Abstract
Objective To examine a case series of 70 disability claimants who were referred to a clinic for multidisciplinary medical evaluation for physician compliance with cannabis prescription guidelines for pre-existing cannabis prescriptions.
Design Retrospective case series analysis.
Setting A private clinic in New Brunswick specializing in multidisciplinary medical assessment for institutional third-party insurers.
Participants All referrals for independent review of cannabis prescriptions between May 2016 and February 2018 (N = 70).
Main outcome measures Compliance with the cannabis prescription guidelines.
Results Treating physicians were found to have not adhered to the guidelines in 53 of 61 patients (86.9%) who were prescribed cannabis products for pain management and in 8 of 9 patients (88.9%) who were prescribed cannabis products for treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Clinical assessment and radiologic review failed to identify a neuropathic cause of pain in 70.5% of pain cases. Adequate trials of noncannabinoid medications had not been attempted for 72.1% of patients with pain nor for any of the patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. Contraindications to cannabis were identified in 65.7% of cases, including evidence suggesting a past or present cannabis use disorder or currently active substance use disorder in 34.3% of cases. The prescriptions were found to be consistent with prescription guidelines in just 12.9% of cases.
Conclusion Very few of the reviewed cannabis prescriptions were found to be consistent with cannabis prescription guidelines. Respectful attention to guidelines might avoid unwarranted overprescribing, limit the secondary increase in comorbidity, and facilitate future scientific study and evaluation of medical cannabis.
As policy makers attempt to address the implications of recreational cannabis legalization,1 agencies involved in the medical management of patients with cannabis prescriptions are adapting to changing demands.2 In this time of transition, we have served as providers of independent medical evaluations of disability claimants who had pre-existing authorization to use cannabinoids from physicians who prescribed medical cannabis products. The recent publication in Canadian Family Physician of simplified guidelines for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care3 prompted us to recount the uptake of the existing guidelines by the practitioners whose patients we have seen. The guidelines are largely the same as the preliminary guidance4 provided by the College of Family Physicians of Canada in 2014, which has been very useful when judging the merits of cannabis in each case. This paper summarizes our experience and provides a glimpse into the rather inconsistent management of cannabis prescriptions that we have witnessed in recent years.
METHODS
All ethical and legal guidelines and requirements necessary for retrospective analysis and reporting of de-identified clinical data in New Brunswick were followed. Patients were referred to a private clinic that specializes in multidisciplinary medical assessment under the direction of an occupational medicine specialist serving institutional third-party insurers. During the study period most of our clients’ disability claimants receiving cannabis prescriptions were referred to us for standard prescription review. The claimants were seeking coverage for medical cannabis products that had been prescribed by their treating physicians for pain management or for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). All referrals underwent forensic review of medical documentation to clarify the diagnoses and potential liability for work injuries. All patients were examined either by an orthopedic surgeon, a physical medicine specialist, or a psychiatrist. Patients also completed a battery of psychometrically validated scales, after which they were offered a chance to verify the accuracy of what they had reported about their substance use by providing a urine sample for testing. A radiologist reviewed all diagnostic imaging in the files. Adherence to the preliminary cannabis prescription guidelines4 was assessed by a multidisciplinary team of physicians who reviewed the evidence in each case, and their opinions were re-examined following publication of the updated guidelines.3 Descriptive statistics were processed using an Excel spreadsheet.
RESULTS
All referrals for independent review of cannabis prescriptions between May 2016 and February 2018 were included in this case series. The patients with pain included 45 men and 16 women aged 30 to 72 years (mean [SD] 51 [9.4] years, median 53 years). Timing of the assessments was 381 to 13 979 days (ie, approximately 1 to 38 years) after the dates of the original work injuries (mean [SD] 3707 [3507.1] days, median 2044 days). Patients with PTSD included 9 men and women aged 35 to 54 years (mean [SD] 44 [6.7] years, median 46 years). Assessments were completed 215 to 3487 days (ie, less than 1 to more than 9 years) after the dates of their traumatic work incidents (mean [SD] 1583 [1072.0] days, median 1479 days). Three people who had PTSD as well as orthopedic pain complaints are reported as pain cases because their prescriptions were authorized for pain management and not PTSD. The frequencies of clinical features that are incompatible with the cannabis prescription guidelines are summarized in Table 1.
