cannabis

Importance: Approximately 27% of adults in the US and Canada report having ever used cannabis for medical purposes. An estimated 10.5% of the US population reports using cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical compound extracted from cannabis that does not have psychoactive effects, for therapeutic purposes.

Observations: Conditions for which cannabinoids have approval from the US Food and Drug Administration include HIV/AIDS-related anorexia, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and certain pediatric seizure disorders. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials reported a small but significant reduction in nausea and vomiting from various causes (eg, chemotherapy, cancer) when comparing prescribed cannabinoids (eg, dronabinol, nabilone) with placebo or active comparators (eg, alizapride, chlorpromazine; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.29 [95% CI, -0.39 to -0.18]). A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials among patients with HIV/AIDS reported that cannabinoids had a moderate effect on increasing body weight compared with placebo (SMD, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.92]). Evidence-based guidelines do not recommend the use of inhaled or high-potency cannabis (≥10% or 10 mg Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol [Δ9-THC]) for medical purposes. High-potency cannabis compared with low-potency cannabis use is associated with increased risk of psychotic symptoms (12.4% vs 7.1%) and generalized anxiety disorder (19.1% vs 11.6%). A meta-analysis of observational studies reported that 29% of individuals who used cannabis for medical purposes met criteria for cannabis use disorder. Daily inhaled cannabis use compared with nondaily use was associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (2.0% vs 0.9%), myocardial infarction (1.7% vs 1.3%), and stroke (2.6% vs 1.0%). Evidence from randomized clinical trials does not support the use of cannabis or cannabinoids for most conditions for which it is promoted, such as acute pain and insomnia. Before considering cannabis or cannabinoids for medical use, clinicians should consult applicable institutional, state, and national regulations; evaluate for drug-drug interactions; and assess for contraindications (eg, pregnancy) or conditions in which risks likely outweigh benefits (eg, schizophrenia or ischemic heart disease). For patients using cannabis or cannabinoids for treatment of medical conditions, clinicians should discuss harm reduction strategies, including avoiding concurrent use with alcohol or other central nervous system depressants such as benzodiazepines, using the lowest effective dose, and avoiding use when driving or operating machinery.

Conclusions and relevance: Evidence is insufficient for the use of cannabis or cannabinoids for most medical indications. Clear guidance from clinicians is essential to support safe, evidence-based decision-making. Clinicians should weigh benefits against risks when engaging patients in informed discussions about cannabis or cannabinoid use.

Author/s:

Michael Hsu, Arya Shah, Ayana Jordan, Mark S Gold, Kevin P Hill

What Parents Should Know About Preventing Accidental Poisonings

Megan George — Tue, 28 Oct 2025 15:14:21 +0000

Date Added:

October 28, 2025

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Pediatrics

Publication Date:

October 27, 2025

URL:

What Parents Should Know About Preventing Accidental Poisonings

Type:

Patient Education Materials

Format:

Poster

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.3703

Keywords

Poison

Poison Control

analgesics

Accidental Consumption

PMID (1):

41143820

MeSH

Information for parents about accidental poisonings. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

This JAMA Pediatrics Patient Page discusses the most common causes of poisoning in children and safety tips to prevent poisoning.

Author/s:

Mickey A Emmanuel, Ava Mascarenhas, Lindsay A Thompson

2024 edition of the Rourke Baby Record

Hope Smashey — Sat, 13 Sep 2025 19:21:41 +0000

Date Added:

September 13, 2025

Journal/Publication:

Canadian Family Physician

Publication Date:

September 13, 2025

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

553-561

URL:

2024 edition of the Rourke Baby Record

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.46747/cfp.7109553

Keywords

child

infant

Baby

PMID (1):

40940145

MeSH

Culturally Competent Care

primary health care

Vegetarians

Eating

This is an article explaining and updating a tool used in many Canadian practices that care for babies and their mothers. The actual Baby Record can b downloaded free at https://www.rourkebabyrecord.ca

Free full text

View

Objective: To assist busy primary care providers caring for infants and young children and their families by providing them with the most recent recommendations and supportive evidence included in the 2024 edition of the Rourke Baby Record (RBR).

