Is Medical Cannabis Evidence-Based Medicine? Concerns Based on Qualifying Conditions and the National Academy of Sciences Report

Elena L. Stains; Amy L. Kennalley; Alexander S. Bachir; Chadd K. Kraus; Brian J. Piper

doi:10.1101/2023.05.01.23289286

Abstract

This study aims to examine the coherence of state-level qualifying conditions (QCs) for medical cannabis (MC) with the evidence-based conclusions of the 2017 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report. Data was collected for the QCs from 38 states where MC was legal in 2023 and compared to the QC data from 31 states where MC was legal in 2017. Each condition was divided into a NAS-established category based on the level of evidence supporting their effectiveness. The findings revealed wide variation in the number of QCs between states, with only an average of 8.4% of QCs in each state generally satisfying the substantial evidence category. Over three fourths of states included QCs with limited evidence of ineffectiveness (78.9%) or no/insufficient evidence (76.3%). Additionally, four fifths (81.6%) of states included QCs not covered in the NAS report. Only a few states appeared to have updated their QCs after the NAS report was released. This investigation highlights a large discrepancy between the state-level recommendations for MC and the supporting data.

Competing Interest Statement

BJP is supported by the Health Resources Services Administration (D34HP31025), the Pennsylvania Academic Clinical Research Center, and was (until 12/31/2021) part of an osteoarthritis research team supported by Pfizer and Eli Lilly.

Funding Statement

The work was completed with software from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [T32-ES007060-31A1].

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes