Monthly Archives: December 2016

DEA and Marijuana Extract Means.. NOTHING

On Dec 14th the DEA announced a new drug code for “Marijuana Extract” and there has been a lot of furor over the decision.  For those that have read the CSA and understand the meaning of the definition of “Marijuana” it already meant:

The term “marihuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.

Prior to this announcement everything other than THC, which already has it’s own drug code, all other Cannabinoids were classified under the Marijuana Code.  What this does is separate out for purposes of clerical and data collection a difference between raw Cannabis plant material and Extractions made from the plant.

NOTHING has changed, no substance scheduling has changed, no laws have been changed.

So what does it really mean?  What it really means is that now the extracts that researchers have been getting from the Mississippi Farm now have a separate code.  This allows the DEA, FDA, HHS, NIDA to track what kind of research is being done.  Is it whole plant or an extract that is being used.

Frankly it wouldn’t be a bad idea to put each cannabinoid it’s own drug code.  This could do two things.  First it would track what research is being done with what cannabinoids.  It could also lead to many more cannabinoids being put into different schedules like THC is in a different schedule.  One by one move the cannabinoids to other schedules and you less reason to keep the whole plant scheduled in schedule I

 

Pharmacists want more information

pmcIn a First of it’s kind study posted to PubMED shows that pharmacists want more information about medical cannabis.   The study conducted in Minnesota prior to Minnesota’s medical Cannabis program implementation shows that Pharmacists want more information on medical cannabis.  The Study was done by Joy Hwang, PharmD, MPH, Tom Arneson, MD, MPH, and Wendy St. Peter, PharmD

First the report determines that Minnesota Pharmacists, in general, have limited Knowledge of cannabis polices, regulations and felt they were not adequately trained.

Pharmacists reported limited knowledge of Minnesota state-level cannabis policies and regulations and felt that they were inadequately trained in cannabis pharmacotherapy. Most pharmacists were unprepared to counsel patients on medical cannabis and had many concerns regarding its availability and usage. Only a small proportion felt that the medical cannabis program would impact their practice. Pharmacists’ leading topics of interest for more education included Minnesota’s regulations on the medical cannabis program, cannabis pharmacotherapy, and the types and forms of cannabis products available for commercialization.

Unlike most states which have legal medical Cannabis Minnesota and a couple others have Licensed Pharmacists as the dispensers.  However in Minnesota these pharmacists are trained by their respective companies and have a great deal of knowledge about Cannabis use for medical purposes.

In these three states, pharmacists provide registered patients with consultations at one of the state-approved cannabis distribution centers. Moreover, they are the only health care professionals who are permitted to dispense cannabis products. This distinguishes these states from most other legalization states, where cannabis products—both medical and recreational—can be purchased from retail dispensaries that operate under the guidance of certified personnel known as “budtenders.”

The study was done to assess gaps in knowledge and concerns of Minnesota pharmacists.  The study conducted voluntarily via a web-based survey and had a 10% response rate by the states Pharmacists. The questionnaire had 14 questions they asked the pharmacists and also room for them to put in their own comments.

The majority of the respondents completed the survey and reported little concern about medical cannabis.

Most pharmacists rated themselves on the lower end of the Likert scale for self-perceived knowledge about medical cannabis and readiness to counsel patients on medical cannabis use (1 = poor; 7 = excellent) and concerns about medical cannabis use under the Minnesota program (1 = no concern; 7 = most concern)

Almost 90% of the respondents responded that they were less than moderately prepared to provide counseling services to patients using cannabis for medical purposes.

Pharmacists in general want more education.  This survey is of all pharmacists registered in Minnesota. Of those only a small number of them actually work with cannabis patients in the clinics that are available.  However it’s clear from this study that they want more education on Cannabis.

Respondents were very interested in learning more about medical cannabis in the following areas: state-specific rules and regulation (87%), pharmacotherapy (88%), and available types and forms of products on the market (82%). Fifty-three percent were interested in learning more about federal laws related to marijuana. Only 7% indicated no interest in learning more about any of these topics.

The study was conducted 2 months prior to Minnesota implementation of it’s cannabis program and there was a great deal of confusion about it.  Since the time of the survey information from a variety of sources including educational presentations to many hospitals, clinics, and hospital-clinic organizations in Minnesota with pharmacists as part of the audience, The University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy, Medical School and School of Nursing, full-day educational symposium on medical cannabis in April 2016, the Minnesota Pharmacists Association (MPhA) and the Minnesota College of Clinical Pharmacists.

The Study Concludes:

This study suggests that Minnesota pharmacists were not sufficiently prepared to work with patients in the medical cannabis program. Of those who provided survey responses, an overwhelming majority felt incompetent in medical cannabis clinical knowledge; however, almost half were unconcerned about the potential impact the program’s implementation would have on their practice. Nonetheless, pharmacists were interested in learning about medical cannabis and its state-specific regulation. Targeted education regarding cannabis pharmacotherapy, product availability and variability, and state-specific regulations should be available for health care professionals practicing in states with medical cannabis programs prior to program implementation and patient access.

 

Link to the study here – LINK

Copy of the study here – minnesota-pharmacists-and-medical-cannabis_-a-survey-of-knowledge-concerns-and-interest-prior-to-program-launch

 

WHO – Systematic Review of Cannabis Safety

who-report-safeIn a report to the upcoming WHO conference another report has been issued about the safety of Cannabis and it’s use in medicine.

The report acknowledges thousands of years of historical use of cannabis for medical purposes.  Unfortunately due to the limited number of published scientific studies on the few conditions they studied they didn’t find definitive proof of cannabis efficacy in the treatment.

What they did find is that in all cases there weren’t adverse side effects like other medications.

In regards to adverse events, the included studies considered many adverse events, the majority of them were of low to moderate gravity. For the most serious adverse events (i.e. CNS side effects, depression and confusion) no differences were observed between cannabis and placebo. Incidence of general psychiatric disorders was higher in the cannabis groups but results came only from two small studies (92 participants). In addition, frequency of dissociation was higher in the cannabis groups, and no studies considered the development of abuse or dependence.

The report Titled “Systematic reviews on therapeutic efficacy and safety of Cannabis (including extracts and tinctures) for patients with multiple sclerosis, chronic neuropathic pain, dementia and Tourette syndrome, HIV/AIDS, and cancer receiving chemotherapy Laura Amato, Marina Davoli, Silvia Minozzi, Zuzana Mitrova, Elena Parmelli, Rosella Saulle, Simona Vecchi DEPARTMENT OF EPIDEMIOLOGY LAZIO REGION, ASL ROMA 1 – ROME, ITALY”

Can be found at the following link – LINK

or we have archived it here – systematic_reviews_on_therapeutic_efficacy_and_safety

Therapeutic Cannabinoid Research