Quality of evidence: Articles from pediatric preventive care literature (January 2019 to March 2023) were reviewed for relevance and quality of evidence. When available, evidence from systematic reviews, relevant clinical guidelines, and clinical trials were incorporated. In the absence of high-level evidence, observational studies and expert opinion on the topic were included. Primary research studies were reviewed and critically appraised using a modified protocol.

Main message: Notable updates in the 2024 edition of the RBR include the promotion of early relational health for families; identification of targeted support and resources as opposed to labelling of high-risk groups; guidance on culturally safe care; clarification and evidence-based adjustments of the age of achievement of some developmental surveillance milestones; recommendations on plant-based beverages, vegetarian, and vegan diets; screening considerations for iron deficiency; dangers of ingestion of button batteries and cannabis edibles; literacy and socioemotional benefits of reading, singing, and storytelling; the importance of unstructured outdoor play; the environment's effect on children's health; the significance of sentinel injuries; acholic stools; and the normal presence and abnormal persistence of developmental (primitive) reflexes.

Conclusion: Building on its 40-year history, the 2024 RBR provides freely available, evidence-informed recommendations to guide clinicians in providing effective, up-to-date, and comprehensive preventive pediatric care. Despite the challenging and evolving landscape of primary health care delivery, the RBR will continue to support primary care providers.

Author/s:

Anne Rowan-Legg, Patricia Li, Bruce Kwok, Leslie Rourke, Denis Leduc, James Rourke, Imaan Bayoumi

2024 edition of the Rourke Baby Record

Hope Smashey — Sat, 13 Sep 2025 19:21:20 +0000

Date Added:

September 13, 2025

Journal/Publication:

Canadian Family Physician

Publication Date:

September 13, 2025

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

553-561

URL:

2024 edition of the Rourke Baby Record

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.46747/cfp.7109553

Keywords

child

infant

Baby

PMID (1):

40940145

MeSH

Culturally Competent Care

primary health care

Vegetarians

Eating

Free full text

View

Author/s:

Anne Rowan-Legg, Patricia Li, Bruce Kwok, Leslie Rourke, Denis Leduc, James Rourke, Imaan Bayoumi

Prenatal Cannabis Use and Neonatal Outcomes A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hope Smashey — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:15:44 +0000

Date Added:

July 8, 2025

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Pediatrics

Publication Date:

May 5, 2025

Issue:

179

Volume:

URL:

Prenatal Cannabis Use and Neonatal Outcomes A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.0689

Keywords

PMID (1):

40323610

MeSH

Evidence-Based Medicine

Maternal marijuana use during pregnancy is bad for babies. James W. Mold, MD, MPH.

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Importance: Prenatal cannabis use continues to increase, and cannabis remains the most commonly used illegal substance in pregnancy. Accumulating evidence suggests potential adverse effects on fetal and neonatal outcomes following cannabis use in pregnancy.

Objective: To update a living systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a timely understanding regarding cannabis use in pregnancy and fetal and neonatal outcomes.

Data sources: The previous review was updated by searching bibliographic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Global Health, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from November 1, 2021, through April 4, 2024.

Study selection: Cohort or case-control studies comparing pregnancies with and without prenatal cannabis use on prespecified fetal or neonatal outcomes with adjustment for confounders, such as co-use of tobacco products, were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies, with disagreements resolved through discussion.

Data extraction and synthesis: Included studies were extracted by 1 reviewer and confirmed by a second. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses of unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were performed for all primary outcomes. Results were synthesized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes were preterm birth (PTB; <37 weeks of gestation), small for gestational age (SGA), low birth weight (LBW; <2500 g), and perinatal mortality.

Results: For this update, 8 new studies with 1 709 998 participants were added, for a total of 51 studies synthesized (N = 21 146 938). From meta-analyses of adjusted effect sizes, moderate-certainty evidence indicated that cannabis use in pregnancy was associated with increased odds of LBW (20 studies; OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.41-2.18), PTB (20 studies; OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.26-1.83), and SGA (12 studies; OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.36-1.81), and low-certainty evidence indicated that it was associated with greater odds of perinatal mortality (6 studies; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.55). Previously, the evidence was rated as very low or low certainty.

