scholarly journals Medical Marijuana and Opioids (MEMO) Study: protocol of a longitudinal cohort study to examine if medical cannabis reduces opioid use among adults with chronic pain

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e043400
Author(s):  
Chinazo O Cunningham ◽  
Joanna L Starrels ◽  
Chenshu Zhang ◽  
Marcus A Bachhuber ◽  
Nancy L Sohler ◽  
...  

IntroductionIn the USA, opioid analgesic use and overdoses have increased dramatically. One rapidly expanding strategy to manage chronic pain in the context of this epidemic is medical cannabis. Cannabis has analgesic effects, but it also has potential adverse effects. Further, its impact on opioid analgesic use is not well studied. Managing pain in people living with HIV is particularly challenging, given the high prevalence of opioid analgesic and cannabis use. This study’s overarching goal is to understand how medical cannabis use affects opioid analgesic use, with attention to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol content, HIV outcomes and adverse events.Methods and analysesWe are conducting a cohort study of 250 adults with and without HIV infection with (a) severe or chronic pain, (b) current opioid use and (c) who are newly certified for medical cannabis in New York. Over 18 months, we collect data via in-person visits every 3 months and web-based questionnaires every 2 weeks. Data sources include: questionnaires; medical, pharmacy and Prescription Monitoring Program records; urine and blood samples; and physical function tests. Using marginal structural models and comparisons within participants’ 2-week time periods (unit of analysis), we will examine how medical cannabis use (primary exposure) affects (1) opioid analgesic use (primary outcome), (2) HIV outcomes (HIV viral load, CD4 count, antiretroviral adherence, HIV risk behaviours) and (3) adverse events (cannabis use disorder, illicit drug use, diversion, overdose/deaths, accidents/injuries, acute care utilisation).Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine institutional review board. Findings will be disseminated through conferences, peer-reviewed publications and meetings with medical cannabis stakeholders.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03268551); Pre-results.

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (10) ◽  
pp. 1602-1607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy L. Sohler ◽  
Joanna L. Starrels ◽  
Laila Khalid ◽  
Marcus A. Bachhuber ◽  
Julia H. Arnsten ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 532
Author(s):  
Brian Kaskie ◽  
Hyojung Kang ◽  
Divya Bhagianadh ◽  
Julie Bobitt

Although researchers have identified medications that relieve symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), none are entirely effective and some persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) use alternatives. Our study compared cannabis use among PwMS (N = 135) and persons diagnosed with arthritis (N = 582) or cancer (N = 622) who were age 60 and older, enrolled in the State of Illinois Medical Cannabis Program, and invited to complete a survey fielded between June and September, 2019. We used logistic regression to identify significant differences in self-reported effects of cannabis on psychological wellbeing, quality of life, and three behavioral outcomes, and we also considered effects of past year opioid use relative to these outcomes. We found that the majority of individuals from all groups used cannabis to address pain and improve quality of sleep. While PwMS reported lower baseline levels across all five outcomes, we found that the reported effects of cannabis were largely comparable across the groups. We also found that cannabis benefitted persons with sleep and digestive issues regardless of condition, whereas persons who used opioids in addition to cannabis were less likely to experience an improvement in any of the outcomes. This comparative evaluation suggests that cannabis’ effects are not specific to MS, arthritis, or cancer as much as they impact processes common among these distinct conditions. We also found evidence that cannabis may be a viable alternative to opioids for those with these conditions and experiencing pain.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e047717
Author(s):  
Atefeh Noori ◽  
Anna Miroshnychenko ◽  
Yaadwinder Shergill ◽  
Vahid Ashoorion ◽  
Yasir Rehman ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and harms of adding medical cannabis to prescription opioids among people living with chronic pain.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE.Main outcomes and measuresOpioid dose reduction, pain relief, sleep disturbance, physical and emotional functioning and adverse events.Study selection criteria and methodsWe included studies that enrolled patients with chronic pain receiving prescription opioids and explored the impact of adding medical cannabis. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.ResultsEligible studies included five randomised trials (all enrolling chronic cancer-pain patients) and 12 observational studies. All randomised trials instructed participants to maintain their opioid dose, which resulted in a very low certainty evidence that adding cannabis has little or no impact on opioid use (weighted mean difference (WMD) −3.4 milligram morphine equivalent (MME); 95% CI (CI) −12.7 to 5.8). Randomised trials provided high certainty evidence that cannabis addition had little or no effect on pain relief (WMD −0.18 cm; 95% CI −0.38 to 0.02; on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain) or sleep disturbance (WMD −0.22 cm; 95% CI −0.4 to −0.06; on a 10 cm VAS for sleep disturbance; minimally important difference is 1 cm) among chronic cancer pain patients. Addition of cannabis likely increases nausea (relative risk (RR) 1.43; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.96; risk difference (RD) 4%, 95% CI 0% to 7%) and vomiting (RR 1.5; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.24; RD 3%; 95% CI 0% to 6%) (both moderate certainty) and may have no effect on constipation (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.35; RD −1%; 95% CI −4% to 2%) (low certainty). Eight observational studies provided very low certainty evidence that adding cannabis reduced opioid use (WMD −22.5 MME; 95% CI −43.06 to −1.97).ConclusionOpioid-sparing effects of medical cannabis for chronic pain remain uncertain due to very low certainty evidence.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091098.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob M. Vigil ◽  
Sarah S. Stith ◽  
Anthony P. Reeve