Prescription guideline adherence in 70 referrals for independent medical examinations pertaining to previous authorizations for medical cannabis products
Pain was not neuropathic in 70.5% of cases
For pain patients, the guidelines recommend consideration of cannabis products for management of refractory neuropathic, cancer, or palliative pain, but not for pain associated with headache, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or back pain. Detailed clinical assessment and radiologic evidence failed to identify a neuropathic pain source in 43 of 61 patients.
Adequate trials of noncannabinoids did not take place for 75.7% of patients
For pain patients, the guidelines recommend 6-week trials of at least 3 prescribed analgesics (eg, gabapentinoids, tricyclic or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants) before adding pharmaceutical cannabinoids or opioids. They further recommend considering nonpharmaceutical herbal cannabis products only when pain remains refractory despite titration to optimal levels of each drug. Review of pharmacy records and physician notes revealed that the World Health Organization analgesic ladder5 was not followed in 44 of the 61 pain cases. Similarly, current recommendations for pharmacotherapy for PTSD6 identify various first-, second-, and third-line agents, but adequate trials were not attempted in any of the 9 cases.
Contraindications were present in 65.7% of cases
In total, 46 of the 70 cases had at least 1 contraindication against medical cannabis treatment. Cardiovascular or respiratory disease (or both) was found in 30 cases, and while some of the potential harm might be mitigated by the use of non-smoked products, the prescriptions typically did not specify the route of administration or the content of active cannabinoids such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol in the formulation. Sixty-seven of the 70 cases had at least 1 clinical feature that merited caution in authorizing cannabis.
Findings were suggestive of substance use disorder in 34.3% of patients
Eleven patients had documented findings that suggested the possibility of current or past cannabis use disorder. The findings included unusually high doses (eg, 12 g/d), amounts increasing over time, attempts to procure more cannabis than prescribed, and obtaining cannabis from illegal sources, and all of these cases reported chronic recreational cannabis use before their work injury. Three of 11 had positive urine test results for nonprescribed opioids or cocaine, 3 did not consent to testing, and 5 had negative findings for 9 commonly abused drugs other than THC. Seven of these 11 were among the 20 patients (28.6%) for whom there was a high index of suspicion concerning their likelihood of currently active substance use disorder involving alcohol or other drugs besides cannabis. Clinical signs included frequent drinking despite a history of alcohol addiction treatment, opioid drug-seeking from emergency departments, conviction for a drug offense, admission of polysubstance abuse, and positive urine test results in 6 of 20 cases. Seven of the 20 patients reported frequent binge drinking, with AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) scores ranging from 8 to 14 points (scores of 8 or more indicate hazardous or harmful alcohol use).7
Only 12.9% of cases met the guidelines
Applying the prescription guidelines resulted in a recommendation favouring cannabinoid authorization in 8 of 61 patients with pain and 1 of 9 patients with PTSD. Treating physicians had not conformed to the prescription guidelines in 87.1% of cases.
DISCUSSION
There is a general perception that medical cannabis might have less potential for harm compared with some alternative pharmaceutical treatments,8 but potential risks that present in individual patients cannot be ignored. The medical principles of ensuring an accurate medical diagnosis and properly reviewing contraindications must be respected in order to avoid inadvertently contributing to physical and mental comorbidity. Respectful attention to guidelines might avoid unwarranted overprescribing, limit the secondary increase in comorbidity, and facilitate future scientific study and evaluation of medical cannabis. For medical cannabis to be an effective therapeutic class, the industry must focus on standardizing the dosages of THC and cannabidiol, and on improving the formulations to make their pharmacokinetics more predictable. Medical prescribers must evaluate all the risks the product might pose for patients, including potential effects on function and daily activities.
