학술논문
Differences in prescribed medicinal cannabis use by cannabinoid product composition: Findings from the cannabis as medicine survey 2020 (CAMS-20) Australia-wide study.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Trevitt BT; Drug and Alcohol Services, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; School of Public Health and Community Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.; Bailey S; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.; Mills L; Drug and Alcohol Services, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Speciality Addiction Medicine, Faculty Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.; Drug and Alcohol Clinical Research and Improvement Network, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.; Arkell TR; Centre for Human Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia.; Suraev A; The University of Sydney, Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; The University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; The University of Sydney, Brain and Mind Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; McGregor IS; The University of Sydney, Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; The University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; The University of Sydney, Brain and Mind Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Lintzeris N; Drug and Alcohol Services, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Speciality Addiction Medicine, Faculty Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.; Drug and Alcohol Clinical Research and Improvement Network, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Source
Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Introduction: Prescribed medicinal cannabis (MC) is an increasingly common prescription in Australia for treating pain, anxiety, and sleep disorders. Prescribed MC products generally contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD) in a variety of dose levels and forms. It is unclear whether THC and CBD products are used by patients with different characteristics and for different conditions.
Objectives: To examine consumer experiences of using THC- and CBD-containing prescribed MC products to better understand how they are being used within the Australian context.
Methods: We utilised data collected from an online anonymous cross-sectional survey of individuals (CAMS-20 survey), consisting of Australian residents using cannabis for therapeutic reasons. We focused on a subgroup of participants (N = 546) receiving prescribed MC products. We utilised linear, logistic, and multinomial regression modelling to analyse responses to survey questions based on the cannabinoid profile of the prescribed product.
Results: Participants prescribed THC-dominant MC products were statistically more likely to be younger, male, and to prefer inhaled routes of administration than participants using CBD-dominant products who were older, female, and preferred oral routes of administration. Pain and mental health were the most common reasons for all types of prescribed MC, but were more likely to be treated with THC than CBD despite the significantly higher risk of mild to severe drowsiness, dry mouth and eye irritation. Consumer reported effectiveness of prescribed MC was very positive, particularly for THC-containing products. Consumers on opioids and antipsychotics were statistically more likely to be prescribed THC-containing products than products containing CBD only, despite the greater risk of impairment.
Conclusions: This Australia-wide study found clear differences in consumer-reported experiences of prescribed THC- and CBD-containing products. Current prescriptions of these products do not always align with relevant clinical guidance. Educating prescribers around cannabinoid products is essential to ensure optimal prescribing practices and to prevent avoidable drug side effects and interactions.
Competing Interests: Professor Nicholas Lintzeris reports receiving grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) during the conduct of the study and research grants from Camurus and Indivior – all for unrelated work. Professor Ian McGregor reports receiving grants from Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics and from NHMRC during the study, but for unrelated projects. Professor Ian McGregor also has patents to WO2018107216A1, WO2017004674A1 and WO2011038451A1 issued and licensed, as well as patents to AU2020050941, AU2019903299, AU2017904438, AU2017904072 and AU2018901971 pending, and a patent WO2019227167 and WO2019071302 issued. Dr Thomas Arkell reports receiving grants from Swinburne University of Technology and the Victorian Department of Health for unrelated projects. No other authors report conflicts of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
(Copyright: © 2024 Trevitt et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)
Objectives: To examine consumer experiences of using THC- and CBD-containing prescribed MC products to better understand how they are being used within the Australian context.
Methods: We utilised data collected from an online anonymous cross-sectional survey of individuals (CAMS-20 survey), consisting of Australian residents using cannabis for therapeutic reasons. We focused on a subgroup of participants (N = 546) receiving prescribed MC products. We utilised linear, logistic, and multinomial regression modelling to analyse responses to survey questions based on the cannabinoid profile of the prescribed product.
Results: Participants prescribed THC-dominant MC products were statistically more likely to be younger, male, and to prefer inhaled routes of administration than participants using CBD-dominant products who were older, female, and preferred oral routes of administration. Pain and mental health were the most common reasons for all types of prescribed MC, but were more likely to be treated with THC than CBD despite the significantly higher risk of mild to severe drowsiness, dry mouth and eye irritation. Consumer reported effectiveness of prescribed MC was very positive, particularly for THC-containing products. Consumers on opioids and antipsychotics were statistically more likely to be prescribed THC-containing products than products containing CBD only, despite the greater risk of impairment.
Conclusions: This Australia-wide study found clear differences in consumer-reported experiences of prescribed THC- and CBD-containing products. Current prescriptions of these products do not always align with relevant clinical guidance. Educating prescribers around cannabinoid products is essential to ensure optimal prescribing practices and to prevent avoidable drug side effects and interactions.
Competing Interests: Professor Nicholas Lintzeris reports receiving grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) during the conduct of the study and research grants from Camurus and Indivior – all for unrelated work. Professor Ian McGregor reports receiving grants from Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics and from NHMRC during the study, but for unrelated projects. Professor Ian McGregor also has patents to WO2018107216A1, WO2017004674A1 and WO2011038451A1 issued and licensed, as well as patents to AU2020050941, AU2019903299, AU2017904438, AU2017904072 and AU2018901971 pending, and a patent WO2019227167 and WO2019071302 issued. Dr Thomas Arkell reports receiving grants from Swinburne University of Technology and the Victorian Department of Health for unrelated projects. No other authors report conflicts of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
(Copyright: © 2024 Trevitt et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)