Conclusions and relevance: Cannabis use in pregnancy was associated with greater odds of PTB, SGA, and LBW even after adjusting for co-use of tobacco products, and confidence in these findings increased from low in the prior review to moderate in the current meta-analysis. The findings of this study may help inform patient counseling and future public health policies.

Author/s:

Jamie O Lo, Chelsea K Ayers, Snehapriya Yeddala, Beth Shaw, Shannon Robalino, Rachel Ward, Devan Kansagara

What Are E-Cigarettes?

Alex Haga — Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:14:35 +0000

Date Added:

August 11, 2024

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publication Date:

August 7, 2024

URL:

What Are E-Cigarettes?

Type:

Patient Education Materials

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2024.14334

Keywords

PMID (1):

39110431

MeSH

electronic nicotine delivery systems

nicotine

Vaping

cannabis

Patient/parent information about e-cigarettes. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

This JAMA Patient Page describes e-cigarettes and the potential health effects of vaping.

Author/s:

Preeti N Malani, Kristin L Walter

The Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder: Synopsis of the 2023 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

Erin Blanchette — Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:40:40 +0000

Date Added:

March 12, 2024

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publisher:

American College of Physicians

Publication Date:

February 27, 2024

URL:

The Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder: Synopsis of the 2023 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.7326/M23-2757

Keywords

PTSD

veterans

Veterans Health

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Defense

antidepressants

PMID (1):

38408360

MeSH

Stress Disorders

stress disorder, post-traumatic

Veterans

antidepressive agents

cannabis

Traumatic

Acute

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Recommendations from the Depts of Veterans Affairs and Defense regarding diagnosis and management of PTSD and acute stress disorders. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Description: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) worked together to revise the 2017 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder. This article summarizes the 2023 clinical practice guideline (CPG) and its development process, focusing on assessments and treatments for which evidence was sufficient to support a recommendation for or against.

Methods: Subject experts from both departments developed 12 key questions and reviewed the published literature after a systematic search using the PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing of outcomes measurement, and setting) method. The evidence was then evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. Recommendations were made after consensus was reached; they were based on quality and strength of evidence and informed by other factors, including feasibility and patient perspectives. Once the draft was peer reviewed by an external group of experts and their inputs were incorporated, the final document was completed.

Recommendations: The revised CPG includes 34 recommendations in the following 5 topic areas: assessment and diagnosis, prevention, treatment, treatment of nightmares, and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with co-occurring conditions. Six recommendations on PTSD treatment were rated as strong. The CPG recommends use of specific manualized psychotherapies over pharmacotherapy; prolonged exposure, cognitive processing therapy, or eye movement desensitization and reprocessing psychotherapy; paroxetine, sertraline, or venlafaxine; and secure video teleconferencing to deliver recommended psychotherapy when that therapy has been validated for use with video teleconferencing or when other options are unavailable. The CPG also recommends against use of benzodiazepines, cannabis, or cannabis-derived products. Providers are encouraged to use this guideline to support evidence-based, patient-centered care and shared decision making to optimize individuals' health outcomes and quality of life.

Author/s:

Paula P Schnurr, Jessica L Hamblen, Jonathan Wolf, Rachael Coller, Claire Collie, Matthew A Fuller, Paul E Holtzheimer, Ursula Kelly, Ariel J Lang, Kate McGraw, Joshua C Morganstein, Sonya B Norman, Katie Papke, Ismene Petrakis, David Riggs, James A Sall, Brian Shiner, Ilse Wiechers, Marija S Kelber

Marijuana and Youth: The Impact of Marijuana Use on Teen Health and Wellbeing

Erin Blanchette — Thu, 07 Mar 2024 02:26:51 +0000

Date Added:

March 6, 2024

Publisher:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

URL:

Marijuana and Youth: The Impact of Marijuana Use on Teen Health and Wellbeing

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Web Page

Keywords

marijuana

recreational marijuana

MeSH

A concise summary of what is known about use and abuse of marijuana by teenagers. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

National Cannabis Awareness Month is observed in April to increase awareness and education about marijuana. While scientists are still learning about the risks and benefits of using marijuana, we know that marijuana use can harm a teen’s health and wellbeing.