Limitations
This case series involved a relatively small number of cases, particularly for PTSD, all from a single private clinic evaluating disability claimants for third-party insurers. Data on substance use relied on self-report, and urine testing was voluntary. It is possible our data underestimate the frequency of substance misuse in this cohort. While our results might not be generalizable, they certainly suggest there is room for improvement in the management of cannabis prescriptions.
Conclusion
Very few of the reviewed cannabis prescriptions were found to be consistent with cannabis prescription guidelines. If medical cannabis is to evolve as a treatment option, increased personal recreational use cannot overtake medical and scientific principles and squander the potential of this new therapeutic class.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded in part by the Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax incentive program from the Government of Canada.
Notes
Editor’s key points
▸ Cannabis prescription guidelines have been developed to help physicians navigate the appropriateness of these new treatments. This study aimed to assess compliance with these guidelines for pre-existing cannabis prescriptions for pain and posttraumatic stress disorder.
▸ Among the 70 cases assessed, applying prescription guidelines resulted in a recommendation favouring cannabinoid authorization in only 8 of 61 patients with pain and 1 of 9 patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. Sixty-seven of the 70 cases had at least 1 clinical feature that merited caution in authorizing cannabis.
▸ Adequate trials of noncannabinoid medications were attempted in only a quarter of patients, neuropathic causes of pain could not be identified for most patients with pain, and contraindications were present for about two-thirds of patients.
▸ There was concern about substance use disorder in more than a third of patients: 11 had documented findings suggesting the possibility of current or past cannabis use disorder; there was a high index of suspicion for 20 patients concerning their likelihood of currently active substance use disorder involving alcohol or other drugs besides cannabis; and 7 patients fell into both these categories.
Points de repère du rédacteur
▸ Des lignes directrices sur la prescription de cannabis ont été élaborées pour aider les médecins à mieux comprendre la pertinence de ces nouveaux traitements. Cette étude a pour but d’évaluer la conformité avec ces lignes directrices dans le cas de prescriptions antérieures de cannabis pour la douleur et le trouble du stress post-traumatique.
▸ Parmi les 70 dossiers évalués, la mise en application des lignes directrices sur la prescription s’est traduite par une recommandation en faveur de son autorisation dans seulement 8 cas de patients sur 61 pour la douleur, et 1 cas de patient sur 9 pour un trouble de stress post-traumatique. Dans 67 cas sur 70, au moins une caractéristique clinique justifiait d’exercer de la prudence dans l’autorisation du cannabis.
▸ Des essais suffisants de médicaments sans cannabinoïdes ont été tentés chez seulement le quart des patients, les causes neuropathiques de la douleur ne pouvaient pas être cernées chez la plupart des patients souffrant de douleur, et des contre-indications étaient présentes chez environ les 2 tiers des patients.
▸ Il y avait des préoccupations relatives aux troubles liés à la consommation de substances chez plus du tiers des patients : dans le cas de 11 d’entre eux, des constatations documentées faisaient valoir la possibilité de troubles actuels ou antérieurs de consommation de cannabis; il y avait un fort degré de suspicion à propos de la probabilité que 20 des patients aient des troubles actifs liés à la consommation d’alcool et d’autres drogues en plus du cannabis; et 7 patients se classaient dans ces 2 catégories.
Footnotes
Contributors
Drs Elias, MacLaren, and Metcalfe conceived and designed the research. Drs Elias, MacLaren, and Hill-Elias collected the data. Drs MacLaren and Metcalfe interpreted the data. Drs MacLaren and Hill-Elias drafted the manuscript. Drs Elias, MacLaren, and Metcalfe provided critical revisions. All authors approved the version submitted for publication.
Competing interests
Dr Elias is Chief Executive Officer and Chief Medical Officer of Canadian Health Solutions Inc and provides assessment of the effects of prescribing, including of cannabis, to institutional insurers in Canada. The other authors are all employed by Canadian Health Solutions Inc.
This article has been peer reviewed.
Cet article a fait l’objet d’une révision par des pairs.
- Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada