Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research最新文献

{"title":"A Thematic Text Analysis of Cannabis Edibles Brand Names.","authors":"Beth A Reboussin, Shelby Lake, E Alfonso Romero-Sandoval, Jennifer Cornacchione Ross, Kathleen L Egan, Kimberly G Wagoner, Erin L Sutfin, Cynthia K Suerken, Olivia E Horton, Allison J Lazard","doi":"10.1089/can.2025.0033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2025.0033","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> This study explores whether the cannabis edibles industry uses brand names that might impact consumer appeal and harm perceptions. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> An exploratory thematic text analysis of brand names for 1344 cannabis edible products from 250 brands advertised online between June and November 2022 was performed. Brands marketing only delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products (<i>n</i> = 80), THC and cannabidiol (CBD) products (<i>n</i> = 130), and only CBD products (<i>n</i> = 40) were compared. <b>Results:</b> Five core themes emerged: cannabis culture (42% of brands, <i>n</i> = 106), product characteristics (30%, <i>n</i> = 76), medicine and health (23%, <i>n</i> = 58), environment and nature (20%, <i>n</i> = 51), and identity and culture (14%, <i>n</i> = 34), with 15 subthemes. Brands only marketing CBD products more often had names with medicine and health (45%, <i>n</i> = 18) themes with subthemes of health and wellness (30%, <i>n</i> = 12) and expected effects (18%, <i>n</i> = 7) in contrast to brands marketing THC products (18%, <i>n</i> = 14; 2%, <i>n</i> = 2; 11%, <i>n</i> = 9 THC-only; 20%, <i>n</i> = 26; 5%, <i>n</i> = 6; 13%, <i>n</i> = 17 THC and CBD). Brands marketing THC products more often had names with cannabis (12%, <i>n</i> = 10 THC-only; 18%, <i>n</i> = 23 THC and CBD; 8%, <i>n</i> = 3 CBD-only) and spiritual/mystical (9%, <i>n</i> = 7 THC-only; 9%, <i>n</i> = 12, THC and CBD; 0%, CBD-only) subthemes. Food type subthemes were also more common among brands marketing THC products (19%, <i>n</i> = 15 THC-only; 21%, <i>n</i> = 27 THC and CBD; 8%, <i>n</i> = 3 CBD-only). Unconventionality (6%, <i>n</i> = 5 THC-only; 2%, <i>n</i> = 2 THC and CBD; 0% CBD-only) and names and places (16%, <i>n</i> = 13 THC-only; 5%, <i>n</i> = 8 THC & CBD; 5%, <i>n</i> = 2 CBD-only) were subthemes more common among brands only marketing THC products. <b>Conclusions:</b> This study identified distinct cannabis edibles brand name marketing strategies for THC versus CBD products that may affect consumer appeal and perceptions of harm, underscoring the need to monitor and potentially regulate cannabis edibles marketing to ensure that it does not mislead consumers or downplay potential risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144332486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"<i>Letter:</i> Nabilone for the Treatment of Obesity: still Many Hurdles to Tackle.","authors":"Sebastiaan Dalle","doi":"10.1089/can.2025.0055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2025.0055","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144315924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Substances of Health Concern: Label Accuracy of Cannabidiol and Tetrahydrocannabinol in Commercial Cannabidiol Tinctures from the United States.","authors":"Zander Sullivan, Coady Lapierre, Laura Weiser Erlandson, Linh Pham","doi":"10.1089/can.2025.0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2025.0016","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> In recent years, the production and consumption of cannabinoids have increased significantly. Researchers are particularly interested in cannabidiol (CBD), Δ⁸-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ⁸-THC), and Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ⁹-THC). Despite the growing prevalence of these molecules in everyday life, research shows that cannabinoid products are often mislabeled. In this study, we quantified and compared the label accuracy of CBD in full- and broad-spectrum tinctures to evaluate whether there is a public health concern related to CBD, Δ⁸-THC, and Δ⁹-THC. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> A total of 18 samples from different brands sold online in the United States were obtained for the study. Reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet/visible light detection (RP-HPLC-UV) was employed to detect and quantify the concentration of CBD and THC isomers within the samples. Labels were deemed inaccurate if the actual concentration of CBD deviated by more than 10% from the labeled amount. <b>Results:</b> Our findings showed that 12 out of 18 samples had inaccurately labeled CBD concentrations. Notably, a significant difference in CBD label accuracy was observed between broad- and full-spectrum tinctures (<i>p</i> = 0.0282). No significant correlation was found between the cost of the tinctures and the label accuracy for CBD (<i>p</i> = 0.2117). While none of the broad-spectrum tinctures contained Δ⁸-THC, two contained Δ⁹-THC. All full-spectrum tinctures contained both Δ⁸-THC and Δ⁹-THC at levels below the federal limit for hemp of 0.3% on a dry weight basis. <b>Discussion:</b> Accurate labeling of CBD and THC in tincture products is a crucial public health concern, both locally in Texas and across the United States. There is a need for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to promulgate regulations for labeling products that contain CBD and THC.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144301167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cannabis Use in California Following Legalization of Recreational Use.","authors":"Linda Hill, Daniel Ageze, Renee Dell'Acqua, Alice Gold, Ilene Lanin-Kettering, Jill Rybar, Tom Shaughnessy, Sara Baird, Thomas D Marcotte","doi":"10.1089/can.2024.0179","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2024.0179","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Cannabis was legalized in California for recreational use through the passage of Proposition 64: The Adult Use Marijuana Act of 2016. This analysis from the Impact 64 study describes the cannabis use patterns of adults 21 years and older in California since the passage of Proposition 64. <b>Methods:</b> An online questionnaire addressing use of tetrahydrocannabinol-containing cannabis (including frequency, product(s), length, source, and purpose) was administered from December 2022 to February 2023. Of the initial 15,309 census-weighted participants, a subset of participants completed a detailed cannabis use questionnaire, including 4,020 people who currently use cannabis. Cannabis users were grouped by use frequency, and chi-squared analysis was utilized for descriptive analysis. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to assess significant variables associated with specific use patterns. <b>Results:</b> Of the initial sample of 15,208, 37% reported current cannabis use (with use in the past 3 months), 30% formerly used cannabis, and 33% were nonusers. Among current users, 38% reported very frequent use (multiple times a day), 33% frequent use (four times per week to daily), and 30% occasional use (three times per week or less). Compared with occasional users, very frequent users were more likely to be male (65%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.8, <i>p</i> < 0.001), less educated (OR = 1.7, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and have lower incomes (under 50K vs 100K, OR = 2.3, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Most users reported multiple cannabis products, mainly flower inhalation (80%), vaping (66%), and edibles (61%), primarily sourced from dispensaries (77%), which the majority (94%) perceived as licensed. Of all current users, most used cannabis at home (93%) or for entertainment (75%), with many reporting use during creative activities (45%), with alcohol (36%) and/or with cigarettes (24%). Positive impacts were reported in mental (82%), emotional (81%), and physical (62%) health. The internet (51%) and friends/family (50%) were the main sources of information. Most current users felt comfortable discussing cannabis with their primary doctor (78%), although only 66% of primary doctors knew about recreational use. <b>Discussion:</b> There is a high prevalence of daily cannabis use among adult Californians, with most users obtaining products from perceived licensed dispensaries or delivery services. While most users feel comfortable discussing cannabis use with physicians, they primarily obtain information from other sources, highlighting the need to bridge this information gap.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144257353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How Has Japan's Cannabis Control Act Been Amended?","authors":"Yuji Masataka, Yoshiyuki Akahoshi, Munenori Katayama, Futaba Umemura, Naoko Miki, Ryota Nakazawa, Kosuke Shibata, Chikako Yoshida, Ayako Mikami, Toshihiko Matsumoto, Kozo Akino, Ichiro Takumi","doi":"10.1089/can.2025.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2025.0006","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> In 2023, Japan's Cannabis Control Act underwent its first major revision since its establishment in 1948. The legal framework surrounding cannabis had long remained rigid, with limited scope for medical or industrial applications. <b>Methods:</b> This review examines the content and implications of the 2023 legal amendments based on governmental documents, legislative records, and secondary analyses of regulatory shifts. The assessment focuses on three key domains: medical application, industrial use, and drug control. <b>Results:</b> Under the revised law, cannabis-derived products intended for medical use were brought under the same regulatory framework as opioid analgesics, theoretically enabling physicians to prescribe them. Simultaneously, the longstanding restriction limiting industrial use to mature stalks and seeds was lifted. However, this liberalization was counterbalanced by the introduction of a stringent THC threshold. On the criminal side, cannabis continues to be regulated as an illicit substance, and new penalties for use have been introduced. The revised law came into effect on December 12, 2024. <b>Conclusion:</b> The 2023 amendment represents a significant shift in Japan's cannabis policy, aiming to balance expanded medical and industrial opportunities with continued drug control. Its practical implications remain to be seen and warrant close monitoring in the coming years.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144257354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Combination of Cannabidiol and Low-Dose Buprenorphine Suggests Synergistic Analgesia and Attenuates Buprenorphine-Induced Respiratory Depression.","authors":"Marisa S Briones, Dustin Z DeYoung, Keith G Heinzerling","doi":"10.1089/can.2025.