Review of systemic and syndromic complications of cannabis use: A review

Aubrey Delammermore — Mon, 19 Dec 2022 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

December 19, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Medicine

Publisher:

Wolters Kluwer Health

Publication Date:

December 9, 2022

Issue:

Volume:

101

Pages:

e32111

URL:

Review of systemic and syndromic complications of cannabis use: A review

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1097/MD.0000000000032111

Keywords

complications of cannabis use

MeSH

A review of some of the complications of cannabis abuse. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Purpose of review: Prescribed and non-prescribed cannabis use is common. Providers in specialties treating chronic pain – primary care, pain management, and neurology–will be coming across medical cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain, regardless of whether they are prescribers. It is important to be aware of the systemic and syndromic complications of acute and chronic cannabis use in the differential diagnosis of cardiac, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, gastrointestinal, and psychiatric disorders.

Recent Findings: Medical cannabis is legal in 36 states. Studies have shown several potentially serious adverse effects associated with cannabis use.

Summary: Cannabis use has the potential to cause several complications that can be easily overlooked without a preexisting high index of suspicion.

Author/s:

Shah, J., Fermo, O.

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain

Aubrey Delammermore — Thu, 13 Oct 2022 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

October 13, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publisher:

US Department of Health and Human Services

Publication Date:

October 6, 2022

URL:

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER250

Keywords

PMID (1):

34882379

MeSH

An updated version of a systematic review previously posted to RPR Exchange. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

In an effort to address the opioid epidemic, a prominent goal of current research is to identify alternative treatments with equal or better benefits for pain while avoiding potential unintended consequences that could result in harms.

This 'living' systematic review assesses the effectiveness and harms of cannabis and other plant-based treatments for chronic pain conditions. For the purposes of this review, plant-based compounds (PBCs) included are those that are similar to opioids in effect and that have the potential for addiction, misuse, and serious adverse effects; other PBCs such as herbal treatments are not included. The intended audience includes policy and decision makers, funders and researchers of treatments for chronic pain, and clinicians who treat chronic pain.

The report will be updated on a quarterly basis.

Author/s:

McDonagh, M. S., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Fu, R., Morasco, B., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

Cannabis-Based Products for Chronic Pain : A Systematic Review

Saige Blanchard — Tue, 14 Jun 2022 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

June 14, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publisher:

American College of Physicians

Publication Date:

June 7, 2022

URL:

Cannabis-Based Products for Chronic Pain : A Systematic Review

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.7326/M21-4520

Keywords

PMID (1):

35667066

MeSH

A systematic review of cannabis-related compounds for chronic pain. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Background: Contemporary data are needed about the utility of cannabinoids in chronic pain.

Purpose: To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabinoids for chronic pain.

Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus to January 2022.

Study selection: English-language, randomized, placebo-controlled trials and cohort studies (≥1 month duration) of cannabinoids for chronic pain.

Data extraction: Data abstraction, risk of bias, and strength of evidence assessments were dually reviewed. Cannabinoids were categorized by THC-to-CBD ratio (high, comparable, or low) and source (synthetic, extract or purified, or whole plant).

Data synthesis: Eighteen randomized, placebo-controlled trials (n = 1740) and 7 cohort studies (n = 13 095) assessed cannabinoids. Studies were primarily short term (1 to 6 months); 56% enrolled patients with neuropathic pain, with 3% to 89% female patients. Synthetic products with high THC-to-CBD ratios (>98% THC) may be associated with moderate improvement in pain severity and response (≥30% improvement) and an increased risk for sedation and are probably associated with a large increased risk for dizziness. Extracted products with high THC-to-CBD ratios (range, 3:1 to 47:1) may be associated with large increased risk for study withdrawal due to adverse events and dizziness. Sublingual spray with comparable THC-to-CBD ratio (1.1:1) probably is associated with small improvement in pain severity and overall function and may be associated with large increased risk for dizziness and sedation and moderate increased risk for nausea. Evidence for other products and outcomes, including longer-term harms, were not reported or were insufficient.

Limitation: Variation in interventions; lack of study details, including unclear availability in the United States; and inadequate evidence for some products.

