabis consumers in this sample. Conclusions: The perceived therapeutic benefit of cannabis during the COVID-19 pandemic is evident by the high prevalence of adults who reported using cannabis for medicinal reasons despite no recommendation from their health provider. Research is necessary to understand the prospective impact of cannabis use for self-management of chronic disease, especially within the context of COVID-19.

Ask the experts: Community Engagement studios to inform research on cannabis use in cancer symptom management

Aim

Despite one-third of patients with cancer using cannabis for symptom management, little is known about their access to and usage of cannabis. Community Engagement (CE) studios involving community experts with chronic health conditions were used to inform a qualitative study on access to and use of cannabis products among patients with cancer.

Method

We conducted two 2-hour CE studios with residents from Western NY (WNY) (N = 18). Our sample primarily included White and Black residents (56% vs. 39%). After a researcher-led 10-minute presentation, a community facilitator led the discussion, which focused on questions about challenges to cannabis use, recommendations for providers when discussing cannabis with patients, and community factors influencing use.

Results

Community experts reported that state legalization of cannabis made it easier to access cannabis, but the costs of cannabis and distance to dispensaries hindered their ability to obtain it. Discrimination was also a key barrier to medical cannabis receipt. There were differences in the perceived safety of where to obtain cannabis (dispensaries vs. friends). Community experts wanted providers to be more informed and less biased about recommending cannabis. Community experts recommended conducting focus groups for the subsequent study to ask questions about cannabis use.

Conclusion

The CE studios encouraged us to switch formats from qualitative interviews to focus groups and provided guidance on question topics for the subsequent study. Incorporating community expert's feedback through CE studios is an effective strategy to design more impactful studies.

Patient-provider communication about the use of medical cannabis for cancer symptoms: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

There has been limited study regarding patient-provider communication about medical cannabis for cancer symptom management. To address this gap, this study assesses the determinants and prevalence of patient-provider communication about the use of medical cannabis for cancer symptoms at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.

METHODS

Individuals who completed cancer treatment from July 2017 to December 2019 were invited to participate in a survey regarding medical cannabis. An electronic survey was administered in English and Spanish from August to November 2021 and completed by 1592 individuals (response rate = 17.6%).

RESULTS

About one-third (33.5%) of participants reported discussing medical cannabis for cancer symptom management with a health-care provider. Controlling for other factors, individuals with malnutrition and/or cachexia had higher odds (odds ratio [OR] = 2.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.50 to 3.53) of reporting patient-provider discussions compared with individuals without malnutrition and/or cachexia. Similarly, individuals with nausea had higher odds (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.44 to 2.61) of reporting patient-provider discussions compared with individuals without nausea. A smaller percentage (15.6%) of participants reported receiving a recommendation for medical cannabis for cancer symptom management. Among individuals who reported using cannabis, a little over one-third (36.1%) reported not receiving instructions from anyone on how to use cannabis or determine how much to take.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our study suggests that patient-provider communication about medical cannabis for cancer symptom management is limited. As interest and use of medical cannabis continues to grow among cancer patients, there is a need to ensure patients have access to high quality patient-provider communication.

Medical Cannabis Patients Under the Age of 21 in the United States: Description of Demographics and Conditions from a Large Patient Database, 2019-2023

Introduction

Existing research on medical cannabis patients has often overlooked those younger than 21. This study aimed to detail the frequency and rate of pediatric medical cannabis patients in the US using a large patient database.

Methods

Utilizing Leafwell Patient Database data from 2019 to mid-2023, we described demographics and qualifying conditions, employing descriptive statistics and χ2 tests to discern differences between minors (0-17 years) and young adults (18-20 years). We calculated rates per 100,000 population by state.

Results

Analyzing 13,855 patients, 5.7% were minors and 94.3% were young adults. Anxiety emerged as the primary self-reported condition for both groups, yet differences were seen for other conditions. Differences were observed by race/ethnicity, health insurance status, residency in adult-use states, and number of reported conditions. Notably, both groups reported a similar average number of conditions.

Conclusion

This study underscores demographic distinctions between minor-aged medical cannabis patients and young adults. There is a need for comprehensive clinical research addressing efficacy, safety, and tailored guidelines specific for pediatric medical cannabis patients. Such insights are pivotal for healthcare providers and policymakers in navigating medical cannabis treatment protocols.

Potential role of cannabis in ameliorating observed racialized disparities in cancer pain management

Cancer-related pain affects a large proportion of all patients with cancer yet remains inadequately managed, particularly among patients from certain racialized backgrounds. Recently, there has been increased research and clinical interest in the use of medical cannabis for cancer pain management, including its potential to ameliorate race-based disparities in cancer pain control. Although medical cannabis is not currently a US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment option for cancer-related pain, many oncologists discuss and recommend its use with their patients, underscoring the need for researchers and clinicians to proactively identify barriers to cannabis for cancer pain management that may disproportionately affect patients from certain racial groups. In this commentary, we highlight challenges that patients from racialized backgrounds may face when incorporating cannabis into their palliative care regimens and discuss opportunities for researchers and clinicians to address these challenges should medical cannabis become a recommended treatment option for cancer pain management. In particular, we identify challenges at the structural (eg, lack of insurance coverage), clinician (eg, racialized stereotypes regarding addiction and pain), and individual (eg, internalized stigma) levels and emphasize the importance of multilevel approaches in combating these challenges as the evidence base regarding medical cannabis and its potential harms and therapeutic benefits continues to accumulate.