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2025.0004","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> As opioid-related drug overdoses remain a public health crisis, there is a critical need for innovative approaches to developing safer analgesics with improved safety profiles. BDH-001 is a fixed-dose combination of low-dose buprenorphine (BUP) and cannabidiol (CBD) being developed as a safer analgesic than currently available opioids. The purpose of this study was to examine the analgesic and opioid-sparing effects of BDH-001 and to complete an <i>in vivo</i> safety assessment in rats. <b>Methods:</b> Analgesic effect of BDH-001 was assessed using the chronic constriction injury model of chronic neuropathic pain with pain threshold assessed <i>via</i> Von Frey testing. Drug-drug interaction effects on pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were assessed in a single dose PK study in rodents. The effects on respiratory depression were also assessed and confirmed in two separate rodent studies performing blood gas analysis and measuring O₂ saturation. <b>Results:</b> BDH-001 (combination of subanalgesic BUP dose and CBD) resulted in statistically significant increases in pain threshold compared to saline (<i>p</i> < 0.001), CBD alone (<i>p</i> < 0.01), and BUP alone (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The half-life of BUP was significantly shorter in the presence of CBD compared to BUP alone (<i>p</i> = 0.008), with no significant changes in any other BUP pharmacokinetic parameter assessed. CBD was found to attenuate BUP-induced respiratory depression in rats when assessing blood gases (<i>p</i> < 0.05) and O₂ saturation (<i>p</i> < 0.05) over several time bins. <b>Conclusions:</b> Data obtained in the present study indicate the addition of CBD to BUP was opioid-sparing and attenuated BUP- but not morphine-induced respiratory depression. There was no evidence these findings were the result of a PK interaction. Results support the hypothesis that BDH-001, a fixed-dose combination of BUP and CBD, may provide effective analgesia with a more favorable safety profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cannabidiol Gummy Products: LC-MS/MS Assessment of Cannabinoid Concentrations.","authors":"Erin D Johnson, Michael W Kilgore, Maribeth Stafford, Makana Randolph, Melissa Glover, Shanna Babalonis","doi":"10.1089/can.2024.0167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2024.0167","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Hemp and cannabidiol (CBD) products are now widely available for purchase in the United States and in many international jurisdictions. However, these products are largely unregulated (with very few exceptions) and are widely available without restriction. This has created a market in which low-quality and contaminated products are commonplace. The aim of the current study was to analyze the cannabinoid content of 56 selected CBD gummy products. <b>Methods:</b> Gummy-based CBD products from national brands, available for purchase online, were obtained. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was used for cannabinoid analysis. Key outcome measures included: (1) concentration of CBD in each product, (2) accuracy of the product labeling regarding CBD concentration, and (3) concentration of Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ⁹-THC) and other cannabinoids of interest (e.g., cannabidivarin and cannabinol) in each product. An exploratory analysis assessed within-product consistency of CBD and THC concentrations (e.g., variation in cannabinoid content from gummy to gummy within a single bottle). <b>Results:</b> The products contained a mean of 21.38 (±11.16) mg CBD per gummy (range: 5.70 - 59.99 mg). In total, 70% of the gummies contained CBD in a concentration that differed by >10% of the dose listed on the packaging. In total, 39% of the products contained Δ⁹-THC and concentrations were highly variable (range: 0.019-0.88 mg Δ⁹-THC/gummy); 9 products (16% of products tested) contained >0.4 mg Δ⁹-THC per gummy. Within-product analysis (<i>n</i> = 10 products) revealed high variability across gummies (coefficient of variation for CBD: 2.1 - 27.1%; Δ⁹-THC: 3.1 - 23.5%). <b>Conclusions:</b> As several studies have demonstrated, unregulated CBD product packaging is not an accurate indication of the product constituents. This study further confirms that CBD products do not have reliable CBD concentrations-both relative to the dose listed on the label and among individual gummies within the same bottle. These products also frequently contain Δ⁹-THC (and occasionally Δ⁸-THC), often unbeknownst to the consumer. The results of this study support the growing body of literature suggesting the necessity of CBD product regulation to ensure customer health and safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144198297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correct Recognition and Appeal Ratings of Copycat Cannabis Edible Packaging: Evidence from an Online Experiment.","authors":"Michael Cooper, Yuyan Shi","doi":"10.1089/can.2025.0017","DOIUrl":"10.1089/can.2025.0017","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Despite prohibitions against youth-appealing packages, deceptive \"copycat\" cannabis edible packages have been commonly seen in U.S. states that legalized recreational cannabis. Copycat packages mimic the branding features of popular food products, posing a high risk for accidental ingestion, particularly for the younger population. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> An online experiment was conducted among a representative sample of young adults aged 18-29 (<i>N</i> = 2,523). Participants were asked in timed trials to identify whether each package in a series of images contained cannabis content. Regression analysis was conducted to analyze the association between package type and correct identification and the association between correct identification and appeal ratings. <b>Results:</b> Copycat cannabis packages were associated with lower odds of correct identification of cannabis content (odds ratio = 0.35, 95% CI = [0.31, 0.40]) compared with the non-copycat branded cannabis package. Correct identification of cannabis content was associated with lower appeal ratings (odds ratio = 0.75, 95% CI = [0.69, 0.81]). <b>Discussion:</b> Copycat cannabis packages were associated with elevated risk of misidentification of cannabis content, making them a public health risk for accidental ingestion. Package features that make a package easily identifiable were less appealing, underscoring the need of requiring salient features to indicate cannabis content on cannabis packages.