Dataset Information

A mixed methods analysis of cannabis use routines for chronic pain management.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The wide heterogeneity of available cannabis products makes it difficult for physicians to appropriately guide patients. In the current study, our objective was to characterize naturalistic cannabis use routines and explore associations between routines and reported benefits from consuming cannabis.

Methods

We performed a mixed methods analysis of n=1087 cross-sectional survey responses from adults with self-reported chronic pain using cannabis for symptom management in the USA and Canada. First, we qualitatively analyzed responses to an open-ended question that assessed typical cannabis use routines, including administration routes, cannabinoid content, and timing. We then sub-grouped responses into categories based on inhalation (smoking, vaporizing) vs. non-inhalation (e.g., edibles). Finally, we investigated subgroups perceptions of how cannabis affected pain, overall health, and use of medications (e.g., substituting for opioids, benzodiazepines). Substitutions were treated as a count of medication classes, while responses for both pain and health were analyzed continuously, with - 2 indicating health declining a lot or pain increasing a lot and 2 indicating that health improved a lot or pain decreased a lot.

Results

Routines varied widely in terms of administration routes, cannabinoid content, and use timing. Overall, 18.8%, 36.2%, and 45% used non-inhalation, inhalation, and non-inhalation + inhalation routes, respectively. Those who used inhalation routes were younger (mean age 46.5 [inhalation] and 49.2 [non-inhalation + inhalation] vs. 56.3 [inhalation], F=36.1, p<0.001), while a higher proportion of those who used non-inhalation routes were female (72.5% non-inhalation vs. 48.3% inhalation and 65.3% non-inhalation + inhalation, X²=59.6, p<0.001). THC-rich products were typically used at night, while CBD-rich products were more often used during the day. While all participants reported similarly decreased pain, participants using non-inhalation + inhalation administration routes reported larger improvements in health than the non-inhalation (mean difference = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.07-0.37, p<0.001) and inhalation subgroups (mean difference = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.07-0.37, p=0.001). Similarly, the non-inhalation + inhalation group had significantly more medication substitutions than those using non-inhalation (mean difference = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.33-0.90, p<0.001) and inhalation administration routes (mean difference = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.69, p<0.001), respectively.

Conclusions

Subgrouping medical cannabis patients based on administration route profile may provide useful categories for future studies examining the risks and benefits of medical cannabis.

SUBMITTER: Boehnke KF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8750808 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore values and preferences towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain.DesignMixed-methods systematic review.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to 17 March 2020.Study selectionPairs of reviewers independently screened search results and included quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies reporting values and preferences towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain.Review methodsWe analysed data using meta-narrative synthesis (quantitative findings were qualitised) and tabulated review findings according to identified themes. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsOf 1838 initial records, 15 studies proved eligible for review. High to moderate certainty evidence showed that patient's use of medical cannabis for chronic pain was influenced by both positive (eg, support from friends and family) and negative social factors (eg, stigma surrounding cannabis use). Most patients using medical cannabis favoured products with balanced ratios of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), or high levels of CBD, but not high THC preparations. Many valued the effectiveness of medical cannabis for symptom management even when experiencing adverse events related to concentration, memory or fatigue. Reducing use of prescription medication was a motivating factor for use of medical cannabis, and concerns regarding addiction, losing control or acting strangely were disincentives. Out-of-pocket costs were a barrier, whereas legalisation of medical cannabis improved access and incentivised use.Low to very low certainty evidence suggested highly variable values towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain. Individuals with pain related to life-limiting disease were more willing to use medical cannabis, and preferred oral over inhaled administration.ConclusionsOur findings highlight factors that clinicians should consider when discussing medical cannabis. The variability of patients' values and preferences emphasise the need for shared decision making when considering medical cannabis for chronic pain.

