Effects of U.S. State Medical Cannabis Laws on Treatment of Chronic Noncancer Pain

Cannabidiol (CBD) Products for Pain: Ineffective, Expensive, and With Potential Harms

Cannabidiol (CBD) attracts considerable attention for promoting good health and treating various conditions, predominantly pain, often in breach of advertising rules. Examination of available CBD products in North America and Europe demonstrates that CBD content can vary from none to much more than advertised and that potentially harmful other chemicals are often included. Serious harm is associated with chemicals found in CBD products and reported in children, adults, and the elderly. A 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain task force examined the evidence for cannabinoids and pain but found no trials of CBD. Sixteen CBD randomized trials using pharmaceutical-supplied CBD or making preparations from such a source and with pain as an outcome have been published subsequently. The trials were conducted in 12 different pain states, using 3 oral, topical, and buccal/sublingual administration, with CBD doses between 6 and 1,600 mg, and durations of treatment between a single dose and 12 weeks. Fifteen of the 16 showed no benefit of CBD over placebo. Small clinical trials using verified CBD suggest the drug to be largely benign; while large-scale evidence of safety is lacking, there is growing evidence linking CBD to increased rates of serious adverse events and hepatotoxicity. In January 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that a new regulatory pathway for CBD was needed. Consumers and health care providers should rely on evidence-based sources of information on CBD, not just advertisements. Current evidence is that CBD for pain is expensive, ineffective, and possibly harmful. PERSPECTIVE: There is no good reason for thinking that CBD relieves pain, but there are good reasons for doubting the contents of CBD products in terms of CBD content and purity.

Does cannabis use substitute for opioids? A preliminary exploratory survey in opioid maintenance patients

Various studies showed that people with substance use disorder use cannabis to reduce withdrawal or dose of their main drug. Using a questionnaire about their cannabis use, 118 participants in an opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) in Germany were examined regarding this strategy. 60% reported to use cannabis. Of those, 72% were using cannabis in the suggested way. Cannabis was used to substitute for, e.g., heroin (44.8%) and benzodiazepines (16.4%). We also asked for an estimation of how good cannabis was able to substitute for several substances (in German school grades (1 till 6)); heroin average grade: 2.6 ± 1.49. Besides that we asked about the idea of cannabis as "self-medication", e.g., to reduce pain (47%) and about negative consequences from cannabis use. Our results suggest to consider the use of cannabis by patients in OMT rather as a harm reduction strategy to reduce the intake of more dangerous drugs.

Characteristics of patients with non-cancer pain and long-term prescription opioid use who have used medical versus recreational marijuana

OBJECTIVE

Marijuana use is increasingly common among patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). We determined if lifetime recreational and medical marijuana use were associated with more frequent and higher dose prescription opioid use.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional SUBJECTS: Eligible patients (n=1,037), who had a new period of prescription opioid use lasting 30-90 days, were recruited from two midwestern health care systems to a study of long-term prescription opioid use and mental health outcomes. The present cross-sectional analyses uses baseline data from this on-going cohort study.

METHODS

Primary exposures were participant reported lifetime recreational and medical marijuana use versus no lifetime marijuana use. Prescription opioid characteristics included daily versus non-daily opioid use and ≥50 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) dose per day vs. <50 MME. Multivariate, logistic regression models estimated the association between lifetime recreational and medical marijuana use vs. no use and odds of daily and higher dose prescription opioid use, before and after adjusting for confounding.

RESULTS

The sample was an average of 54.9 (SD±11.3) years of age, 57.3% identified as female gender, 75.2% identified as White, and 22.5% identified as Black race. Among all participants, 44.4% were never marijuana users, 21.3% were recreational only, 7.7% medical only and 26.6% were both recreational and medical marijuana users. After controlling for all confounders, lifetime recreational marijuana use, as compared to no use, was significantly associated with increased odds of daily prescription opioid use (OR=1.61; 95%CI:1.02-2.54). There was no association between lifetime recreational or medical marijuana use and daily opioid dose.

CONCLUSION

Lifetime medical marijuana use is not linked to current opioid dose, but lifetime recreational use is associated with more than a 60% odds of being a daily prescription opioid user. Screening for lifetime recreational marijuana use may identify patients with chronic pain who are vulnerable to daily opioid use which increases risk for adverse opioid outcomes. Prospective data is needed to determine how marijuana use influences the course of LTOT and vice versa.

Recreational and Medical Cannabis Legalization and Opioid Prescriptions and Mortality

Importance

While some have argued that cannabis legalization has helped to reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality in the US, evidence has been mixed. Moreover, existing studies did not account for biases that could arise when policy effects vary over time or across states or when multiple policies are assessed at the same time, as in the case of recreational and medical cannabis legalization.

Objective

To quantify changes in opioid prescriptions and opioid overdose deaths associated with recreational and medical cannabis legalization in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This quasiexperimental, generalized difference-in-differences analysis used annual state-level data between January 2006 and December 2020 to compare states that legalized recreational or medical cannabis vs those that did not.

Intervention

Recreational and medical cannabis law implementation (proxied by recreational and medical cannabis dispensary openings) between 2006 and 2020 across US states.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Opioid prescription rates per 100 persons and opioid overdose deaths per 100 000 population based on data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Results

Between 2006 and 2020, 13 states legalized recreational cannabis and 23 states legalized medical cannabis. There was no statistically significant association of recreational or medical cannabis laws with opioid prescriptions or overall opioid overdose mortality across the 15-year study period, although the results also suggested a potential reduction in synthetic opioid deaths associated with recreational cannabis laws (4.9 fewer deaths per 100 000 population; 95% CI, -9.49 to -0.30; P = .04). Sensitivity analyses excluding state economic indicators, accounting for additional opioid laws and using alternative ways to code treatment dates yielded substantively similar results, suggesting the absence of statistically significant associations between cannabis laws and the outcomes of interest during the full study period.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this study suggest that, after accounting for biases due to possible heterogeneous effects and simultaneous assessment of recreational and medical cannabis legalization, the implementation of recreational or medical cannabis laws was not associated with opioid prescriptions or opioid mortality, with the exception of a possible reduction in synthetic opioid deaths associated with recreational cannabis law implementation.