Conclusion: Oral, synthetic cannabis products with high THC-to-CBD ratios and sublingual, extracted cannabis products with comparable THC-to-CBD ratios may be associated with short-term improvements in chronic pain and increased risk for dizziness and sedation. Studies are needed on long-term outcomes and further evaluation of product formulation effects.

Author/s:

McDonah, M. S., Morasco, B. J., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Fu, R., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain

Bethie Seay — Tue, 02 Nov 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 2, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

October 27, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

EHC036

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER250

This is a summary of the evidence available to date on cannabis and other plant-based treatments for chronic pain.

View

Objectives. To evaluate the evidence on benefits and harms of cannabinoids and similar plant-based compounds to treat chronic pain.

Data sources. Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Embase®, the Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS® databases, reference lists of included studies, submissions received after Federal Register request were searched to July 2021.

Review methods. Using dual review, we screened search results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with chronic pain evaluating cannabis, kratom, and similar compounds with any comparison group and at least 1 month of treatment or followup. Dual review was used to abstract study data, assess study-level risk of bias, and rate the strength of evidence. Prioritized outcomes included pain, overall function, and adverse events. We grouped studies that assessed tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD) based on their THC to CBD ratio and categorized them as high-THC to CBD ratio, comparable THC to CBD ratio, and low-THC to CBD ratio. We also grouped studies by whether the product was a whole-plant product (cannabis), cannabinoids extracted or purified from a whole plant, or synthetic. We conducted meta-analyses using the profile likelihood random effects model and assessed between-study heterogeneity using Cochran’s Q statistic chi square and the I2 test for inconsistency. Magnitude of benefit was categorized into no effect or small, moderate, and large effects.

Results. From 2,850 abstracts, 20 RCTs (N=1,776) and 7 observational studies (N=13,095) assessing different cannabinoids were included; none of kratom. Studies were primarily short term, and 75 percent enrolled patients with a variety of neuropathic pain. Comparators were primarily placebo or usual care. The strength of evidence (SOE) was low, unless otherwise noted. Compared with placebo, comparable THC to CBD ratio oral spray was associated with a small benefit in change in pain severity (7 RCTs, N=632, 0 to10 scale, mean difference [MD] −0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.95 to −0.19, I2=28%; SOE: moderate) and overall function (6 RCTs, N=616, 0 to 10 scale, MD −0.42, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.16, I2=24%). There was no effect on study withdrawals due to adverse events. There was a large increased risk of dizziness and sedation and a moderate increased risk of nausea (dizziness: 6 RCTs, N=866, 30% vs. 8%, relative risk [RR] 3.57, 95% CI 2.42 to 5.60, I2=0%; sedation: 6 RCTs, N=866, 22% vs. 16%, RR 5.04, 95% CI 2.10 to 11.89, I2=0%; and nausea: 6 RCTs, N=866, 13% vs. 7.5%, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.78, I2=0%). Synthetic products with high-THC to CBD ratios were associated with a moderate improvement in pain severity, a moderate increase in sedation, and a large increase in nausea (pain: 6 RCTs, N=390 to 10 scale, MD −1.15, 95% CI −1.99 to −0.54, I2=39%; sedation: 3 RCTs, N=335, 19% vs. 10%, RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.63, I2=0%; nausea: 2 RCTs, N=302, 12% vs. 6%, RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.77 to 5.39; I²=0%). We found moderate SOE for a large increased risk of dizziness (2 RCTs, 32% vs. 11%, RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.47 to 6.86, I2=0%). Extracted whole-plant products with high-THC to CBD ratios (oral) were associated with a large increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events (1 RCT, 13.9% vs. 5.7%, RR 3.12, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.33) and dizziness (1 RCT, 62.2% vs. 7.5%, RR 8.34, 95% CI 4.53 to 15.34). We observed a moderate improvement in pain severity when combining all studies of high-THC to CBD ratio (8 RCTs, N=684, MD −1.25, 95% CI −2.09 to −0.71, I2=50%; SOE: moderate). Evidence on whole-plant cannabis, topical CBD, low-THC to CBD, other cannabinoids, comparisons with active products, and impact on use of opioids was insufficient to draw conclusions. Other important harms (psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive effects) were not reported.

