62
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines: A Comprehensive Update of Evidence and Recommendations

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d6385624e170"> <b>Background.</b> Cannabis use is common in North America, especially among young people, and is associated with a risk of various acute and chronic adverse health outcomes. Cannabis control regimes are evolving, for example toward a national legalization policy in Canada, with the aim to improve public health, and thus require evidence-based interventions. As cannabis-related health outcomes may be influenced by behaviors that are modifiable by the user, evidence-based Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines (LRCUG)—akin to similar guidelines in other health fields—offer a valuable, targeted prevention tool to improve public health outcomes. </p><p id="d6385624e175"> <b>Objectives.</b> To systematically review, update, and quality-grade evidence on behavioral factors determining adverse health outcomes from cannabis that may be modifiable by the user, and translate this evidence into revised LRCUG as a public health intervention tool based on an expert consensus process. </p><p id="d6385624e180"> <b>Search methods.</b> We used pertinent medical search terms and structured search strategies, to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library databases, and reference lists primarily for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and additional evidence on modifiable risk factors for adverse health outcomes from cannabis use. </p><p id="d6385624e185"> <b>Selection criteria.</b> We included studies if they focused on potentially modifiable behavior-based factors for risks or harms for health from cannabis use, and excluded studies if cannabis use was assessed for therapeutic purposes. </p><p id="d6385624e190"> <b>Data collection and analysis.</b> We screened the titles and abstracts of all studies identified by the search strategy and assessed the full texts of all potentially eligible studies for inclusion; 2 of the authors independently extracted the data of all studies included in this review. We created Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow-charts for each of the topical searches. Subsequently, we summarized the evidence by behavioral factor topic, quality-graded it by following standard (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; GRADE) criteria, and translated it into the LRCUG recommendations by the author expert collective on the basis of an iterative consensus process. </p><p id="d6385624e195"> <b>Main results.</b> For most recommendations, there was at least “substantial” (i.e., good-quality) evidence. We developed 10 major recommendations for lower-risk use: (1) the most effective way to avoid cannabis use–related health risks is abstinence, (2) avoid early age initiation of cannabis use (i.e., definitively before the age of 16 years), (3) choose low-potency tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or balanced THC-to-cannabidiol (CBD)–ratio cannabis products, (4) abstain from using synthetic cannabinoids, (5) avoid combusted cannabis inhalation and give preference to nonsmoking use methods, (6) avoid deep or other risky inhalation practices, (7) avoid high-frequency (e.g., daily or near-daily) cannabis use, (8) abstain from cannabis-impaired driving, (9) populations at higher risk for cannabis use–related health problems should avoid use altogether, and (10) avoid combining previously mentioned risk behaviors (e.g., early initiation and high-frequency use). </p><p id="d6385624e200"> <b>Authors’ conclusions.</b> Evidence indicates that a substantial extent of the risk of adverse health outcomes from cannabis use may be reduced by informed behavioral choices among users. The evidence-based LRCUG serve as a population-level education and intervention tool to inform such user choices toward improved public health outcomes. However, the LRCUG ought to be systematically communicated and supported by key regulation measures (e.g., cannabis product labeling, content regulation) to be effective. All of these measures are concretely possible under emerging legalization regimes, and should be actively implemented by regulatory authorities. The population-level impact of the LRCUG toward reducing cannabis use–related health risks should be evaluated. </p><p id="d6385624e205"> <b>Public health implications.</b> Cannabis control regimes are evolving, including legalization in North America, with uncertain impacts on public health. Evidence-based LRCUG offer a potentially valuable population-level tool to reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes from cannabis use among (especially young) users in legalization contexts, and hence to contribute to improved public health outcomes. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references149

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global burden of disease attributable to illicit drug use and dependence: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

