Literature Collection

IMPORTANCE: While a diverse array of cannabis products that may appeal to youth is currently available, it is unknown whether the risk of persistent cannabis use and progression to higher frequency of use after experimentation differs among cannabis products. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the comparative relative risk of experimental use of 5 cannabis products on use status and frequency of use among adolescents during 12 months of follow-up. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, data were collected from 3065 adolescents at 10 high schools in southern California, with baseline data collected in spring 2016, when students were in 11th grade, and 6-month and 12-month follow-up surveys collected in fall 2016 and spring 2017, when students were in 12th grade. Analyses, conducted from April to June 2019, were restricted to 2685 participants who were light or nonusers of any cannabis product (ie, ≤2 days in the past 30 days) at baseline. EXPOSURES: Number of days of use of each cannabis product (ie, combustible, blunts, vaporized, edible, or concentrated) in the past 30 days at baseline (ie, 1-2 vs 0 days). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Past 6-month use (ie, yes vs no) and number of days of use in the past 30 days at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups for each product. RESULTS: Of 2685 individuals in the analytic sample, 1477 (55.0%) were young women, the mean (SD) age was 17.1 (0.4) years, and a plurality (1231 [46.6%]) were Hispanic individuals. Among them, 158 (5.9%) reported combustible cannabis use on 1 to 2 days of the past 30 days at baseline, 90 (3.4%) reported blunt use, 78 (2.9%) reported edible cannabis use, 17 (0.6%) reported vaping cannabis, and 15 (0.6%) reported using cannabis concentrates. In regression models adjusting for demographic characteristics and poly-cannabis product use, statistically stronger associations of baseline use with subsequent past 6-month use at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups were observed for combustible cannabis use (odds ratio, 6.01; 95% CI, 3.66-9.85) and cannabis concentrate use (odds ratio, 5.87; 95% CI, 1.18-23.80) compared with use of blunts (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.45-5.29) or edible cannabis (OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.86-5.95) (P for comparison < .05); vaporized cannabis use (OR, 5.34; 95% CI, 1.51-11.20) was not significantly different from the other products. In similarly adjusted models, we found the association of cannabis use at baseline with mean days of use at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups was significantly stronger for cannabis concentrate than for other cannabis products; participants who had used cannabis concentrate on 1 to 2 of the past 30 days at baseline (vs 0 days) used cannabis concentrate a mean of 9.42 (95% CI, 2.02-35.50) more days in the past 30 days at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups (P for comparison < .05). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cannabis control efforts should consider targeting specific cannabis products, including combustible cannabis and cannabis concentrate, for maximum public health consequences.

OBJECTIVES: The majority of patients seeking medical care for chronic pain consult a primary care physician (PCP). Because systemic opioids are commonly prescribed to patients with chronic pain, PCPs are attempting to balance the competing priorities of providing adequate pain relief while reducing risks for opioid misuse and overdose. It is important for PCPs to be aware of pain management strategies other than systemic opioid dose escalation when patients with chronic pain fail to respond to conservative therapies and to initiate a multimodal treatment plan. METHODS: The Medline database and evidence-based treatment guidelines were searched to identify publications on intrathecal (IT) therapy for the management of chronic pain. Selection of publications relevant to PCPs was based on the authors' clinical and research expertise. RESULTS: IT administration delivers analgesic medication directly into the cerebrospinal fluid, avoiding first-pass effect and bypassing the blood-brain barrier, thereby requiring lower medication doses. Morphine, a micro-opioid receptor agonist, and ziconotide, a non-opioid, selective N-type calcium channel blocker, are the only analgesics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat chronic refractory pain by the IT route. Patients who are potential candidates for IT therapy may benefit from evaluation by an interventional pain physician. PCPs can play an important role in patient selection and referral for IT therapy and provide ongoing collaborative care for patients receiving IT therapy, including monitoring for efficacy and adverse events and facilitating communication with the treating specialist. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between PCPs and pain specialists may improve outcomes of and patient satisfaction with IT therapy and other interventional treatments.