Interest in medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) has increased greatly in recent years. Two cannabinoids are of principal importance; delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9-THC), the primary psychoactive component, and also cannabidiol (CBD), considered non-intoxicating. Each has distinct mechanisms of action and different therapeutic potentials. CBMPs differ in their ∆9-THC and CBD components; predominantly ∆9-THC, balanced formulations with equivalent ∆9-THC and CBD elements, and CBD-predominant products. In this narrative review, we evaluate the published evidence for the clinical benefits of CBMPs and overall benefits in well-being. We also review the overall safety profile and discuss the potential for dependence with CBMPs. Evidence can be drawn from a wide range of randomized and other controlled studies and from observational real-world studies. Most data from observational registry studies are supportive of ∆9-THC-based products (∆9-THC-predominant or balanced CBMPs) in the management of chronic neuropathic pain. Balanced products are also effective in reducing spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Most CBMPs show benefit in providing symptomatic benefits in reducing anxiety, nausea, and in improving sleep, but the place of specific products is more subtle, and choice guided by specific circumstances. Symptomatic improvements are accompanied by improved quality of life and well-being. Safety data indicate that CBMPs are generally well tolerated in most patients without specific contraindications. The majority of adverse effects are non-serious, and transient; most are principally associated with ∆9-THC and are dose-dependent. In contrast to recreational cannabis use, there is little evidence from clinical studies that CBMPs have any potential for dependence.

Background and Objectives: Fibromyalgia is a multifaceted and frequently misunderstood chronic pain disease marked by widespread musculoskeletal pain and cognitive/somatic dysfunction. This trial aims to contribute to the existing knowledge on treating fibromyalgia (FM) with medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) and explore a safer and more effective cannabis administration method. The goal is to provide evidence-based findings that can guide alternative treatment options for FM patients by assessing a pilot study. Materials and Methods: The trial was performed at the pain therapy unit of the San Carlo Hospital (Potenza, Italy) by administrating to 30 FM patients 100 mg/day of Bedrocan® (Bedrocan International, Veendam, The Netherlands) as a decoction. The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and SF-12 short-form health questionnaire were used to evaluate pain intensity and the quality of life at the beginning of the study and the 6th-month follow-up. A systematic review of all clinical studies investigating the use of cannabis to reduce FM was also undertaken to place this study in the context of the existing evidence base. Results: Pain intensity evaluated with the NRS lowered from a median of 8 [95% CI 7.66-8.54] at a baseline to a median of 4 (95% CI 3.28-4.79) after 6 months of follow-up (p-value < 0.001; t-test). Similarly, significant physical and mental state improvement, evaluated with the SF-12 questionnaire, was found in 96.67% and 82.33% of patients, respectively (95% CI 44.11-51.13 for the physical state, and 53.48-58.69 for mental state assessed after the 6th-month follow-up; p-value < 0.001; t-test). The systematic analysis of the literature identified 10 clinical trials concerning the treatment of fibromyalgia with cannabis. Conclusions: Considering results from the present pilot study and systematic review, it is possible to assume that medical cannabis may be considered an alternative therapy for FM patients who do not respond to conventional pharmacological therapy.

In this review, we discuss the potential role of cannabis and cannabinoids in the management of cancer-related symptoms. There is limited evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of cannabis-based products in treating cancer-related pain and gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite. Regarding the role of cannabis-based products in the treatment of insomnia and mood disorders, most studies looked at these symptoms as secondary outcomes with mixed results. Cannabis-based products have adverse effects, ranging from neuropsychiatric to systemic effects to potential drug interactions.