Project description:Medicinal cannabis registries typically report pain as the most common reason for use. It would be clinically useful to identify patterns of cannabis treatment in migraine and headache, as compared to arthritis and chronic pain, and to analyze preferred cannabis strains, biochemical profiles, and prescription medication substitutions with cannabis.Via electronic survey in medicinal cannabis patients with headache, arthritis, and chronic pain, demographics and patterns of cannabis use including methods, frequency, quantity, preferred strains, cannabinoid and terpene profiles, and prescription substitutions were recorded. Cannabis use for migraine among headache patients was assessed via the ID Migraine™ questionnaire, a validated screen used to predict the probability of migraine.Of 2032 patients, 21 illnesses were treated with cannabis. Pain syndromes accounted for 42.4% (n =?861) overall; chronic pain 29.4% (n =?598;), arthritis 9.3% (n =?188), and headache 3.7% (n =?75;). Across all 21 illnesses, headache was a symptom treated with cannabis in 24.9% (n =?505). These patients were given the ID Migraine™ questionnaire, with 68% (n =?343) giving 3 "Yes" responses, 20% (n =?102) giving 2 "Yes" responses (97% and 93% probability of migraine, respectively). Therefore, 88% (n =?445) of headache patients were treating probable migraine with cannabis. Hybrid strains were most preferred across all pain subtypes, with "OG Shark" the most preferred strain in the ID Migraine™ and headache groups. Many pain patients substituted prescription medications with cannabis (41.2-59.5%), most commonly opiates/opioids (40.5-72.8%). Prescription substitution in headache patients included opiates/opioids (43.4%), anti-depressant/anti-anxiety (39%), NSAIDs (21%), triptans (8.1%), anti-convulsants (7.7%), muscle relaxers (7%), ergots (0.4%).Chronic pain was the most common reason for cannabis use, consistent with most registries. The majority of headache patients treating with cannabis were positive for migraine. Hybrid strains were preferred in ID Migraine™, headache, and most pain groups, with "OG Shark", a high THC (?9-tetrahydrocannabinol)/THCA (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid), low CBD (cannabidiol)/CBDA (cannabidiolic acid), strain with predominant terpenes ?-caryophyllene and ?-myrcene, most preferred in the headache and ID Migraine™ groups. This could reflect the potent analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-emetic properties of THC, with anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties of ?-caryophyllene and ?-myrcene. Opiates/opioids were most commonly substituted with cannabis. Prospective studies are needed, but results may provide early insight into optimizing crossbred cannabis strains, synergistic biochemical profiles, dosing, and patterns of use in the treatment of headache, migraine, and chronic pain syndromes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Ecological research suggests that increased access to cannabis may facilitate reductions in opioid use and harms, and medical cannabis patients describe the substitution of opioids with cannabis for pain management. However, there is a lack of research using individual-level data to explore this question. We aimed to investigate the longitudinal association between frequency of cannabis use and illicit opioid use among people who use drugs (PWUD) experiencing chronic pain. METHODS AND FINDINGS:This study included data from people in 2 prospective cohorts of PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, who reported major or persistent pain from June 1, 2014, to December 1, 2017 (n = 1,152). We used descriptive statistics to examine reasons for cannabis use and a multivariable generalized linear mixed-effects model to estimate the relationship between daily (once or more per day) cannabis use and daily illicit opioid use. There were 424 (36.8%) women in the study, and the median age at baseline was 49.3 years (IQR 42.3-54.9). In total, 455 (40%) reported daily illicit opioid use, and 410 (36%) reported daily cannabis use during at least one 6-month follow-up period. The most commonly reported therapeutic reasons for cannabis use were pain (36%), sleep (35%), stress (31%), and nausea (30%). After adjusting for demographic characteristics, substance use, and health-related factors, daily cannabis use was associated with significantly lower odds of daily illicit opioid use (adjusted odds ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.74, p < 0.001). Limitations of the study included self-reported measures of substance use and chronic pain, and a lack of data for cannabis preparations, dosages, and modes of administration. CONCLUSIONS:We observed an independent negative association between frequent cannabis use and frequent illicit opioid use among PWUD with chronic pain. These findings provide longitudinal observational evidence that cannabis may serve as an adjunct to or substitute for illicit opioid use among PWUD with chronic pain.

Project description:Cannabis is widely used for chronic pain. However, there is some evidence of an inverse dose-response relationship between cannabis effects and pain relief that may negatively affect analgesic outcomes. In this cross-sectional survey, we examined whether daily cannabis use frequency was associated with pain severity and interference, quality of life measures relevant to pain (eg, anxiety and depressive symptoms), and cannabis use preferences (administration routes and cannabinoid ratio). Our analysis included 989 adults who used cannabis every day for chronic pain. Participant use was designated as light, moderate, and heavy (1-2, 3-4, and 5 or more cannabis uses per day, respectively). The sample was also subgrouped by self-reported medical-only use (designated MED, n = 531, 54%) versus medical use concomitant with a past-year history of recreational use (designated MEDREC, n = 458, 46%). In the whole sample, increased frequency of use was significantly associated with worse pain intensity and interference, and worse negative affect, although high-frequency users also reported improved positive affect. Subgroup analyses showed that these effects were driven by MED participants. Heavy MED participant consumption patterns showed greater preference for smoking, vaporizing, and high tetrahydrocannabinol products. In contrast, light MED participants had greater preference for tinctures and high cannabidiol products. Selection bias, our focus on chronic pain, and our cross-sectional design likely limit the generalizability of our results. Our findings suggest that lower daily cannabis use frequency is associated with better clinical profile as well as lower risk cannabis use behaviors among MED participants. Future longitudinal studies are needed to examine how high frequency of cannabis use interacts with potential therapeutic benefits. PERSPECTIVE: Our findings suggest that lower daily cannabis use frequency is associated with better clinical profile as well as safer use behaviors (eg, preference for cannabidiol and noninhalation administration routes). These trends highlight the need for developing cannabis use guidelines for clinicians to better protect patients using cannabis.

Project description:BackgroundThe modern management of chronic pain is largely focused on improving functional capacity (often despite ongoing pain) by using graded activation and exposure paradigms. However, many people with chronic pain find functional activation programs aversive, and dropout rates are high. Modern technologies such as virtual reality (VR) could provide a more enjoyable and less threatening way for people with chronic pain to engage in physical activity. Although VR has been successfully used for pain relief in acute and chronic pain settings, as well as to facilitate rehabilitation in conditions such as stroke and cerebral palsy, it is not known whether VR can also be used to improve functional outcomes in people with chronic pain.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of VR in a chronic pain treatment center and assess the acceptability of an active VR treatment program for patients in this setting.MethodsFor this mixed methods pilot study, which was designed to test the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed study methods, 29 people seeking treatment for chronic pain were randomized to an active VR intervention or physiotherapy treatment as usual (TAU). The TAU group completed a 6-week waitlist before receiving standard treatment to act as a no-treatment control group. The VR intervention comprised twice-weekly immersive and embodied VR sessions using commercially available gaming software, which was selected to encourage movement. A total of 7 VR participants completed semistructured interviews to assess their perception of the intervention.ResultsOf the 99 patients referred to physiotherapy, 53 (54%) were eligible, 29 (29%) enrolled, and 17 (17%) completed the trial, indicating that running an adequately powered RCT in this setting would not be feasible. Despite this, those in the VR group showed greater improvements in activity levels, pain intensity, and pain interference and reported greater treatment satisfaction and perceived improvement than both the waitlist and TAU groups. Relative effect sizes were larger when VR was compared with the waitlist (range small to very large) and smaller when VR was compared with TAU (range none to medium). The qualitative analysis produced the following three themes: VR is an enjoyable alternative to traditional physiotherapy, VR has functional and psychological benefits despite continued pain, and a well-designed VR setup is important.ConclusionsThe active VR intervention in this study was highly acceptable to participants, produced favorable effects when compared with the waitlist, and showed similar outcomes as those of TAU. These findings suggest that a confirmatory RCT is warranted; however, substantial barriers to recruitment indicate that incentivizing participation and using a different treatment setting or running a multicenter trial are needed.

Project description:Neuropathic pain represents a broad category of pain syndromes that include a wide variety of peripheral and central disorders. The overall prevalence of neuropathic pain in the general population is reported to be between 7 and 10%. Management of neuropathic pain presents an unmet clinical need, with less than 50% of patients achieving substantial pain relief with medications currently recommended such as pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine and various tricyclic antidepressants. It has been suggested that cannabis-based medicines (CbMs) and medical cannabis (MC) may be a treatment option for those with chronic neuropathic pain. CbMs/MC are available in different forms: licensed medications or medical products (plant-derived and/or synthetic products such as tetrahydrocannabinol or cannabidiol); magistral preparations of cannabis plant derivatives with defined molecular content such as dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol); and herbal cannabis with a defined content of tetrahydrocannabinol and/or cannabidiol, together with other active ingredients (phytocannabinoids other than cannabidiol/tetrahydrocannabinol, terpenes and flavonoids). The availability of different types of CbMs/MC varies between countries worldwide. Systematic reviews of available randomised controlled trials have stated low-quality evidence for CbMs and MC for chronic neuropathic pain. Depending on the studies included in the various quantitative syntheses, authors have reached divergent conclusions on the efficacy of CbMs/MC for chronic neuropathic pain (from not effective to a clinically meaningful benefit). Clinically relevant side effects of CbMs/MC, especially for central nervous system and psychiatric disorders, have been reported by some systematic reviews. Recommendations for the use of CbMs/MC for chronic neuropathic pain by various medical associations also differ, from negative recommendations, no recommendation possible, recommended as third-line therapy, or recommended as an alternative in selected cases failing standard therapies within a multimodal concept. After reading this paper, readers are invited to formulate their own conclusions regarding the potential benefits and harms of CbMs/MC for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain.