美国医用大麻：将2017年和2024年的州资格条件与2017年国家科学院报告进行比较

Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes Pub Date : 2025-02-20 DOI:10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2025.100590

Elena L. Stains BS , Amy L. Kennalley MBS , Maria Tian MBS , Kevin F. Boehnke PhD , Chadd K. Kraus DO, MPH , Brian J. Piper PhD

{"title":"美国医用大麻：将2017年和2024年的州资格条件与2017年国家科学院报告进行比较","authors":"Elena L. Stains BS , Amy L. Kennalley MBS , Maria Tian MBS , Kevin F. Boehnke PhD , Chadd K. Kraus DO, MPH , Brian J. Piper PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2025.100590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine cannabis report to state medical cannabis (MC) laws defining approved qualifying conditions (QC) from 2017 and 2024 and to determine the evidence level of the QCs approved in each state.</div></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><div>The 2017 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report assessed therapeutic evidence for over 20 medical conditions treated with MC. We identified the QCs of 38 states (including Washington DC) where MC was legal in 2024 and compared them to the QCs listed by these states in 2017. The QCs were then categorized on the basis of NAS-established levels of evidence: limited, moderate, or substantial/conclusive evidence of effectiveness, limited evidence of ineffectiveness, or no/insufficient evidence to support or refute effectiveness. This study was completed from January 31, 2023 to June 20, 2024.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Most states listed at least one QC with substantial evidence—80.0% in 2017 and 97.0% in 2024. However, in 2024 only 8.3% of the QCs on states’ QC lists met the standard of substantial/conclusive evidence. Of the 20 most popular QCs in the country in 2017 and 2024, one only (long-term pain) was categorized by the NAS as having substantial evidence for effectiveness. However, 7 were rated as either ineffective (eg, glaucoma) or insufficient evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Most QCs lack evidence for use on the basis of the 2017 NAS report. Many states recommend QCs with little evidence (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) or even those for which MC is ineffective (depression). These findings highlight a disparity between state-level MC recommendations and the evidence to support them.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94132,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes","volume":"9 2","pages":"Article 100590"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical Cannabis in the United States: Comparing 2017 and 2024 State Qualifying Conditions to the 2017 National Academies of Sciences Report\",\"authors\":\"Elena L. Stains BS , Amy L. Kennalley MBS , Maria Tian MBS , Kevin F. Boehnke PhD , Chadd K. Kraus DO, MPH , Brian J. Piper PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2025.100590\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine cannabis report to state medical cannabis (MC) laws defining approved qualifying conditions (QC) from 2017 and 2024 and to determine the evidence level of the QCs approved in each state.</div></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><div>The 2017 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report assessed therapeutic evidence for over 20 medical conditions treated with MC. We identified the QCs of 38 states (including Washington DC) where MC was legal in 2024 and compared them to the QCs listed by these states in 2017. The QCs were then categorized on the basis of NAS-established levels of evidence: limited, moderate, or substantial/conclusive evidence of effectiveness, limited evidence of ineffectiveness, or no/insufficient evidence to support or refute effectiveness. This study was completed from January 31, 2023 to June 20, 2024.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Most states listed at least one QC with substantial evidence—80.0% in 2017 and 97.0% in 2024. However, in 2024 only 8.3% of the QCs on states’ QC lists met the standard of substantial/conclusive evidence. Of the 20 most popular QCs in the country in 2017 and 2024, one only (long-term pain) was categorized by the NAS as having substantial evidence for effectiveness. However, 7 were rated as either ineffective (eg, glaucoma) or insufficient evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Most QCs lack evidence for use on the basis of the 2017 NAS report. Many states recommend QCs with little evidence (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) or even those for which MC is ineffective (depression). These findings highlight a disparity between state-level MC recommendations and the evidence to support them.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94132,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 100590\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454825000013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454825000013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较2017年美国国家科学院、工程院和医用大麻报告与各州医用大麻（MC）法律对2017年和2024年批准的合格条件（QC）的定义，并确定各州批准的QC的证据水平。患者和方法2017年美国国家科学院（NAS）报告评估了20多种使用MC治疗的医疗条件的治疗证据。我们确定了38个州（包括华盛顿特区）的qc，其中MC在2024年是合法的，并将其与这些州在2017年列出的qc进行了比较。然后根据nas建立的证据水平对qc进行分类：有限的、中等的或实质性/结论性的有效证据，有限的无效证据，或没有/不足的证据支持或反驳有效性。本研究于2023年1月31日至2024年6月20日完成。结果大多数州至少有一个质控证据确凿，2017年为80.0%，2024年为97.0%。然而，在2024年，各州QC清单上只有8.3%的QC符合实质性/结论性证据的标准。在2017年和2024年全国最受欢迎的20种qc中，只有一种（长期疼痛）被NAS归类为具有实质性证据的有效性。然而，其中7项被评为无效（如青光眼）或证据不足。根据2017年NAS报告，大多数qc缺乏使用证据。许多州推荐缺乏证据的qc（肌萎缩性侧索硬化症），甚至是MC无效的qc（抑郁症）。这些发现突出了州一级MC建议与支持这些建议的证据之间的差距。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Medical Cannabis in the United States: Comparing 2017 and 2024 State Qualifying Conditions to the 2017 National Academies of Sciences Report

Objective

To compare the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine cannabis report to state medical cannabis (MC) laws defining approved qualifying conditions (QC) from 2017 and 2024 and to determine the evidence level of the QCs approved in each state.

Patients and Methods

The 2017 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report assessed therapeutic evidence for over 20 medical conditions treated with MC. We identified the QCs of 38 states (including Washington DC) where MC was legal in 2024 and compared them to the QCs listed by these states in 2017. The QCs were then categorized on the basis of NAS-established levels of evidence: limited, moderate, or substantial/conclusive evidence of effectiveness, limited evidence of ineffectiveness, or no/insufficient evidence to support or refute effectiveness. This study was completed from January 31, 2023 to June 20, 2024.

Results

Most states listed at least one QC with substantial evidence—80.0% in 2017 and 97.0% in 2024. However, in 2024 only 8.3% of the QCs on states’ QC lists met the standard of substantial/conclusive evidence. Of the 20 most popular QCs in the country in 2017 and 2024, one only (long-term pain) was categorized by the NAS as having substantial evidence for effectiveness. However, 7 were rated as either ineffective (eg, glaucoma) or insufficient evidence.

Conclusion

Most QCs lack evidence for use on the basis of the 2017 NAS report. Many states recommend QCs with little evidence (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) or even those for which MC is ineffective (depression). These findings highlight a disparity between state-level MC recommendations and the evidence to support them.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes Surgery, Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Public Health and Health Policy

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

49 days