4.2 Article

Opioid Mortality Following Implementation of Medical Cannabis Programs in the United States

期刊

PHARMACOPSYCHIATRY
卷 54, 期 2, 页码 91-95

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1353-6509

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDA
  2. Center for Wellness Leadership
  3. Pfizer
  4. Eli Lilly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that states using medical cannabis had higher rates of opioid overdose deaths, higher Medicaid expansion rates, and higher quality death certificate reporting. However, the results may be confounded by lower reporting quality in states without MC.
Introduction The United States is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic. Emerging evidence suggests that medical cannabis (MC) may reduce use of opioids for pain in some individuals, with potential impacts on opioid-related overdose. However, there may be other important differences between states that did, and did not, adopt MC. Methods This study evaluated differences following legal MC sales on US opioid-related overdose deaths, corrected for population, from 1999 to 2017 using an interrupted time series. Comparisons by MC status were also made for Medicaid expansion and the Centers for Disease Control death certificate reporting quality (0: 0.58, p<0.05) and without (pre =0.20.10, post=1.04 +/- 0.22, p<0.005) MC. Post-legalization slopes were significantly higher in MC states (p<0.01). Two states without (11.1%) as compared to 11 states with (91.7%) MC expanded Medicaid by 2014 (chi (2) [1]=19.03, p<0.0005). MC states (1.500.23) had higher death certificate reporting quality relative to states without MC (0.78 +/- 0.22, p < 0.05). Discussion MC states had higher rates of opioid overdoses. Although there was no decrease in association with MC introduction, these results were confounded by states without MC having lower overdose reporting quality. Medicaid expansion was also more common in states with MC. Finally, the potency of fentanyl analogues may have obscured any protective effects of MC against illicit opioid harms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据