PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Stains, Elena L.
AU  - Kennalley, Amy L.
AU  - Tian, Maria
AU  - Boehnke, Kevin F.
AU  - Kraus, Chadd K.
AU  - Piper, Brian J.
TI  - United States’ qualifying conditions compared to evidence of the 2017 National Academy of Sciences Report
AID  - 10.1101/2023.05.01.23289286
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.05.01.23289286
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/10/2023.05.01.23289286.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/10/2023.05.01.23289286.full
AB  - Objective To compare the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) report to state medical cannabis (MC) laws defining approved qualifying conditions (QC) from 2017 to 2024 and to determine if there exist gaps in evidence-based decision making.Methods The 2017 NAS report assessed therapeutic evidence for over twenty medical conditions treated with MC. We identified the QCs of 38 states (including Washington, D.C.) where MC was legal in 2024. We also identified the QCs that these states used in 2017. QCs were then categorized based on NAS-established level of evidence: substantial/conclusive evidence of effectiveness, moderate evidence of effectiveness, limited evidence of effectiveness, limited evidence of ineffectiveness, and no/insufficient evidence to support or refute effectiveness. This study was completed between January 31, 2023 through May 20, 2024.Results Most states listed at least one QC with substantial evidence—80.0% of states in 2017 and 97.0% in 2024. However, in 2024 only 8.3% of the QCs on states’ QC lists met the standard of substantial evidence. Of the 20 most popular QCs in the country in 2017 and 2024, one only (chronic pain) was categorized by the NAS as having substantial evidence for effectiveness. However, seven (ALS, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, glaucoma, Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, spastic spinal cord damage) were rated as either ineffective or insufficient evidence.Conclusion Most QCs lack evidence for use based on the 2017 NAS report. Many states recommend QCs with little evidence, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or even those for which MC is ineffective, like depression. There have been insufficient updates to QCs since the NAS report. These findings highlight a disparity between state-level MC recommendations and the evidence to support them.Competing Interest StatementThe work was completed with software from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [T32-ES007060-31A1]; BJP is supported by the Health Resources Services Administration [D34HP31025] and was (2019-21) part of an osteoarthritis research team supported by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. This work was supported by Ascend Wellness and the Geisinger Academic Clinical Research Center (Grant number 004). They had no role in the design of the study or the publication decision. A preliminary report of this work was previously published on MedRxiv, 5/10/23. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.01.23289286Funding StatementThe work was completed with software from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [T32-ES007060-31A1].Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.MCmedical cannabisNASNational Academy of SciencesQCQualifying ConditionsUSUnited States