Search

Background: Cannabis was legalised for medical purposes in 2016. Uptake was initially slow, but since 2019 there has been a large increase in the number of Australians who have been prescribed cannabis for medical reasons. Yet a significant number of consumers continue to treat their medical conditions via illicitly-sourced cannabis. Little is known about how these two groups of medical cannabis consumers differ. Methods: The anonymous Cannabis-As-Medicine Survey 2022–2023 (CAMS-22) was available for completion online from December 2022 to April 2023 to adult Australians who had used cannabis to treat a medical condition in the previous year. Recruitment occurred through social media, consumer forums, and medical practices. Questions included demographic characteristics, patterns of cannabis use, conditions treated, and self-rated effectiveness. Results: Of the 3323 respondents included in these analyses, 2352 (73%) mainly used prescribed medical cannabis, 871 (27%) mainly used illicit. Prescribed users were significantly more likely than illicit users to have had their health condition diagnosed (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.3, 2.2), to consume their cannabis via oral (OR = 1.9; CI 1.5, 2.4) or vaporised (OR = 5.2; CI 4.0, 6.8) routes, and to be sure of the composition of their medical cannabis (OR = 25.0; CI 16.7, 50.0). Prescribed users were significantly less likely to have used cannabis non-medically before medical use (OR = 0.6, CI 0.5, 0.7), consume cannabis via smoked routes (OR = 0.2, CI 0.1, 0.2), and to report any side effects (OR = 0.1; CI 0.1, 0.2). The most common conditions among both prescribed and illicit users were pain (37%), mental health (36%), and sleep (15%) conditions. Prescribed users were significantly more likely to use cannabis to mainly treat a pain (OR = 1.3; CI 1.1, 1.5) or sleep condition (OR = 1.4; CI 1.1, 1.7) and less likely to treat a mental health condition (OR = 0.8; CI 0.7, 0.9). There were no between-group differences in effectiveness with 97% saying medical cannabis had improved their symptoms. Conclusions: From a harm-reduction perspective there is much to recommend prescribed medical cannabis; it has fewer side-effects than illicit, is used more safely (oral or vaporised versus smoked routes), gives consumers greater certainty regarding the composition and quality of their medicine, and does not risk exposure to the criminal justice system. Of concern, however, is the apparent willingness of prescribers to prescribe for indications for which there is limited evidence of efficacy, such as mental health and sleep conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Our research group is conducting three large randomized placebo-controlled trials of medicinal cannabis for cancer symptoms. All participants are invited to take part in a posttrial surveillance study. Methods: Participants were given the manufacturers dosing instructions and liberty to titrate to effect. Data were collected on symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS] score), perceived benefits, adverse effects, satisfaction with the product, and dose/frequency. Results: Twenty-six percent of eligible participants consented to take part in the surveillance study. Most participants changed their self-titrated dose at least once. Pain, sleep, and mood were the most frequently cited symptoms which improved. Fatigue, nausea, and cognitive impairment were the most frequently mentioned adverse effects. Conclusion: Participants felt confident making changes to their medicinal cannabis dose within the limits suggested by the manufacturer of each product. A number of benefits and adverse effects were ascribed to the product. Benefits were similar to those described in previous studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Following 2016 legislation permitting limited access to cannabis for research and medicinal purposes, the number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of medicinal cannabis (MC) on symptom burden relief in cancer contexts has increased in Australia. This study aimed to understand the perceptions, hopes and concerns of people with advanced cancer regarding the future availability and regulation of MC in Australia. Methods: This qualitative study draws on semistructured interviews conducted between February 2019 and October 2020 in Brisbane, Australia, as part of an MC RCT substudy. Interviews were undertaken on 48 patients with advanced cancer in palliative care eligible to participate in an MC trial (n = 26 participated in an RCT; n = 2 participated in a pilot study; n = 20 declined). Interviews included a discussion of patients' decision‐making regarding trial participation, concerns about MC and perceptions of future availability, including cost. Transcribed interviews were analysed inductively and abductively, informed by constructivist thematic analysis conventions. Results: Overall, participants supported making MC legally accessible as a prescription‐only medication. Fear of financial toxicity, however, compromised this pathway. Steep posttrial costs of accessing MC prompted several people to decline trial participation, and others to predict—if found effective—that many would either access MC through alternative pathways or reduce their prescribed dosage to enable affordable access. Conclusions: These findings suggest that—despite a relatively robust universal healthcare system—Australians are potentially vulnerable to and fearful of financial toxicity. Prevalent in the United States, financial toxicity occurs when disadvantaged cancer patients access necessary but expensive medications with lasting consequences: bankruptcy, ongoing anxiety and cancer worry. Interview transcripts indicate that financial fears—and the systems sustaining them—may pose a threat to RCT completion and to equitable access to legal MC. Such findings support calls for embedding qualitative substudies and community partnerships within RCTs, while also suggesting the importance of subsidisation to overcoming injustices. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient advisory committee informed RCT design. This qualitative substudy foregrounds patients' decision‐making, perceptions and experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: General practitioners are well positioned to contribute to the pharmacovigilance of medical cannabis via the general practice electronic medical record (EMR). The aim of this research is to interrogate de-identified patient data from the Patron primary care data repository for reports of medicinal cannabis to ascertain the feasibility of using EMRs to monitor medicinal cannabis prescribing in Australia. Methods: EMR rule-based digital phenotyping of 1 164 846 active patients from 109 practices was undertaken to investigate reports of medicinal cannabis use from September 2017 to September 2020. Results: Eighty patients with 170 prescriptions of medicinal cannabis were identified in the Patron repository. Reasons for prescription included anxiety, multiple sclerosis, cancer, nausea, and Crohn's disease. Nine patients showed symptoms of a possible adverse event, including depression, motor vehicle accident, gastrointestinal symptoms, and anxiety. Conclusions: The recording of medicinal cannabis effects in the patient EMR provides potential for medicinal cannabis monitoring in the community. This is especially feasible if monitoring were to be embedded into general practitioner workflow. General practitioners are well positioned to contribute to the pharmacovigilance of medical cannabis via the general practice electronic medical record (EMR). This research interrogated de-identified patient data from the Patron primary care data repository for reports of medicinal cannabis to ascertain the feasibility of the use of EMRs to monitor medicinal cannabis prescribing in Australia. This research found patient EMRs provide potential for medicinal cannabis monitoring in the community, especially if monitoring were to be embedded into general practitioner workflow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruitment for randomised controlled trials in palliative care can be challenging; disease progression and terminal illness underpin high rates of attrition. Research into participant decision-making in medicinal cannabis randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is very limited. Nesting qualitative sub-studies within RCTs can identify further challenges to participation, informing revisions to study designs and recruitment practices. This paper reports on findings from a qualitative sub-study supporting RCTs of medicinal cannabis for symptom burden relief in patients with advanced cancer in one Australian city.Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 48 patients with advanced cancer, eligible to participate in a medicinal cannabis RCT (n=28 who consented to participate in an RCT; n=20 who declined). An iterative and abductive approach to thematic analysis and data collection fostered exploration of barriers and enablers to participation.Results: Key enablers included participants' enthusiasm and expectations of medicinal cannabis as beneficial (to themselves and future patients) for symptom management, especially after exhausting currently approved options, and a safer alternative to opioids. Some believed medicinal cannabis to have anti-cancer effects. Barriers to participation were the logistical challenges of participating (especially due to driving restrictions and fatigue), reluctance to interfere with an existing care plan, cost, and concerns about receiving the placebo and the uncertainty of the benefit. Some declined due to concerns about side-effects or a desire to continue accessing cannabis independent of the study.Conclusions: The findings support revisions to subsequent medicinal cannabis RCT study designs, namely, omitting a requirement that participants attend weekly hospital appointments. These findings highlight the value of embedding qualitative sub-studies into RCTs. While some challenges to RCT recruitment are universal, others are context (population, intervention, location) specific. A barrier to participation found in research conducted elsewhere-stigma-was not identified in the current study. Thus, findings have important implications for those undertaking RCTs in the rapidly developing context of medical cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Australia has had a framework for legal medicinal cannabis since 2016, yet prior online surveys in 2016 and 2018 indicated that most consumers continued to use illicit medical cannabis products. Regulatory data indicate an increase in the prescription of medicinal cannabis since 2019, and this survey examines consumer experiences of prescribed and illicit medical cannabis (MC) use in Australia. Methods: A cross-sectional anonymous online survey was administered September 2020 to January 2021. Recruitment via social media, professional and consumer forums, and medical practices. Participant eligibility: ≥ 18 years; used a cannabis product for self-identified medical reason(s) in the past year, and resident in Australia. Outcome measures included consumer characteristics, conditions treated, source and patterns of MC use, and perspectives on accessing MC. Results: Of the 1600 participants (mean age 46.4 ± 14.3 years, 53% male), 62.4% (n = 999) reported using only illicit and 37.6% (n = 601) used prescribed MC in the past year. MC was used on a median of 28 (IQR: 12, 28) of the past 28 days and cost $AUD 74 ± 72 weekly (median = $40, IQR: $7, $100). Prescribed participants were more likely to treat pain conditions than those using illicit MC (52% v 40%, OR = 1.7, 1.3–2.1) and less likely to treat sleep conditions (6% v 11%, OR = 0.5, 0.3–0.8), with mental health conditions also a common indication in both groups (26%, 31%). Prescribed MC was consumed predominately by oral routes (72%), whereas illicit MC was most commonly smoked (41%). Prescribed MC was 'mainly THC' (26%), 'equal THC/CBD' (40%), 'mainly CBD' (31%) and 'uncertain' (3%), while 34% of those using illicit MC were 'uncertain' of the cannabinoid profile. Cost and difficulties finding medical practitioners to prescribe remain significant barriers to accessing prescribed MC, and few (10.8%) described the existing model for accessing prescribed MC as 'straightforward or easy'. Conclusions: There has been a notable shift from illicit to prescribed MC by many consumers compared to prior surveys. Consumers using prescribed MC reported a range of advantages compared to illicit MC, including safer routes of administration, and greater certainty regarding access and composition of products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As cancer patients face long-term health and psychosocial issues from their diagnosis and treatment, many patients are seeking medicinal cannabis to manage their symptoms and treatment side effects. This qualitative study aimed to explore attitudes, barriers, and concerns of cancer patients from one regional community in Australia to gain a better understanding of the experiences faced in using medicinal cannabis. Participants (n = 16) engaged in focus groups or semistructured individual interviews, and an inductive thematic analysis of data was undertaken. Four themes emerged from the data: perceived benefits, access difficulties, uncertainty, and issues of support. The findings revealed a need to provide easy access to accurate information and address the barriers faced by cancer patients in using medicinal cannabis. IMPLICATIONS Despite the growing body of clinical evidence, cancer patients may be faced with bureaucratic and social challenges in gaining access to medicinal cannabis that will require social workers' individual advocacy. Social workers should consider the roles that might be appropriate for them in advocating for policy and legislation changes around access, cost, and other barriers. Social workers working in oncology should consider the roles that might be appropriate for them in linking cancer patients to community support and resources, and in assisting cancer patients interested in medicinal cannabis, including an advocacy role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regulatory changes now permit the availability and prescribing of medicinal cannabis in Australia. Public awareness and patient interest are high. Using a co‐design approach involving cancer patients, carers and oncology and palliative care clinicians, two information resources were developed to provide readily available sources of important information for cancer patients and clinicians who are considering the use of medicinal cannabis. Focus groups and evaluation interviews revealed some areas of dissonance between consumers and clinicians concerning aspects of medicinal cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following legislative changes in the availability and prescribing of medicinal cannabis in Australia, we sought to understand prospectively the nature of information seeking and requests for medicinal cannabis in consultations between palliative care clinicians and patients with cancer. The 104 discussions were overwhelmingly initiated by patients and carers (93%) and were for a variety of symptoms, reflecting high levels of patient interest in the use of medicinal cannabis in cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective of this article is to describe the potential benefits of medicinal cannabis in emesis control and the position of nurses looking after palliative patients who are on medicinal cannabis treatment in Australia. Setting Palliative care Primary argument Cannabis is the most commonly abused drug and its use for medical purposes was restricted throughout the world since the early 20th century. However many clinical studies show that the natural cannabinoid compounds can stimulate the cannabinoid receptors in the brain leading to attenuation of signal transmission, resulting in alleviation of the vomiting stimuli. The debate about the use of cannabis as an anti-emetic agent in patients with life-limiting conditions has renewed interest in recent years. The principle of palliative care is to improve the quality of life of patients living with life-limiting conditions based on the best evidence available. Although some evidence suggests cannabis may have therapeutic effects on some palliative patients and the Australian Commonwealth Government has recently changed the legislation, the concept of using medicinal cannabis in emesis control is very new to many Australians including the health care providers. Conclusion In comparison to conventional medications, medicinal use of cannabis in palliative care is a new phenomenon and nurses as well as general public may be less prepared for the use of cannabis as a medical modality in all clinical settings. This review is intended to raise awareness of the physiological mechanism of cannabis and its medicinal use to the nurses in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]