“Background: Chronic opioid therapy (COT) has been used to treat many chronic pain conditions even with poor evidence for its long-term effectiveness. Medical cannabis has emerged with certain pain-relieving properties, which has led to questions as to its’ potential application, especially in relation to its effect on opioid use.

Objectives: This study investigates a proposed clinical context in offering medical cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain for those already using chronic opioid therapy. It then details patients’ daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) usage.

Study design: This single-center prospective study follows a group of patients trialing medical cannabis treatment for chronic pain that is already using COT in order to determine individual efficacy. Continued medical cannabis treatment was a decision made by the patient, after trialing medical cannabis, to either continue medical cannabis along with COT at a reduced daily MME, or to revert back to their previous COT regimen.

Setting: This study was performed at the Allegheny Health Network Institute for Pain Medicine in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The state of Pennsylvania legalized medical cannabis in April of 2016, and it became available to patients in February of 2018 through medical dispensaries.

Methods: One hundred and fifteen patients met the inclusion criteria, with the majority of those excluded due to not being treated with COT. Of the 115 who chose to undergo a medical cannabis trial in addition to their COT, 75 chose to remain certified for medical cannabis as they had significant pain relief and subsequently weaned down on opioids. Additionally, of the 115 choosing to undergo a medical cannabis trial, 30 chose to be decertified due to ineffectiveness or side effects, and those were placed back on their COT regimen. The other 10 were not included for other denoted reasons. Compliance was monitored through urine drug screens (UDS).

Results: There was a 67.1% average decrease in daily MME/patient from 49.9 to 16.4 MME at the first follow-up. There was a 73.3% decrease in MME at second follow-up from 49.9 to 13.3 MME with an ANOVA analysis denoting a significant difference of P < 0.0001.

Limitations: The period of follow-up presented at this point includes their first 6 months of treatment with medical cannabis and COT concomitantly.

Conclusions: Presenting medical cannabis to chronic pain patients on COT should be done in the context of a patient choice between medical cannabis WITH decrement of COT or continued current dose of COT in order to maximize effectiveness in opioid reduction as well as to limit polypharmacy concerns regarding medical cannabis. Allowing for a temporary short-term period where patients may trial medical cannabis, while concomitantly gradually weaning their COT, is also essential in determining medical cannabis’ individual effectiveness for that patient’s specific type of chronic pain, which should serve to maximize long-term opioid reduction results and hence decrease opioid-related overdose deaths.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35051158/

https://www.painphysicianjournal.com/linkout?issn=&vol=25&page=E113

“Cannabinoid co-administration may enable reduced opioid doses for analgesia. This updated systematic review on the opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids considered preclinical and clinical studies where the outcome was analgesia or opioid dose requirements. We searched Scopus, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase (2016 onwards). Ninety-two studies met the search criteria including 15 ongoing trials. Meta-analysis of seven preclinical studies found the median effective dose (ED₅₀) of morphine administered with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol was 3.5 times lower (95% CI 2.04, 6.03) than the ED₅₀ of morphine alone. Six preclinical studies found no evidence of increased opioid abuse liability with cannabinoid administration. Of five healthy-volunteer experimental pain studies, two found increased pain, two found decreased pain and one found reduced pain bothersomeness with cannabinoid administration; three demonstrated that cannabinoid co-administration may increase opioid abuse liability. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found no evidence of opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in acute pain. Meta-analysis of four RCTs in patients with cancer pain found no effect of cannabinoid administration on opioid dose (mean difference -3.8 mg, 95% CI -10.97, 3.37) or percentage change in pain scores (mean difference 1.84, 95% CI -2.05, 5.72); five studies found more adverse events with cannabinoids compared with placebo (risk ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.03, 1.24). Of five controlled chronic non-cancer pain trials; one low-quality study with no control arm, and one single-dose study reported reduced pain scores with cannabinoids. Three RCTs found no treatment effect of dronabinol. Meta-analyses of observational studies found 39% reported opioid cessation (95% CI 0.15, 0.64, I² 95.5%, eight studies), and 85% reported reduction (95% CI 0.64, 0.99, I² 92.8%, seven studies). In summary, preclinical and observational studies demonstrate the potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in the context of analgesia, in contrast to higher-quality RCTs that did not provide evidence of opioid-sparing effects.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35459926/

“Background: Relevant data for the prescription and therapeutic effects of medical cannabinoids (CAM) are still missing in everyday medicine especially for elderly and geriatric patients.

Aim of the study: Documentation of prescription (duration, age) of CAM (dronabinol, nabiximols, cannabinoid extracts) and co-medicated opioids in a doctor’s office specializing in pain.

Methods: Analysis of the consumption of opioids (morphine equivalent) and CAM (THC equivalent) for age and gender.

Results: In all, 178 patients with chronic pain were treated for a period of 366 days (median; range 31-2590 days). Median age was 72 years (26-96 years); 115 were women (64.8%). Of these, 34 were younger than 65 years, 42 were 65-80 years and 40 were more than 80 years old. Of the 63 men, 29 were younger than 65 years, 24 were 65-80 years and 10 were older than 80 years. Indications for CAM were chronic pain and the limitations for opioids because of side effects and worsening of quality of life. To total of 1001 CAM were prescribed, 557 (55.6%) dronabinol as liquid, 328 (32.7%) as full spectrum extracts and 66 (6.6%) as oro-mucosal nabiximols spray. 50 prescriptions (5%) contained more than one CAM simultaneously. The daily consumption of dronabinol liquor and extracts were 9.6 mg/day (median), and of spray 13.6 mg. The dosage over time did not change in patients older than 64; in younger patients, there was a non-significant increasing trend. Women requested lower THC dosages compared to men (8.1 mg vs. 14.8 mg). Furthermore, 10 patients (5.6%) stopped CAM because of failing effectivity, 7 (3.9%) because of failing cost coverage and only 5 because of adverse side effects. 115 patients (65%) with CAM also received opioids a median 65 mg/day morphine equivalents. This opioid dosage was significantly reduced in course of time by 24 mg/day morphine equivalents or 50%. This reduction was independent on CAM dosage, age and gender.

Discussion: Patients with chronic pain profit from long-term CAM which safely and significantly lower the consumption of comedicated opioids, even at low dosages (< 7.5 mg/day). For women, low-dose THC may be sufficient. Older patients benefit from CAM, and adverse effects do not limit the (chronic) use and prescription of CAM in the elderly.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35384481/