Conclusions. Low to moderate strength evidence suggests small to moderate improvements in pain (mostly neuropathic), and moderate to large increases in common adverse events (dizziness, sedation, nausea) and study withdrawal due to adverse events with high- and comparable THC to CBD ratio extracted cannabinoids and synthetic products in short-term treatment (1 to 6 months). Evidence for whole-plant cannabis, and other comparisons, outcomes, and PBCs were unavailable or insufficient to draw conclusions. Small sample sizes, lack of evidence for moderate and long-term use and other key outcomes, such as other adverse events and impact on use of opioids during treatment, indicate that more research is needed.

Author/s:

McDonagh, M. S., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Morasco, B., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain - Quarterly Progress Report: December 2020

Bethie Seay — Tue, 06 Jul 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

July 6, 2021

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

MeSH

A systematic review of current evidence on cannabis and other plant-based treatments for chronic pain. The results are summarized in Table 2, page 8.

View

This is the first progress report for an ongoing living systematic review on plant-based
treatments for chronic pain. The systematic review will synthesize evidence on the benefits and
harms of plant-based compounds (PBCs) such as cannabinoids and kratom used to treat chronic
pain, addressing concerns about severe adverse effects, abuse, misuse, dependence, and
addiction.
The purpose of this progress report is to describe the body of literature identified thus far.
This report will be periodically updated with new studies as they are published and identified,
culminating in a systematic review that provides a synthesis of the accumulated evidence.

Author/s:

McDonagh, M. S., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Morasco, B., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain - Quarterly Progress Report: May 2021

Bethie Seay — Tue, 06 Jul 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

July 6, 2021

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

MeSH

Health Services Research

delivery of health care

medical marijuana

Plant-based analgesics appear to have relatively low efficacy and high rates of adverse effects.

View

This is the third quarterly progress report for an ongoing living systematic review on
cannabis and other plant-based treatments for chronic pain. The first progress report was
published in January 2021 and the second in March 2021. The draft systematic review was
available for public comment from May 19 through June 15, 2021, on the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care website. The systematic review synthesizes
evidence on the benefits and harms of plant-based compounds (PBCs), such as cannabinoids and
kratom, used to treat chronic pain, addressing concerns about severe adverse effects, abuse,
misuse, dependence, and addiction.
The purpose of this progress report is to describe the cumulative literature identified thus far.
This report will be periodically updated with new studies as they are published and identified,
culminating in an annual systematic review that provides a synthesis of the accumulated
evidence.

Author/s:

M. S., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Morasco, B., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Brian Desmarais — Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:46:49 +0000

Date Added:

August 10, 2020

Publisher:

American Heart Association

Publication Date:

August 5, 2020

URL:

Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

MeSH

public health

AHA Scientific Statements

cannabinoids

cannabis

medical marijuana

A fairly extensive review of the possible benefits and harms of recreational marijuana, with an emphasis on cardiovascular effects. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Cannabis, or marijuana, has potential therapeutic and medicinal properties related to multiple compounds, particularly Δ-9- tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Over the past 25 years, attitudes toward cannabis have evolved rapidly, with expanding legalization of medical and recreational use at the state level in the United States and recreational use nationally in Canada and Uruguay. As a result, the consumption of cannabis products is increasing considerably, particularly among youth. Our understanding of the safety and ef cacy of cannabis has been limited by decades of worldwide illegality and continues to be limited in the United States by the ongoing classi cation of cannabis as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. These shifts in cannabis use require clinicians to understand conflicting laws, health implications, and therapeutic possibilities. Cannabis may have therapeutic bene ts, but few are cardiovascular in nature. Conversely, many of the concerning health implications of cannabis include cardiovascular diseases, although they may be mediated by mechanisms of delivery. This statement critically reviews the use of medicinal and recreational cannabis from a clinical but also a policy and public health perspective by evaluating its safety and ef cacy pro le, particularly in relationship to cardiovascular health.

Author/s:

Page 2nd, R.L., Allen, L.A., Kloner, K.A., Rana, J.S., Piano, R.S., Morris, A.A., Martel, C.