Palliative Care
Study register · detail Sonstiges · Palliative Care · 2019

Einsatz von Cannabisarzneimitteln in der Schmerz- und Palliativmedizin

Unclear 5 citations
Samplen = 120
Duration1 year after introduction of…
EndpointPhysician information level /…
Blindingn.a.
DesignSonstiges
Key finding

Study shows information deficits among physicians in dealing with cannabis medicines and high rejection rates (36,1%) for cost coverage applications by health insurers.

Summary

Narrative review on the use of cannabis medicines in pain and palliative medicine; discussion of indications, forms of administration, dosage and practical aspects without systematic data extraction.

P
PopulationGerman pain physicians, n=120 doctors, with data on 1560 treated patients with pain and palliative care indications
I
InterventionCannabis medicines (mainly dronabinol, Sativex) in pain and palliative medicine
O
OutcomeKnowledge gaps among physicians about cannabis medicines; 36,1% of cost coverage applications rejected (457/1265 decided cases); 67,5% of physicians well informed about dronabinol
Quality profile
Sample size
Blinding
Effect size
Citations / year
Authors
Gastmeier K
DOI 10.1007/s00482-019-00406-3
Design: Sonstiges
Share
Abstract
Background And Methods: An online questionnaire about cannabis medication (CAM) was sent to German pain therapists 1 year after the introduction of the new act "Amendment to drug and other regulations" of 06.03.2017. Results: A total of 120 pain therapists participated. Information on 1560 treated patients was analyzed. Only in the case of Dronabinol and Sativex® did at least 50% of physicians feel well informed. Requests for the coverage of costs were sent to the statuary health insurance companies for 1521 patients. These requests had already been decided for 1265 patients (83%) at the time of the questionnaire. A total of 457 requests (36.1%) were denied, including 28 requests from palliative care patients. Most of the pain therapists (67.5%) were well informed about Dronabinol, but less so about the other CAM. Conclusion: The study shows an information deficit in knowledge and handling of selected CAM among physicians. Given the high rejection rate, there may also be a knowledge gap on the side of the health insurances. From a certain number of patients upwards, the non-interventional accompanying survey required by law was deemed to be barely practicable from both a time and an economical point of view.

The impediment to action advances action. — Marcus Aurelius