Cannabis Use and Bleomycin: An Overview and Case Study of Pulmonary Toxicity

Adverse events associated with the use of cannabis-based products in people living with cancer: a systematic scoping review

PURPOSE

To summarise the extent and type of evidence in relation to adverse events (AEs) associated with the use of cannabis-based products (CBP) in people living with cancer.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews was applied. A search was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collections and AMED (Ovid) from their inception to 7 May 2023. Primary studies reporting AEs associated with any form of natural or synthetic CBP use in any cancer care setting and location were included.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-two studies were included, with the most prevalent being randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 61), followed by non-randomised controlled trials (n = 26) and case reports (n = 23). CBP was mainly used in gastrointestinal, liver, or peritoneal cancer (n = 98) and haematological or lymphoid cancer (n = 92), primarily to manage nausea and vomiting (n = 78) and cancer pain (n = 37). The most common CBP ingredients were combinations of THC and CBD (n = 69), synthetic THC (n = 47), single compounds of THC (n = 42) and CBD (n = 16) with diverse forms, administration routes and doses. The primary methods of administration were oral (n = 94) and inhalation (n = 54). A broad range of AEs were reported; the most common were related to the nervous system (n = 118), psychiatric (n = 101) and gastrointestinal system (n = 81). Diverse patient characteristics, significant under-reporting and low-quality reporting were observed in many studies.

CONCLUSIONS

More rigorous research designs that prioritise comprehensive, standardised reporting of AEs and CBP use are required to fully elucidate the safety profile of CBP use in cancer care.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic herb-drug interactions-part I. Herbal medicines of the central nervous system

Unlike conventional drug substances, herbal medicines are composed of a complex of biologically active compounds. Therefore, the potential occurrence of herb-drug interactions is even more probable than for drug-drug interactions. Interactions can occur on both the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic level. Herbal medicines may affect the resulting efficacy of the concomitantly used (synthetic) drugs, mainly on the pharmacokinetic level, by changing their absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. Studies on the pharmacodynamic interactions of herbal medicines and conventional drugs are still very limited. This interaction level is related to the mechanism of action of different plant constituents. Herb-drug interactions can cause changes in drug levels and activities and lead to therapeutic failure and/or side effects (sometimes toxicities, even fatal). This review aims to provide a summary of recent information on the potential drug interactions involving commonly used herbal medicines that affect the central nervous system (Camellia, Valeriana, Ginkgo, Hypericum, Humulus, Cannabis) and conventional drugs. The survey databases were used to identify primary scientific publications, case reports, and secondary databases on interactions were used later on as well. Search keywords were based on plant names (botanical genera), officinal herbal drugs, herbal drug preparations, herbal drug extracts.

Association between daily and non-daily cannabis use and depression among United States adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors are vulnerable to Cannabis Use (CU) and at increased risk for depression. Yet, the relationship between CU and depression among cancer survivors is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of daily/non-daily CU, investigate the association between CU and depression and evaluate CU reasons and methods of administration among cancer survivors.

METHOD

Population-based, nationally representative sample of cancer survivors aged ≥18 (n = 10,799) from 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey was used. Weighted descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression were conducted.

FINDINGS

Overall, 4.2% reported daily and 4.1% non-daily CU. Those who self-reported depression had higher prevalence of daily and non-daily CU than those not reporting depression. Daily CU was associated with 120% increased odds of depression (odds ratio = 2.2, 95% confidence interval [1.3, 3.7]) compared with none-users.

DISCUSSION

Efforts to improve open communications and evidence-informed discussions regarding benefits and risks of CU and reasons for using cannabis between clinicians and cancer survivors are imperative.