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":"420-424"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12171700/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143983154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Classification of Cannabis Strains Based on their Chemical Fingerprint-A Broad Analysis of Chemovars in the German Market.","authors":"N Herwig, S Utgenannt, F Nickl, P Möbius, L Nowak, O Schulz, M Fischer","doi":"10.1089/can.2024.0127","DOIUrl":"10.1089/can.2024.0127","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Cannabis cultivars were usually categorized based on their genetic profile as sativa, indica, or hybrid types. However, these three criteria do not allow sufficient differentiation between the numerous varieties of cannabis strains. Furthermore, this classification is based on morphological and bio-geographical properties of the plants and does not represent the chemical composition of different cultivars. The concentration of cannabinoids and terpenes are crucial for the pharmacological effect, not only because of the known entourage effect, and therefore needs to be considered by categorization. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> A total of 140 medicinal cannabis flowers available on the German market were analyzed regarding their individual terpene profile using GC-MS analysis. Statistical evaluation was performed to investigate correlations and data relations as well as for clustering. <b>Results:</b> Multivariate analysis showed correlations between individual terpenes. However, there was no statistical correlation between terpene profiles and their respective genetic profile. Terpene profiles of sativa, indica, and hybrid strains are quite heterogenous and clearly showed that there is no relation between terpenes and the estimated pharmacological effect. As a result, we suggest a new classification system based on individual terpene profiles to faster a comprehensive understanding of the expected medical effect. <b>Discussion:</b> Considering main terpenes, we established a concept of six clusters with various terpene profiles being attributed to different medicinal applications. We excluded tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) content from clustering as most of the strains were THC dominant and therefore distort the results. Our pattern of strains with similar terpene profiles might refine the existing classes of chemotypes with different THC:CBD content. <b>Conclusion:</b> The categorization of cannabis strains based on their terpene profiles allows a clearer, finer and, above all, more meaningful classification than the existing sativa/indica classification. Due to the entourage effect and the interactions between cannabinoids and terpenes, this group of substances is also given the necessary consideration when selecting the right medicine for the individual. Within the next steps, further studies are needed with the aim of mapping clinical validated effects to our chemovars. If it is possible to correlate therapy of symptoms to specific chemical profiles personalized cannabinoid therapy will be possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":"409-419"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141975125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cost-Effectiveness of Medical Cannabis Versus Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain.","authors":"Haron M Jeddi, Jason W Busse, Behnam Sadeghirad, Mitchell Levine, Caroline MacCallum, Li Wang, Rachel J Couban, Jean-Eric Tarride","doi":"10.1089/can.2024.0120","DOIUrl":"10.1089/can.2024.0120","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) affects one in five adults and is commonly managed with long-term opioid therapy. Concerns regarding rare but catastrophic harms associated with opioids, including overdose and death, have generated interest in alternatives including cannabis; however, the comparative cost-effectiveness of these management options is uncertain. <b>Methods:</b> We used findings from a network meta-analysis of 90 randomized trials to develop a 1-year microsimulation model to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) between oral medical cannabis and opioids for CNCP. We used a publicly funded health care payer perspective for our analyses and obtained cost and utility data from publicly available sources. All costs are reported in 2023 Canadian dollars. All analyses were probabilistic, and we conducted sensitivity and scenario analyses to assess robustness. <b>Results:</b> Total mean annual cost per patient was $1,980 for oral medical cannabis and $1,851 for opioids, a difference of $129 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -$723 to $525). Mean QALYs were 0.582 for both oral medical cannabis and opioids (95% CI: -0.007 to 0.015). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that oral medical cannabis was cost-effective in 31% of iterations at willingness-to-pay thresholds up to $50,000/QALY gained. Use of opioids is associated with nonfatal and fatal overdose, whereas medical cannabis is not. <b>Discussion:</b> Our findings suggest that medical cannabis as an alternative to opioids for chronic pain may confer similar, but modest, benefits to patients, and reduce the risk of opioid overdose without substantially increasing costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":"467-479"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143963710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}