Abstract
Objective: To evaluate MS patients’ cannabis use, focusing on: 1) prevalence; 2) product types used (e.g., smoked cannabis vs edibles); 3) symptoms treated; and 4) patient characteristics.
Background: Studies suggest cannabis may improve symptoms like muscle spasm and pain in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Nonetheless, there is little research exploring the extent and reasons for cannabis use among MS patients, particularly in a state where cannabis is recreationally available.
Design/Methods: Patients at the Rocky Mountain Multiple Sclerosis Center at the University of Colorado completed questions assessing willingness to use cannabis in MS treatment, previous and current use, impact of cannabis on MS symptoms, MS history, and demographics, as well as the Patient Determined Disease Steps (PDDS), the Patient Reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS 10), and the Neuro-QOLv2.0 Cognitive Function short-form measure.
Results: Preliminary results from 25 participants are presented. Thus far, 56% of respondents believe cannabis has some benefit on MS symptoms, 8% some harm, and 24% were unsure. 19 (76%) respondents indicated they would consider cannabis to manage their MS. 7 (28%) patients reported cannabis use in the past year; 71% medicinal, 0% recreational, and 29% both. 3 (43%) cannabis users preferred CBD-only products and 3 (43%) preferred products with similar quantities of CBD/THC. Cannabis products were mostly used for pain (57%), spasticity/muscle tightness (29%), or muscle spasm (14%); slowed thinking was the most common side effect (29%). Of the 12 (48%) respondents not currently using cannabis, 4 (33%) indicated this was because it is illegal, and 6 (50%) because they do know enough about it.
Conclusions: As cannabis becomes more available under the laws of individual states, the results of this ongoing study may have important implications in the future landscape of MS symptom treatment and research exploring the efficacy of cannabis for MS symptom management.
Disclosure: Dr. Weinkle has nothing to disclose. Dr. Shelton has nothing to disclose. Dr. Sillau has nothing to disclose. Dr. Domen has nothing to disclose. Dr. Nair has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with Astellas. Dr. Nair has received research support from Biogen, Novartis, Genentech, Gilead Sciences. Dr. Alvarez has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with Actelion, Biogen, Celgene, EMDSerono, Genzyme, Genentech, Novartis, Teva, and TG pharmaceuticals.
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.