Background: Globally, medical cannabis legalization has increased in recent years and medical cannabis is commonly used to treat chronic pain. However, there are few randomized control trials studying medical cannabis indicating expert guidance on how to dose and administer medical cannabis safely and effectively is needed. Methods: Using a multistage modified Delphi process, twenty global experts across nine countries developed consensus-based recommendations on how to dose and administer medical cannabis in patients with chronic pain. Results: There was consensus that medical cannabis may be considered for patients experiencing neuropathic, inflammatory, nociplastic, and mixed pain. Three treatment protocols were developed. A routine protocol where the clinician initiates the patient on a CBD-predominant variety at a dose of 5 mg CBD twice daily and titrates the CBD-predominant dose by 10 mg every 2 to 3 days until the patient reaches their goals, or up to 40 mg/day. At a CBD-predominant dose of 40 mg/day, clinicians may consider adding THC at 2.5 mg and titrate by 2.5 mg every 2 to 7 days until a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day of THC. A conservative protocol where the clinician initiates the patient on a CBD-predominant variety at a dose of 5 mg once daily and titrates the CBD-predominant dose by 10 mg every 2 to 3 days until the patient reaches their goals, or up to 40 mg/day. At a CBD-predominant dose of 40 mg/day, clinicians may consider adding THC at 1 mg/day and titrate by 1 mg every 7 days until a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day of THC. A rapid protocol where the clinician initiates the patient on a balanced THC:CBD variety at 2.5–5 mg of each cannabinoid once or twice daily and titrates by 2.5–5 mg of each cannabinoid every 2 to 3 days until the patient reaches his/her goals or to a maximum THC dose of 40 mg/day. Conclusions: In summary, using a modified Delphi process, expert consensus-based recommendations were developed on how to dose and administer medical cannabis for the treatment of patients with chronic pain.

Medical cannabis use is increasing worldwide. Clinicians are commonly asked by patients to provide guidance on its safety and efficacy. Although there has been an increase in research on the role of medical cannabis for a number of different conditions, we found that there was a paucity of clear safety guidance on its use. We aim to address this issue by answering two pertinent clinician safety questions: 1 Can medical cannabis be safely used in this patient? 2. What strategies can be used to ensure that any harms from medical cannabis are mitigated? To address these questions, we reviewed available evidence and provided expert clinical opinion to summarize the fundamental components for evaluating medical cannabis safety and strategies to reduce risk from its use. Our review resulted in a safety-focused framework for medical cannabis initiation and utilization. We provide clear recommendations for patients being considered for cannabis (e.g. precautions, contraindications and drug interactions). Risk mitigation strategies such as appropriate chemovar (strain) selection, routes of administration, and dosing are reviewed. As with any other pharmacotherapy, we review the key components of monitoring and address potential issues that may arise while using medical cannabis. We propose a structured assessment and monitoring strategy that can be used by clinicians recomending cannabis (CRC) to guide patients through each step of their cannabis journey. This framework can be used to ensure that medical cannabis utilization is associated with the lowest possible risk to the patient.

Background:Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is estimated to affect 20% of the adult population. Current United States and Canadian Chronic non-cancer pain guidelines recommend careful reassessment of the risk-benefit ratio for doses greater than 90 mg morphine equivalent dose (MED), due to low evidence for improved pain efficacy at higher morphine equivalent dose and a significant increase in morbidity and mortality. There are a number of human studies demonstrating cannabis opioid synergy. This preliminary evidence suggests a potential role of cannabis as an adjunctive therapy with or without opioids to optimize pain control.Methods:In 2017, the Canadian Opioid Guidelines Clinical Tool was created to encourage judicious opioid prescribing for CNCP patients and to reevaluate those who have been chronically using high MED. Mirroring this approach, we draw on our clinical experiences and available evidence to create a clinical tool to serve as a foundational clinical guideline for the initiation of medical cannabis in the management of CNCP patients using chronic opioid therapy.Findings:Following principles of harm reduction and risk minimization, we suggest cannabis be introduced in appropriately selected CNCP patients, using a stepwise approach, with the intent of pain management optimization. We use a structured approach to focus on low dose cannabis (namely, THC) initiation, slow titration, dose optimization and frequent monitoring.Conclusion:When low dose THC is introduced as an adjunctive therapy, we observe better pain control clinically with lower doses of opioids, improved pain related outcomes and reduced opioid related harm.

Background: Since 2001, Canadians have been able to obtain cannabis for medical purposes, initially through the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR). The Cannabis Act (Bill C-45) came into force on October 17, 2018, replacing the ACMPR. The Cannabis Act enables Canadians to possess cannabis purchased from a licensed retailer without authorization for either medical or nonmedical purposes. The Cannabis Act is currently the guiding legislation which governs both medical and nonmedical access. The Cannabis Act contains some improvements for patients but is essentially the same as its previous legislation. Beginning in October 2022, the federal government is conducting a review of the Cannabis Act and is questioning whether a distinct medical cannabis stream is still required, given the ease of access to cannabis and cannabis products. Although there is overlap in the reasons for medical and recreational cannabis use, the distinct legislation of medical versus recreational use of cannabis in Canada may be under threat. Main body: A large segment of the medical, academic, research, and lay communities agree that there is a need for distinct medical and recreational cannabis streams. Perhaps most importantly, separation of these streams is necessary to ensure that both medical cannabis patients and healthcare providers receive the required support needed to optimize benefits while minimizing risks associated with medical cannabis use. Preservation of distinct medical and recreational streams can help to ensure that needs of different stakeholders are met. For example, patients require guidance in the form of assessing the appropriateness of cannabis use, selection of appropriate products and dosage forms, dosing titration, screening for drug interactions, and safety monitoring. Healthcare providers require access to undergraduate and continuing health education as well as support from their professional organizations to ensure medical cannabis is appropriately prescribed. Although there are challenges in conducing research, as motives for cannabis use frequently straddle boundaries between medical versus recreational cannabis use, maintenance of a distinct medical stream is also necessary to ensure adequate supply of cannabis products appropriate for medical use, to reduce stigma associated with cannabis in both patients and providers, to help enable reimbursement for patients, to facilitate removal of taxation on cannabis used for medical purposes, and to promote research on all aspects of medical cannabis. Conclusion: Cannabis products for medical and recreational purposes have different objectives and needs, requiring different methods of distribution, access, and monitoring. HCPs, patients, and the commercial cannabis industry would serve Canadians well to continue to advocate to policy makers to ensure the continued existence of two distinct streams and must strive to make ongoing improvements to the current programs.