          No systematic attempts have been made to estimate the global and regional prevalence of amphetamine, cannabis, cocaine, and opioid dependence, and quantify their burden. We aimed to assess the prevalence and burden of drug dependence, as measured in years of life lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). We conducted systematic reviews of the epidemiology of drug dependence, and analysed results with Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2010 (GBD 2010) Bayesian meta-regression technique (DisMod-MR) to estimate population-level prevalence of dependence and use. GBD 2010 calculated new disability weights by use of representative community surveys and an internet-based survey. We combined estimates of dependence with disability weights to calculate prevalent YLDs, YLLs, and DALYs, and estimated YLDs, YLLs, and DALYs attributable to drug use as a risk factor for other health outcomes. Illicit drug dependence directly accounted for 20·0 million DALYs (95% UI 15·3-25·4 million) in 2010, accounting for 0·8% (0·6-1·0) of global all-cause DALYs. Worldwide, more people were dependent on opioids and amphetamines than other drugs. Opioid dependence was the largest contributor to the direct burden of DALYs (9·2 million, 95% UI 7·1-11·4). The proportion of all-cause DALYs attributed to drug dependence was 20 times higher in some regions than others, with an increased proportion of burden in countries with the highest incomes. Injecting drug use as a risk factor for HIV accounted for 2·1 million DALYs (95% UI 1·1-3·6 million) and as a risk factor for hepatitis C accounted for 502,000 DALYs (286,000-891,000). Suicide as a risk of amphetamine dependence accounted for 854,000 DALYs (291,000-1,791,000), as a risk of opioid dependence for 671,000 DALYs (329,000-1,730,000), and as a risk of cocaine dependence for 324,000 DALYs (109,000-682,000). Countries with the highest rate of burden (>650 DALYs per 100,000 population) included the USA, UK, Russia, and Australia. Illicit drug use is an important contributor to the global burden of disease. Efficient strategies to reduce disease burden of opioid dependence and injecting drug use, such as delivery of opioid substitution treatment and needle and syringe programmes, are needed to reduce this burden at a population scale. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A tale of two cannabinoids: the therapeutic rationale for combining tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol.

            This study examines the current knowledge of physiological and clinical effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) and presents a rationale for their combination in pharmaceutical preparations. Cannabinoid and vanilloid receptor effects as well as non-receptor mechanisms are explored, such as the capability of THC and CBD to act as anti-inflammatory substances independent of cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibition. CBD is demonstrated to antagonise some undesirable effects of THC including intoxication, sedation and tachycardia, while contributing analgesic, anti-emetic, and anti-carcinogenic properties in its own right. In modern clinical trials, this has permitted the administration of higher doses of THC, providing evidence for clinical efficacy and safety for cannabis based extracts in treatment of spasticity, central pain and lower urinary tract symptoms in multiple sclerosis, as well as sleep disturbances, peripheral neuropathic pain, brachial plexus avulsion symptoms, rheumatoid arthritis and intractable cancer pain. Prospects for future application of whole cannabis extracts in neuroprotection, drug dependency, and neoplastic disorders are further examined. The hypothesis that the combination of THC and CBD increases clinical efficacy while reducing adverse events is supported.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis

              Objective To determine whether the acute consumption of cannabis (cannabinoids) by drivers increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision. Design Systematic review of observational studies, with meta-analysis. Data sources We did electronic searches in 19 databases, unrestricted by year or language of publication. We also did manual searches of reference lists, conducted a search for unpublished studies, and reviewed the personal libraries of the research team. Review methods We included observational epidemiology studies of motor vehicle collisions with an appropriate control group, and selected studies that measured recent cannabis use in drivers by toxicological analysis of whole blood or self report. We excluded experimental or simulator studies. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias in each selected study, with consensus, using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Risk estimates were combined using random effects models. Results We selected nine studies in the review and meta-analysis. Driving under the influence of cannabis was associated with a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle collisions compared with unimpaired driving (odds ratio 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.73); P=0.0003); we noted heterogeneity among the individual study effects (I2=81). Collision risk estimates were higher in case-control studies (2.79 (1.23 to 6.33); P=0.01) and studies of fatal collisions (2.10 (1.31 to 3.36); P=0.002) than in culpability studies (1.65 (1.11 to 2.46); P=0.07) and studies of non-fatal collisions (1.74 (0.88 to 3.46); P=0.11). Conclusions Acute cannabis consumption is associated with an increased risk of a motor vehicle crash, especially for fatal collisions. This information could be used as the basis for campaigns against drug impaired driving, developing regional or national policies to control acute drug use while driving, and raising public awareness.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                American Journal of Public Health
                Am J Public Health
                American Public Health Association
                0090-0036
                1541-0048
                August 2017
                August 2017
                : 107
                : 8
                : e1-e12
                Article
                10.2105/AJPH.2017.303818
                5508136
                28644037
                3244e925-f98e-47d8-9324-cedc3f41603f
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article