BACKGROUND: Studies generally focus on one type of chronic condition and the effect of medical cannabis (MC) on symptoms; little is known about the perceptions and engagement of patients living with chronic conditions regarding the use of MC.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to explore: (1) what are the dimensions addressed in studies on MC that deal with patients\' perceptions of MC? and (2) how have patients been engaged in developing these studies and their methodologies? Through these objectives, we have identified areas for improving future research.
METHODS: We searched five databases and applied exclusion criteria to select relevant articles. A thematic analysis approach was used to identify the main themes: (1) reasons to use, to stop using or not to use MC, (2) effects of MC on patients themselves and empowerment, (3) perspective and knowledge about MC, and (4) discussion with relatives and healthcare professionals.
RESULTS: Of 53 articles, the main interest when assessing the perceptions of MC is to identify the reasons to use MC (n = 39), while few articles focused on the reasons leading to stop using MC (n = 13). The majority (85%) appraise the effects of MC as perceived by patients. Less than one third assessed patients\' sense of empowerment. Articles determining the beliefs surrounding and knowledge of MC (n = 41) generally addressed the concerns about or the comfort level with respect to using MC. Only six articles assessed patients\' stereotypes regarding cannabis. Concerns about stigma constituted the main topic while assessing relationships with relatives. Some articles included patients in the research, but none of them had co-created the data collection tool with patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review outlined that few studies considered chronic diseases as a whole and that few patients are involved in the co-construction of data collection tools as well. There is an evidence gap concerning the results in terms of methodological quality when engaging patients in their design. Future research should evaluate why cannabis\' effectiveness varies between patients, and how access affects the decision to use or not to use MC, particularly regarding the relationship between patients and healthcare providers. Future research should consider age and gender while assessing perceptions and should take into consideration the legislation status of cannabis as these factors could in fact shape perception. To reduce stigma and stereotypes about MC users, better quality and accessible information on MC should be disseminated.

BACKGROUND: Natural and synthetic cannabinoids are being used worldwide to treat various symptoms in cancer patients. This study aims to map the therapeutic benefits and adverse effects associated with the use of cannabis-based drugs in these outcomes.
METHODS: Following Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines a scoping review was conducted. The study protocol was available in the Open Science Framework public repository. An extensive search strategy involving databases like Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Medline/PubMed, Lilacs, Google Scholar, and Open Gray for gray literature analysis was executed by a skilled librarian. The inclusion criteria were primary studies (observational and randomized) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids in cancer patients. The review encompassed studies of diverse designs, publication years, and types, as long as they addressed cannabinoids\' impact in oncology.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine (82.86%) out of total of 35 were randomized and 6 (14.14%) were non-randomized. About 57.1% of studies utilized registered products as interventions, with THC being the most natural cannabinoid cited in variable doses and administration routes. Moreover, 62.85% of studies specified the cancer types (breast, lung, sarcomas, hematological and reproductive system), while only one study detailed cancer staging. The evaluated outcomes encompassed nausea and vomiting (77.14%), appetite (11.43%), pain (8.57%), and tumor regression (2.86%) across different proportions of studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Cannabinoids show promise in managing pain, emesis, and anorexia/cachexia linked to cancer progression. New randomized clinical trials with a larger number of participants and observational studies on long-term safety are crucial to affirm their medicinal utility for cancer patients unresponsive to conventional drugs.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to inform the current state of evidence about the efficacy and effectiveness of medical cannabis use for the treatment of LBP, specifically on pain levels and overall opioid use for LBP. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and CINAHL. The search was limited to the past 10 years (2011-2021). Study inclusion was determined by the critical appraisal process using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework. Only English language articles were included. Participant demographics included all adult individuals with LBP who were prescribed medical cannabis for LBP and may be concurrently using opioids for their LBP. Study quality and the risk of bias were both evaluated. A narrative synthesis approach was used.
RESULTS: A total of twelve studies were included in the synthesis: one randomized controlled trial (RCT), six observational studies (one prospective, four retrospective, and one cross-over), and five case studies. All study results, except for the RCT, indicated a decrease in LBP levels or opioid use over time after medical cannabis use. The RCT reported no statistically significant difference in LBP between cannabis and placebo groups. Low back pain (LBP) affects 568 million people worldwide. In the United States, LBP treatment represents more than half of regular opioid users. With the opioid epidemic, alternative methods, particularly medical cannabis, is now increasingly sought by practicing physicians and patients. Due to its infancy, there is minimal high-quality evidence to support medical cannabis use as a first line treatment for LBP.

Despite the widespread use of medical cannabis, little is known regarding the safety, efficacy, and dosing of cannabis products in children with cancer. The objective of this study was to systematically appraise the existing published literature for the use of cannabis products in children with cancer.
This systematic review, registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020187433), searched four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data on types of cannabis products, doses, formulations, frequencies, routes of administration, indications, and clinical and demographic details as well as reported efficacy outcomes were extracted. Data on cannabinoid-related adverse events were also summarized.
Out of 34,611 identified citations, 19 unique studies with a total of 1927 participants with cancer were included: eight retrospective chart reviews, seven randomized controlled trials, two open-label studies, and two case reports. The included studies reported the use of various cannabis products for the management of symptoms. Cannabinoids were commonly used for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (11 of 19 [58%]). In controlled studies, somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, and withdrawal due to adverse events were more commonly associated with the use of cannabinoids. Across all included studies, no serious cannabis-related adverse events were reported.
Although there is evidence to support the use of cannabis for symptom management, in children with cancer, there is a lack of rigorous evidence to inform the dosing, safety, and efficacy of cannabinoids. Because of the increasing interest in using cannabis, there is an urgent need for more research on medical cannabis in children with cancer.