Factors Associated with Medical Cannabis Use After Certification: A Three-Month Longitudinal Study

Background: Over the past decade, there has been increased utilization of medical cannabis (MC) in the United States. Few studies have described sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with MC use after certification and more specifically, factors associated with use of MC products with different cannabinoid profiles. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of adults (N=225) with chronic or severe pain on opioids who were newly certified for MC in New York State and enrolled in the study between November 2018 and January 2022. We collected data over participants' first 3 months in the study, from web-based assessment of MC use every 2 weeks (unit of analysis). We used generalized estimating equation models to examine associations of sociodemographic and clinical factors with (1) MC use (vs. no MC use) and (2) use of MC products with different cannabinoid profiles. Results: On average, 29% of the participants used predominantly high delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) MC products within the first 3 months of follow-up, 30% used other MC products, and 41% did not use MC products. Non-Hispanic White race, pain at multiple sites, and past 30-day sedative use were associated with a higher likelihood of MC use (vs. no MC use). Current tobacco use, unregulated cannabis use, and enrollment in the study during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a lower likelihood of MC use (vs. no MC use). Among participants reporting MC use, female gender and older age were associated with a lower likelihood of using predominantly high-THC MC products (vs. other MC products). Conclusion: White individuals were more likely to use MC after certification, which may be owing to access and cost issues. The findings that sedative use was associated with greater MC use, but tobacco and unregulated cannabis were associated with less MC use, may imply synergism and substitution that warrant further research. From the policy perspective, additional measures are needed to ensure equitable availability of and access to MC. Health practitioners should check patients' history and current use of sedative, tobacco, and unregulated cannabis before providing an MC recommendation and counsel patients on safe cannabis use. clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03268551).

Effects of Medical Cannabis Certification on Hospital Use by Individuals with Sickle Cell Disease

Context: Retrospective study of 36 individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD) certified for medical cannabis. Objective: We sought to examine whether medical cannabis certification was associated with a change in utilization of acute care medical services for patients with SCD. Methods: We identified patients with SCD certified for medical cannabis use between July 2014 and December 2021 using the New York State Prescription Monitoring Program (NYS PMP) and cross-matching to our electronic medical record. We estimated the mean incidences of Emergency Department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, inpatient days, and total acute encounters for SCD-related pain per month pre- and post-medical cannabis certification and used paired t-tests to assess the statistical significance of changes in hospital use. We stratified incidence based on whether patients had received a bone marrow transplant (BMT) at any point before or during the research period, since BMT is potentially an important covariate. Recertification rates and patients' reasons for choosing to recertify were qualitatively investigated through retrospective chart review. Results: The incidence of ED visits, hospital admissions, and total acute encounters per month for SCD-related pain decreased pre- to post-certification (p=0.02; p=0.02; p=0.01). These decreases lost statistical significance after stratifying patients based on BMT history. There was no statistically significant change in the number of days per month patients spent hospitalized in either the primary analysis or after stratification by BMT status. Forty-four percent of patients chose to be recertified. Thirty-six percent of patients cited concerns regarding the cost of medical cannabis. Conclusion: Our study did not show a statistically significant relationship between certification for medical cannabis and hospital use after addressing BMT history as a potentially important covariate. However, we were likely underpowered to detect any existing difference after patient data were stratified due to our small sample size. Regardless, 44% of patients chose to be recertified, indicating a perceived benefit and utility in further investigation of medical cannabis for this population with a larger analytic sample. Patient-reported benefits were improvement of pain and other symptoms, decreased opiate requirements, and decreased side effects compared to opiates.

State licenses for medical marijuana dispensaries: neighborhood-level determinants of applicant quality in Missouri

BACKGROUND

When state governments impose quotas on commercial marijuana licenses, regulatory commissions use an application process to assess the feasibility of prospective businesses. Decisions on license applications are often met with formal appeals and legal challenges from rejected applicants. Although prior research has examined substate disparities in the availability of marijuana dispensaries, less attention has been given to the quality of license applications. The present study analyzed the relationship between neighborhood-level characteristics and the quality of prospective dispensary businesses.

METHODS

During Missouri's first applicant pool for medical marijuana dispensaries in 2019, a total of 606 census tracts contained the location site of at least one dispensary applicant. Using data from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services and the American Community Survey, fractional and binary logistic regression models were used to estimate the relationship between census-tract characteristics and application outcomes.

RESULTS

License applications received higher evaluation scores when proposed dispensary sites were in census tracts with greater population densities and no majority in racial/ethnic composition. Census tracts with poorer socioeconomic conditions attracted a disproportionate share of low-scoring applicants from the bottom quartile of scores. These effects were stronger for certain application subsections, particularly those assessing the quality of an applicant's business plan and on-site security.