The decision to authorize a patient for continued enrollment in a state-sanctioned medical cannabis program is difficult in part due to the uncertainty in the accuracy of patient symptom reporting and health functioning including any possible effects on other medication use. We conducted a pragmatic convenience study comparing patient reporting of previous and current prescription opioid usage to the opioid prescription records in the Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) among 131 chronic pain patients (mean age = 54; 54% male) seeking the first annual renewal of their New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program (NMMCP) license. Seventy-six percent of the patients reported using prescription opioids prior to enrollment in the NMMCP, however, the PMP records showed that only 49% of the patients were actually prescribed opioids in the six months prior to enrollment. Of the 64 patients with verifiable opioid prescriptions prior to NMMCP enrollment, 35 (55%) patients reported having eliminated the use of prescription opioids by the time of license renewal. PMP records showed that 26 patients (63% of patients claiming to have eliminated the use of opioid prescriptions and 41% of all patients with verifiable preenrollment opioid use) showed no prescription opioid activity at their first annual NMMCP renewal visit.


Pain Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 1338-1346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven M Frenk ◽  
Susan L Lukacs ◽  
Qiuping Gu

Abstract Objective This study examined factors associated with prescription opioid analgesic use in the US population using data from a nationally representative sample. It focused on factors previously shown to be associated with opioid use disorder or overdose. Variations in the use of different strength opioid analgesics by demographic subgroup were also examined. Methods Data came from respondents aged 16 years and older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011–2014). Respondents were classified as opioid users if they reported using one or more prescription opioid analgesics in the past 30 days. Results Opioid users reported poorer self-perceived health than those not currently using opioids. Compared with those not using opioids, opioid users were more likely to rate their health as being “fair” or “poor” (40.4% [95% confidence interval {CI} = 34.9%–46.2%] compared with 15.6% [95% CI = 14.3%–17.1%]), experienced more days of pain during the past 30 days (mean = 14.3 [95% CI = 12.9–15.8] days compared with 2.3 [95% CI = 2.0–2.7] days), and had depression (22.5% [95% CI = 17.3%–28.7%] compared with 7.1% [95% CI = 6.2%–8.0%]). Among those who reported using opioids during the past 30 days, 18.8% (95% CI = 14.4%–24.1%) reported using benzodiazepine medication during the same period and 5.2% (95% CI = 3.5%–7.7%) reported using an illicit drug during the past six months. When opioid strength was examined, a smaller percentage of adults aged 60 years and older used stronger-than-morphine opioids compared with adults aged 20–39 and 40–59 years. Conclusions Higher percentages of current opioid users than nonusers reported having many of the factors associated with opioid use disorder and overdose.


