Studies have shown that women are more susceptible to adverse effects (AEs) from conventional drugs. This study aimed to investigate the differences of medical cannabis (MC)-related AEs between women and men in patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). This is a cross-sectional study of adult patients licensed for MC treatment who were also diagnosed as patients with CNCP by a physician. Data included self-reported questionnaires and comprehensive MC treatment information. Simultaneously, identification and quantification of phytocannabinoids and terpenoids from the MC cultivars were performed. Comparative statistics were used to evaluate differences between men and women. Four hundred twenty-nine patients with CNCP (64% males) reported fully on their MC treatment. Subgrouping by sex demonstrated that the weight-adjusted doses were similar between men and women (0.48 [0.33-0.6] gr for men and 0.47 [0.34-0.66] gr for women). Nonetheless, women reported more than men on MC-related AEs. Further analysis revealed that women consumed different MC cultivar combinations than men, with significantly higher monthly doses of the phytocannabinoids CBD and CBC and significantly lower monthly doses of the phytocannabinoid 373-15c and the terpenoid linalool. Our findings demonstrate sex differences in MC-related AEs among patients with CNCP. Women are more susceptible to MC-related AEs, presumably because of both the inherent sex effect and the consumption of specific phytocannabinoid compositions in the MC cultivar(s). The understanding of these differences may be crucial for planning MC treatments with safer phytocannabinoid and terpenoid compositions and to better inform patients of expected AEs.

In the last decade the use of medical cannabis (MC) for palliative cancer treatment has risen. However, the choice between products is arbitrary and most patients are using Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-dominant cannabis products. In this study, we aimed to assess the short-term outcomes of MC treatment prescribed by oncologists in relation to the type of cannabis they receive. A comparative analysis was used to assess the differences in treatment effectiveness and safety between THC-dominant (n = 56, 52%), cannabidiol (CBD)-dominant (n = 19, 18%), and mixed (n = 33, 30%) MC treatments. Oncology patients (n = 108) reported on multiple symptoms in baseline questionnaires, initiated MC treatment, and completed a one-month follow-up. Most parameters improved significantly from baseline, including pain intensity, affective and sensory pain, sleep quality and duration, cancer distress, and both physical and psychological symptom burden. There was no significant difference between the three MC treatments in the MC-related safety profile. Generally, there were no differences between the three MC treatments in pain intensity and in most secondary outcomes. Unexpectedly, CBD-dominant oil treatments were similar to THC-dominant treatments in their beneficial effects for most secondary outcomes. THC-dominant treatments showed significant superiority in their beneficial effect only in sleep duration compared to CBD-dominant treatments. This work provides evidence that, though patients usually consume THC-dominant products, caregivers should also consider CBD-dominant products as a useful treatment for cancer-related symptoms.

Background: Medical cannabis (MC) treatment for migraine is practically emerging, although sufficient clinical data are not available for this indication. This cross-sectional questionnaire-based study aimed to investigate the associations between phytocannabinoid treatment and migraine frequency. Methods: Participants were migraine patients licensed for MC treatment. Data included self-reported questionnaires and MC treatment features. Patients were retrospectively classified as responders vs. non-responders (≥50% vs. <50% decrease in monthly migraine attacks frequency following MC treatment initiation, respectively). Comparative statistics evaluated differences between these two subgroups. Results: A total of 145 patients (97 females, 67%) with a median MC treatment duration of three years were analyzed. Compared to non-responders, responders (n = 89, 61%) reported lower current migraine disability and lower negative impact, and lower rates of opioid and triptan consumption. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that responders consumed higher doses of the phytocannabinoid ms_373_15c and lower doses of the phytocannabinoid ms_331_18d (3.40 95% CI (1.10 to 12.00); p < 0.01 and 0.22 95% CI (0.05–0.72); p < 0.05, respectively). Conclusions: These findings indicate that MC results in long-term reduction of migraine frequency in >60% of treated patients and is associated with less disability and lower antimigraine medication intake. They also point to the MC composition, which may be potentially efficacious in migraine patients.

Background: People often state that they are “sensitive” or “insensitive” to pain. However, the accuracy and clinical relevance of such statements is unclear. Objective: The aim of this study was to search for associations between self-perception of sensitivity to pain and experimental pain measures, including known psychophysical inhibitory or excitatory pain paradigms. Subjects and methods: Subjective sensitivity to pain was reported by 75 healthy participants and included three self-perceived variables: pain threshold, pain sensitivity and pain intensity in response to a hypothetical painful event (hypothetical pain intensity [HPI]). Experimental pain measures consisted of thermal pain threshold (°C), suprathreshold thermal pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale, 0–100) and the psychophysical paradigms of conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation (TS), representing inhibitory and excitatory pain processes, respectively. Results: No significant correlations were found between self-perceived pain threshold or pain sensitivity and any of the experimental pain measures. In contrast, the reported HPI correlated with thermal pain threshold (r = -0.282; p = 0.014), suprathreshold thermal pain intensity (r = 0.367; p = 0.001) and CPM (r = 0.233; p = 0.044), but not with TS. Conclusion: Self-perception of pain sensitivity articulated by intangible expressions such as pain threshold or pain sensitivity is unrelated to actual sensitivity to experimental pain. In contrast, when measured by intensity of a hypothetical painful event (HPI), sensitivity to pain is associated with some, but not all, experimental pain reports. Further studies are needed for better understanding of these associations and their potential clinical significance.