MJA
MJA InSight
MJA Careers
Perspectives

Medicinal cannabis in Australia: the missing links

Jennifer H Martin and Yvonne A Bonomo
Med J Aust 2016; 204 (10): 371-373.
doi:
10.5694/mja16.00234

Cultivation of cannabis for medicinal or scientific purposes needs considered management before it is rolled out as a therapeutic good

Since the publication in the Journal last year of a perspective on cannabis that stated: “Australia is behind the times on the medicinal use of cannabis”,1 there appears to have been a palpable change in community attitudes around cannabis as medicine.2-4 This has occurred alongside anecdotal reports from people with intractable illnesses who have had symptomatic benefit with cannabis.5 Palliative care specialists have acknowledged a potential role for medicinal cannabis in their specialty.6 Internationally, the scene is also changing. For example, the Netherlands Office of Medicinal Cannabis enables dispensation through pharmacies after purchase from a contracted company, which also exports to other European countries.7 In the United States, 23 states and Washington, DC, have legalised marijuana in some form, mostly for medicinal purposes, since June 2015.8

In Australia, the New South Wales Government Terminal Illness Cannabis Scheme (TICS),9 established in 2014, enables compassionate access to adults with a terminal illness. Under TICS, a registered medical practitioner involved in a person’s ongoing care must certify that he or she has a terminal illness as defined by the scheme. In 2015, the New South Wales Government-funded trials of cannabis in palliative care and in children with a specific type of epilepsy,10 and in Victoria, a cannabidiol study for paediatric epilepsy is also in process.11

Adding to this momentum, in what some consider an “historical” move, Australia’s federal parliament has recently passed amendments to the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 (Cwlth) to allow controlled cultivation of cannabis for medicinal or scientific purposes through a single national licensing scheme. This legislation enables commercial manufacture of cannabis, thereby enabling consistency of product, which should facilitate the collection of pharmaceutical and pharmacological data. These amendments should also facilitate human clinical trials on the efficacy and effectiveness of cannabinoids, including comparisons with placebo or alternative therapies. In addition, rescheduling of medicinal cannabis from S9 (prohibited drug) to S8 (controlled drug) is currently being considered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling.

With these measures in place, and assuming subsequent authorisation under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cwlth) and relevant state and territory legislation, a patient with a prescription will in future be able to use a medicinal cannabinoid manufactured from legally cultivated cannabis plants in Australia. In anticipation, Queensland has already released a draft Bill for discussion — the Public Health (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2016 — discussing, among other aspects, the requirement for approval by the Director General of Queensland Health to allow access by a patient to medicinal cannabis.

Missing links in access to medicinal cannabinoids

Although Minister for Health, Sussan Ley referred to this federal legislation as the “missing link” in the supply of cannabis for patients,12 there are multiple missing links before patients can access medicinal cannabinoids in Australia. Several changes to medicines and poisons legislation, as well as significant scientific, pharmaceutical, pharmacological and clinical input are required. In this article, we discuss (in order of priority from a patient efficacy and safety perspective) what we believe are the missing links, based on the assumption that the legislation sets out to cover all of pharmaceutical grade extracts and use of plant products.

1. Data required on indications, efficacy, safety and dose range of cannabinoids

Some cannabis products (eg, botanical leaf extract) contain more than one cannabinoid, and several cannabinoids metabolise to compounds that may also be active. Other cannabinoids may consist of one molecule only, similar to most current therapeutic goods on the market. How these different molecules and combination of molecules will be handled is unknown at this stage.

Currently, when a pharmaceutical company is requesting to use a molecule, or combination of molecules (as in the combined antihypertensive therapies) clinically, a tight regulatory process is specified. In brief, this requires evidence about the molecule’s pre-clinical toxicity, human safety, basic physiochemical processes (ie, stability over time and in different physical circumstances, and drug dissolution in the body), basic and clinical pharmacokinetics and efficacy.13 Medical devices for administering drugs (eg, devices for vaporisation) are assessed in a separate process, and also require specific registration. Efficacy of the therapy is tested through a variety of early- and late-phase human clinical trials. For cannabinoids, the evidence for some of this early phase work is currently being developed through state government-funded trials in NSW, in particular, the clinical pharmacology study in Newcastle.14 However, that study will only provide safety and dose-finding data for vaporised botanical leaf cannabis, and within a tight dose range for patients with cancer cachexia. Patients with cancer cachexia are likely to exhibit cannabinoid pharmacokinetics and dynamics that are significantly different from those of other groups of patients who might benefit from therapeutic cannabinoids — younger, physiologically more stable individuals with chronic pain.15 Although data are available for some already registered cannabinoids,16 in general, appropriate starting doses and likely toxic doses for other forms of cannabinoids, and in other population groups with different pharmacokinetics are not known. Similarly, central nervous system or other toxicity data, particularly for children or adolescents or in “end-of-life” patients with significant neuropsychiatric changes and who are already taking a range of concomitant medications, are still to be determined. Placebo-controlled efficacy data to date are sparse17 and registration of cannabinoids may potentially lead to widespread uptake with reduced impetus for research into efficacy.17