PLoS Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. e1003631
Author(s):  
Tara Gomes ◽  
Tonya J. Campbell ◽  
Diana Martins ◽  
J. Michael Paterson ◽  
Laura Robertson ◽  
...  

Background Stigma and high-care needs can present barriers to the provision of high-quality primary care for people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and those prescribed opioids for chronic pain. We explored the likelihood of securing a new primary care provider (PCP) among people with varying histories of opioid use who had recently lost access to their PCP. Methods and findings We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data among residents of Ontario, Canada whose enrolment with a physician practicing in a primary care enrolment model (PEM) was terminated between January 2016 and December 2017. We assigned individuals to 3 groups based upon their opioid use on the date enrolment ended: long-term opioid pain therapy (OPT), opioid agonist therapy (OAT), or no opioid. We fit multivariable models assessing the primary outcome of primary care reattachment within 1 year, adjusting for demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, and health services utilization. Secondary outcomes included rates of emergency department (ED) visits and opioid toxicity events. Among 154,970 Ontarians who lost their PCP, 1,727 (1.1%) were OAT recipients, 3,644 (2.4%) were receiving long-term OPT, and 149,599 (96.5%) had no recent prescription opioid exposure. In general, OAT recipients were younger (median age 36) than those receiving long-term OPT (59 years) and those with no recent prescription opioid exposure (44 years). In all exposure groups, the majority of individuals had their enrolment terminated by their physician (range 78.1% to 88.8%). In the primary analysis, as compared to those not receiving opioids, OAT recipients were significantly less likely to find a PCP within 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50 to 0.61, p < 0.0001). We observed no significant difference between long-term OPT and opioid unexposed individuals (aHR 0.96; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01, p = 0.12). In our secondary analysis comparing the period of PCP loss to the year prior, we found that rates of ED visits were elevated among people not receiving opioids (adjusted rate ratio (aRR) 1.20, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.22, p < 0.0001) and people receiving long-term OPT (aRR 1.37, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.48, p < 0.0001). We found no such increase among OAT recipients, and no significant increase in opioid toxicity events in the period following provider loss for any exposure group. The main limitation of our findings relates to their generalizability outside of PEMs and in jurisdictions with different financial incentives incorporated into primary care provision. Conclusions In this study, we observed gaps in access to primary care among people who receive prescription opioids, particularly among OAT recipients. Ongoing efforts are needed to address the stigma, discrimination, and financial disincentives that may introduce barriers to the healthcare system, and to facilitate access to high-quality, consistent primary care services for chronic pain patients and those with OUD.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3669-3669
Author(s):  
Hope Miodownik ◽  
Christopher Bradford ◽  
Joanna L. Starrels ◽  
Ugochi Olivia Ogu ◽  
Merin Thomas ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Opioid analgesics have served as the cornerstone of acute and chronic pain management in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) in the United States. Despite significant opioid use, hospitalization for painful crises comprises the majority of healthcare costs for patients with SCD. Moreover, greater use of opioids may correlate with poorer response to treatment of acute painful crises. Insufficient pain management, the rise of opioid use disorder and opioid-related fatal overdose have opened the door for new strategies of pain management for these patients. Medical cannabis represents a potential new strategy for the management of chronic SCD pain. There is a substantial body of literature describing the analgesic properties of cannabis, but little research has explored its role in the management of SCD-related pain. We sought to evaluate the prevalence of marijuana use in an urban SCD patient population and to identify demographic and clinical characteristics that may predict marijuana use in this cohort. Methods: Adult patients with SCD seen at an urban outpatient SCD center completed an intake form with questions regarding individual demographics, cumulative disease complications, current or prior marijuana use, ED utilization, frequency of pain, and opioid use. Data from 78 patients seen between October 2017 and June 2018 were available for analysis. Additional data including information regarding disease genotype and race were collected from the electronic medical record. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and Chi-Square analysis. Results: Among the 78 patients, mean age of the population was 35.7 years (range 20-69), and 50% were male. Genotype was 69% HbSS/SB0 and 31% HbSC/SB+. Twenty-three patients (29%) reported ever using marijuana, and 15 (19%) endorsed current use; most patients (80%) reported smoking. Marijuana users were more likely than non-users to be male (67% v 46%), to have HbSS/SB0 (80% v 67%), to have avascular necrosis (AVN) (47% v 17%, p=.025), to report daily pain (40% v 13%, p=.013), and to be prescribed opioids (93% v 65%, p=.031). Frequent ED visits (at least monthly) were more common in marijuana users (33% v 6% p=.002) compared to non-users. Age, leg ulcers, priapism, and hydroxyurea use were not different in users versus non-users. Discussion: In this cohort of patients with SCD seeking outpatient care, 19% reported current marijuana use for the management of SCD-related symptoms. Most patients reported smoking marijuana, and only one patient reported ingestion of edible marijuana. These rates are similar to marijuana use in other populations with chronic pain. SCD marijuana users were similar in age but not in sex distribution, as men more commonly reported marijuana use than women in our population. Marijuana users were enriched for the HbSS genotype, reported more daily pain, had more frequent ED visits and were more likely to be diagnosed with AVN of bones. There was a strong association between marijuana use and self-reported opioid use for pain control. These preliminary data suggest that patients with more severe manifestations of SCD, namely daily pain, frequent ED visits, AVN of bones, and significant utilization of opioids, are more likely to be using marijuana as adjunctive therapy for their chronic pain. As of July 2018, 31 US states and the District of Columbia have legalized the use of medical cannabis, with chronic pain an indication in most states and opioid replacement an indication in some. The expansion of access to medical cannabis highlights the need for careful evaluation of the potential benefits and harms of medical cannabis in the SCD population. These benefits might include better control of daily pain, reduced visits to the ED, and possibly decreased utilization of opioids. As medical cannabis is becoming a more available therapy, carefully controlled prospective studies are needed to assess its efficacy in the management of debilitating symptoms of SCD. Disclosures Starrels: Opioid Post-Marketing Requirement Consortium: Other: Research and travel support from the Opioid Post-Marketing Requirement Consortium for a FDA-mandated observational study of the risks of opioid medications. Minniti:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird Bio: Other: Adjudicating Committee; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; Teutona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 911-920
Author(s):  
Sevim Şen ◽  
Esra Usta ◽  
Dilek Aygin

Aim: This study was aimed to investigate the attitudes of surgical nurses toward postoperative opioid use. Method: The descriptive phenomenological study consists of 30 surgical nurses in two hospitals in Turkey.  Data were collected by semi-structured face to face interviews. Data analyses were done by qualitative theme analysis.  Findings: As a result of the theme analysis, six themes related to surgical nurses' attitudes of postoperative opioid analgesic use were identified. These themes are named as follows: primary indications for opioids, safest route for opioid administration, complications observed following opioid administration, opioid addiction, opioid safety, feeling stressed while administrating opioids. Nurses (13/30) stated that intravenous way is safer as it affects fast, and it is easy to control; while 12 nurses said that intramuscular application is safer as there are few possibilities for complications. While all of the nurses were agreed on that opioids are addictive, eighteen of them think that opioid drugs are safe, and 16 stated that administering opioids did not create stress. Conclusions: Nurses face some obstacles related to the use of opioids in the process of pain management, such as the abuse of opioids and encountering side effects. Pain management and opioid use should be given a great place in nursing education.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document