Background: The concept of an \"entourage\" effect in the cannabis and cannabinoids\' field was first introduced in the late 1990s, during a period when most research on medical cannabinoids focused on the effects of isolated cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Over the past decade, however, with the increased understanding of the endocannabinoid system, the discovery of other phytocannabinoids and their potential therapeutic uses, the term has gained widespread use in scientific reviews and marketing campaigns. Objective: Critically review the application of the term \"entourage effect (EE)\" in the literature and its endorsement by certain sectors of the cannabis market. Also, explore the perspectives for further interpretation and elaboration of the term based on current evidence, aiming to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the concept and its implications for cannabinoid-based medicine. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted to evaluate the current state of knowledge regarding the entourage effect. Relevant studies and scientific reviews were analyzed to assess the evidence of clinical efficacy and safety, as well as the regulation of cannabinoid-containing product production. Results: The EE is now recognized as a synergistic phenomenon in which multiple components of cannabis interact to modulate the therapeutic actions of the plant. However, the literature provides limited evidence to support it as a stable and predictable phenomenon. Hence, there is also limited evidence to support clinical efficacy, safety, and appropriate regulation for cannabinoid-containing products based on a \"entourage\" hypothesis. Conclusion: The EE has significant implications for the medical use of cannabinoid-containing products and their prescription. Nevertheless, a critical evaluation of the term\'s application is necessary. Further research and evidence are needed to establish the clinical efficacy, safety, and regulatory framework for these products. It\'s crucial that regulators, the pharmaceutical industry, the media, and health care providers exercise caution and avoid prematurely promoting the entourage effect hypothesis as a scientific proven phenomenon for cannabinoids and other cannabis-derived compound combinations.

Despite its historical reputation as a substance of abuse, cannabis use has increased following decriminalization efforts in the United States. It has historically garnered a bad reputation as a substance of abuse, but paradoxically is associated with an improved perception of well-being. We were interested in positive cardiovascular outcomes, both positive and negative mental health outcomes and impact on physical activity of cannabis, both recreational and medical. Databases included PubMed, ResearchGate, Cochrane, Science.gov and ScienceDirect. We were interested in cardiovascular, mental health and physical health in our search. Data included articles published during or after 2017. Our studies showed no cardiovascular benefits, increased risk of documented cardiovascular events and increased mortality associated with cannabis use. Physical benefits derived were largely in patients with chronic pain. With regards to mental health, the impact of the drug appears to be both positive and negative, with no clear benefits as a first-line agent. Route of administration appears to have an impact on the overall extent of side effects. Overall, medical cannabis appears to pose an almost negligible side effect profile compared to recreational. Our findings suggest that while cannabis use may offer benefits for chronic pain management, it is associated with increased cardiovascular risks. Further, medical cannabis appears to have a more favorable side effect profile compared to recreational use.

UNASSIGNED: Although medicinal cannabis is prescribed for conditions such as pain, epilepsy, nausea and vomiting during cancer treatment, evidence about associated adverse side effects is still evolving. Because adverse events (AEs) might impact the performance of workers, it is important to consider their implications on workplace health and safety (WHS). This study aimed to map the types and prevalence of the AEs associated with medical cannabis and articulate how those events could impact WHS.
UNASSIGNED: A scoping review of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses published between 2015 and March 2021 was performed to identify the AEs of medicinal cannabis in adults. Publications in English and full text available online were collected from Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science.
UNASSIGNED: Of 1,326 papers identified from the initial search, 31 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The studies reported various AEs with the most predominant being sedation, nausea/vomiting, dizziness, and euphoria. Acute and chronic pain was the most prevalent disorder under review.
UNASSIGNED: Adverse events associated with the use of medicinal cannabis could increase workplace risks, including decreased alertness and reaction times, increased absenteeism, reduced ability to safely drive or operate machinery and an increased probability of falling. Focused research into the risk to workers and workplaces from the use of medical cannabis and related human performance impairment is urgently warranted.