Stains Elena L, Kennalley Amy L, Tian Maria, Boehnke Kevin F, Kraus Chadd K, Piper Brian J
Department of Medical Education, Geisinger College of Health Sciences, Scranton, PA.
Department of Anesthesiology, Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2025 Feb 20;9(2):100590. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2025.100590. eCollection 2025 Apr.
To compare the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine cannabis report to state medical cannabis (MC) laws defining approved qualifying conditions (QC) from 2017 and 2024 and to determine the evidence level of the QCs approved in each state.
The 2017 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report assessed therapeutic evidence for over 20 medical conditions treated with MC. We identified the QCs of 38 states (including Washington DC) where MC was legal in 2024 and compared them to the QCs listed by these states in 2017. The QCs were then categorized on the basis of NAS-established levels of evidence: limited, moderate, or substantial/conclusive evidence of effectiveness, limited evidence of ineffectiveness, or no/insufficient evidence to support or refute effectiveness. This study was completed from January 31, 2023 to June 20, 2024.
Most states listed at least one QC with substantial evidence-80.0% 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/conclusive evidence. Of the 20 most popular QCs in the country in 2017 and 2024, one only (long-term pain) was categorized by the NAS as having substantial evidence for effectiveness. However, 7 were rated as either ineffective (eg, glaucoma) or insufficient evidence.
Most QCs lack evidence for use on the basis of the 2017 NAS report. Many states recommend QCs with little evidence (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) or even those for which MC is ineffective (depression). These findings highlight a disparity between state-level MC recommendations and the evidence to support them.
比较2017年美国国家科学院、工程院和医学院的大麻报告与2017年和2024年各州定义批准的合格条件(QC)的医用大麻(MC)法律,并确定每个州批准的合格条件的证据水平。
2017年美国国家科学院(NAS)的报告评估了用医用大麻治疗的20多种医疗状况的治疗证据。我们确定了2024年医用大麻合法的38个州(包括华盛顿特区)的合格条件,并将其与这些州在2017年列出的合格条件进行比较。然后根据NAS确定的证据水平对合格条件进行分类:有效性的有限、中等或充分/确凿证据、无效性的有限证据,或无/不足证据支持或反驳有效性。本研究于2023年1月31日至2024年6月20日完成。
大多数州列出了至少一项有充分证据的合格条件——2017年为80.0%,2024年为97.0%。然而,在2024年,各州合格条件清单上只有8.3%的合格条件符合充分/确凿证据的标准。在2017年和2024年该国最常见的20种合格条件中,只有一种(长期疼痛)被NAS归类为有充分的有效性证据。然而,有7种被评为无效(如青光眼)或证据不足。
根据2017年NAS报告,大多数合格条件缺乏使用证据。许多州推荐的合格条件证据很少(肌萎缩侧索硬化症),甚至是医用大麻无效的条件(抑郁症)。这些发现凸显了州级医用大麻建议与支持它们的证据之间的差异。