2. Confirmation that drug constituents are consistent and of high, reproducible quality

In addition to the abovementioned lack of standard drug dossier data submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the pharmacology of different parts of the plant and its species need to be clarified.18 For instance, there may be batch variation between cultivation sites or over time. Thus, experience with good manufacturing practice (GMP) frameworks for other plant-derived drugs such as opium will be helpful. The clinical relevance of batch variation is also becoming apparent with other biological agents that are entering clinical use in Australia. The relative benefits of prescribing plant-derived molecules versus those synthesised in laboratories will need to be determined. Lastly, safety and regulatory aspects of cannabinoids obtained from a range of different (mostly domestic) sources that will be compounded by pharmacies is a major area for policy work; this is already underway in NSW.

3. Confirmation of drug stability in different storage conditions

It is likely that drugs for inpatients will be stored in more stringent and reproducible physical conditions than those provided to outpatients. Thus we need to understand factors such as the decay over time, outside of the fridge, and the effects of variable humidity, for different products.

4. Concerns specific to prescribing

Assuming that appropriate, evidence-based clinical indications for prescribing cannabinoids can be ascertained, an understanding of the pharmacology, including the percentage and amount of tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol or other cannabinoid and their pharmacological actions, will inform prescribing for different conditions. Patients may have a preference for a particular route of administration (eg, oral versus vaporised), so effects on bioavailability via these methods may need to be considered for a particular patient and the condition being treated. For example, cannabis for cachexia may best be taken before meals with a rapid time to maximum concentration and rapid wear-off; but for chronic pain, a relatively constant plasma concentration above that known to be of benefit may be preferred. Depending on the underlying condition, decisions will need to be made about whether a supply for 1 month (eg, palliative care context) or longer (eg, chronic pain context) can be provided because of the potential for stockpiling.

5. Concerns around medical supply of a potentially misusable substance

Here, we can learn from local and international experience.19 Assuming that medicinal cannabis is rescheduled from S9 to S8, the states and territories have a key role, as they do for other scheduled substances, in enabling access to this drug.

Additional controls include restricting access to poisons to state and territory authorised medical practitioners. Restriction of prescribing to specific practitioners, such as palliative care, pain or addiction medicine specialists will be important, especially in the early stages of prescribing while the clinical experience is accumulating. In other contexts, access can be restricted to clinical trials conducted under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cwlth) — that is, by applying to use an unapproved product under the Clinical Trial Notification or Clinical Trial Exemption schemes, under the TGA Special Access Scheme or under an Authorised Prescriber scheme.

In Canada, doctors are gatekeepers for the system, but many cite lack of research and guidance from authorities as the reason for declining to prescribe cannabis, even though most support a perceived public health aspect.16 Clearly, medical practitioners, pharmacists and other health professionals will need training so that inappropriate prescribing and drug diversion are minimised. Looking ahead, curricula in medical and other undergraduate health professional courses are currently relatively devoid of formal structured clinical pharmacology and addiction medicine teaching, particularly with regard to cannabis. This should be rectified through collaboration with, for example, the Australian Medical Council and Medical Deans of Australia and New Zealand.

Solutions

While a national regulatory framework is under discussion, there are several ways to promote the process, described below.

  • There is likely to be a call for professional input once the TGA processes are finalised (submissions to the TGA closed in February 2016). This will include pharmacy input concerning storage and dispensing, and registration of, or use of an authorised prescriber or other scheme by prescribers.

  • Support should be given to the unprecedented approach in Australia to develop the evidence base through the NSW and Victorian state government studies.

  • Guidelines could be developed for medical practitioners regarding management of patient requests for cannabinoids that are outside the legislation/registration.

Interface with non-medical cannabis use

Like many doctors, we consider the discussion surrounding medicinal cannabis to be separate from the increased calls from some sections of the community to legalise cannabis for non-medical or recreational, use. Non-medicinal cannabis raises ethical concerns about substances that are documented to be harmful to some individuals and society. Medicinal cannabis, however, as proposed in recent amendments to the Narcotic Drugs Act, falls within the framework of a therapeutic good for clinical use.

Summary

For users of medicinal cannabis, this legislation is a significant move. It provides access to cannabis for people who gain alleviation of their symptoms and who have, until now, been cultivating cannabis or importing it illegally. However, prescribing of medicinal cannabis by doctors remains outside the standard regulatory framework for medicinal products.

For researchers interested in building an evidence base around cannabis, this legislation will simplify current onerous processes for permitting access to cannabis for the studies required to ensure safety, reliability, and the range of doses likely to be effective. For the current NSW pharmacology study, for example, there were significant delays owing to problems with licenses for possession and handling, import licenses, concerns about storage in the hospital of a non-scheduled drug and the use of a non-TGA-registered medical device, even with state government facilitation of these processes.