CONCLUSIONS

Some communities tend to attract prospective license holders who possess better quality resources, business practices, and industry experience. State disparities in commercial licensing requirements and application processes may lead to the inequities in legal product access found in some prior studies.

Available but inaccessible: patient experiences during the first 2 years of a primary care-based medical cannabis program at an academic medical center

BACKGROUND

Medical cannabis use and public acceptance in the United States have increased over the past 25 years. However, access to medical cannabis remains limited, particularly for underserved populations. To understand how patients experience medical cannabis accessibility, we measured medical cannabis use and barriers to use after medical cannabis certification in an urban safety-net academic medical center.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients seen in Montefiore's Medical Cannabis Program (MMCP) from 2017 to 2019. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, as well purchase history of medical cannabis, were extracted from electronic medical records. We also administered a phone questionnaire to a subset of patients to assess usage patterns, effectiveness, and barriers to medical cannabis use.

RESULTS

Among 562 patients who were newly certified for medical cannabis between 2017 and 2019, 45% purchased medical cannabis, while 55% did not. Patients who purchased medical cannabis were more likely to be white and have private insurance or Medicare. Unregulated cannabis use and current tobacco use were less common among those who purchased medical cannabis. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, unregulated cannabis use remained negatively associated with purchasing medical cannabis. Patients reported that affordability and dispensary accessibility were their main barriers to purchasing medical cannabis.

CONCLUSION

Among patients certified for medical cannabis use, fewer than half purchased medical cannabis after certification. Improving access to medical cannabis is crucial for ensuring equitable access to regulated cannabis, and to reducing unregulated cannabis use.

Dispensaries and Medical Marijuana Certifications and Indications: Unveiling the Geographic Connections in Pennsylvania, USA

Introduction

Pennsylvania opened its first medical marijuana (MMJ) dispensary in 2018. Qualifying conditions include six conditions determined to have no or insufficient evidence to support or refute MMJ effectiveness. We conducted a study to describe MMJ dispensary access in Pennsylvania and to determine whether dispensary proximity was associated with MMJ certifications and community demographics.

Methods

Using data from the Pennsylvania Department of Health, we geocoded MMJ dispensary locations and linked them to US Census Bureau data. We created dispensary access measures from the population-weighted centroid of Zip Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs): distance to nearest dispensary and density of dispensaries within a 15-min drive. We evaluated associations between dispensary access and the proportion of adults who received MMJ certification and the proportion of certifications for low evidence conditions (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, epilepsy, glaucoma, Huntington's disease, opioid use disorder, and Parkinson's disease) using negative binomial modeling, adjusting for community features. To evaluate associations racial and ethnic composition of communities and distance to nearest dispensary, we used logistic regression to estimate the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusting for median income.

Results

Distance and density of MMJ dispensaries were associated with the proportion of the ZCTA population certified and the proportion of certifications for insufficient evidence conditions. Compared to ZCTAs with no dispensary within 15 min, the proportion of adults certified increased by up to 31% and the proportion of certifications for insufficient evidence decreased by up to 22% for ZCTAs with two dispensaries. From 2018 to 2021, the odds of being within five miles of a dispensary was up to 20 times higher in ZCTAs with the highest proportions of individuals who were not White (2019: OR: 20.14, CI: 10.7-37.8) and more than double in ZCTAs with the highest proportion of Hispanic individuals (2018: OR: 2.81, CI: 1.51-5.24), compared to ZCTAs with the lowest proportions.

Conclusions

Greater dispensary access was associated with the proportions of certified residents and certifications for low evidence conditions. Whether these patterns are due to differences in accessibility or demand is unknown. Associations between community demographics and dispensary proximity may indicate MMJ access differences.

"It doesn't make any sense to even try": the disruptive impact of COVID-19's first wave on people with chronic pain using medical cannabis in New York

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care but it is unknown how it impacted the lives of people using medical cannabis for chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the experiences of individuals from the Bronx, NY, who had chronic pain and were certified to use medical cannabis during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted 1:1 semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews from March through May 2020 with a convenience sample of 14 individuals enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study. We purposively recruited participants with both frequent and infrequent patterns of cannabis use. Interviews addressed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily life, symptoms, medical cannabis purchase, and use. We conducted a thematic analysis, with a codebook approach, to identify and describe prominent themes.

RESULTS

Participants' median age was 49 years, nine were female, four were Hispanic, four were non-Hispanic White, and four were non-Hispanic Black. We identified three themes: (1) disrupted access to health services, (2) disrupted access to medical cannabis due to the pandemic, and (3) mixed impact of chronic pain on social isolation and mental health. Due to increased barriers to health care in general and to medical cannabis specifically, participants reduced medical cannabis use, stopped use, or substituted medical cannabis with unregulated cannabis. Living with chronic pain both prepared participants for the pandemic and made the pandemic more difficult.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified pre-existing challenges and barriers to care, including to medical cannabis, among people with chronic pain. Understanding pandemic-era barriers may inform policies in ongoing and future public health emergencies.