For the medical community, both experience in providing access to potential drugs of misuse and appropriate concerns based on previous examples of medicinal products that can be misused will guide some of the journey and appropriate regulation. These experiences include the exponential rise in the use of oxycodone in the community20 as well as misuse of benzodiazepines and antipsychotic medications. We can learn from these problems, as long as pressure from the community for access to cannabis is managed. Disease symptoms are not new. There are already several safe and effective registered therapeutic goods available for most conditions for which patients are requesting access to medicinal cannabis. If trial data for cannabis reveal evidence that supports its use, and if this use can be regulated in a way that enables suitable provision to those who may benefit, then it appropriately becomes another agent in the armamentarium of pharmacotherapy.

Provenance: 
Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Jennifer H Martin, MB ChB, FRACP, PhD1,2
Yvonne A Bonomo, FRACP, PhD, FAChAM3
1 University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW
2 Hunter New England Local Health District, Newcastle, NSW
3 St Vincent's Health, Melbourne, VIC
Competing interests: 
Jennifer Martin is involved in the NSW Health-funded medicinal cannabis trials and Yvonne Bonomo is leading cannabis research and education programs in Victoria.
Reference Text: 
Pennington DG. Medical cannabis: time for clear thinking. Med J Aust 2015; 202: 74-75.
Reference Order: 
1
Reference Text: 
NSW election 2015. Medical marijuana has widespread support from Vote Compass users. Australian Broadcasting Commission. News. 2015; 16 Mar. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03..medical-marijuana-cannabis/6314758 (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
2
Reference Text: 
Wordsworth M. Queensland election 2015: Majority of Queenslanders support medical marijuana, Vote Compass finds. Australian Broadcasting Commission. News. 2015; 29 Jan. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-28/..medical-marijuana../6049724 (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
3
Reference Text: 
Public Health Association of Australia: policy-at-a-glance. Medicinal cannabis in Australia. Canberra: PHAA, 2015. http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/item/885 (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
4
Reference Text: 
Feller J. Lucy Haslam's plan to supply medicinal cannabis unchanged by legalisation proposal. Australian Broadcasting Commission. News. Australian Story. 2015; 19 Oct http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-19/campaigners-plan-to-supply-medical-cannabis-unchanged/6863816 (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
5
Reference Text: 
Palliative Care Australia. Submission to Regulator of Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2014. Canberra: PCA, 2015. http://palliativecare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2015/08/PCA-submission-to-Regulator-of-Medicinal-Cannabis-Bill-2014.pdf (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
6
Reference Text: 
Hazekamp A, Heerdink E. The prevalence and incidence of medicinal cannabis on prescription in The Netherlands. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2013; 69: 1575-1580.
Reference Order: 
7
Reference Text: 
Governing. State marijuana laws map. Washington DC: Governing, 2015; 19 Jun. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.html (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
8
Reference Text: 
New South Wales Government. Terminal Illness Cannabis Scheme. http://www.nsw.gov.au/tics (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
9
Reference Text: 
New South Wales Government Health. Clinical trials: medical use of cannabis. http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/cannabis/Documents/fs-cannabis-trials.pdf (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
10
Reference Text: 
Victoria State Government. health.vic. Medicinal cannabis https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/drugs-and-poisons/medicinal-cannabis (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
11
Reference Text: 
The Hon Sussan Ley MP. Media hub. Historic medicinal cannabis legislation passes Parliament. 2016; 24 Feb. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2016-ley013.htm (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
12
Reference Text: 
Australian Government. Department of Health. Therapeutic Goods Administration. How therapeutic goods are regulated in Australia. http://www.tga.gov.au/how-therapeutic-goods-are-regulated-australia (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
13
Reference Text: 
Australia’s first medical cannabis study announced at Newcastle hospital. Australian Broadcasting Commission. News. 2015; 27 Jul. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-27/nation-first-cannabis-study-announced-at-newcastle-hospital/6650832 (accessed Apr 2016).
Reference Order: 
14
Reference Text: 
Reuter SE, Martin JH. Pharmacokinetics of cannabis in cancer cachexia-anorexia syndrome. Clin Pharmacokinetics 2016; Feb 16 doi:10.1007/s40262-015-0363-2 [Epub ahead of print].
Reference Order: 
15
Reference Text: 
Karschner E, Darwin W, Goodwin R, et al. Plasma cannabinoid pharmacokinetics following controlled oral delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and oromucosal cannabis extract administration. Clin Chem 2011; 57: 66-75.
Reference Order: 
16
Reference Text: 
Whiting PF, Wolff RF, Deshpande S, et al. Cannabinoids for medical use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2015; 313: 2456-2473.
Reference Order: 
17
Reference Text: 
Vandrey R, Raber JC, Raber ME, et al. Cannabinoid dose and label accuracy in edible medical cannabis products. JAMA 2015; 313: 2491-2493.
Reference Order: 
18
Reference Text: 
Cook J, Lloyd-Jones D, Ogden E, Bonomo Y. Medical use of cannabis: an addiction medicine perspective. Intern Med J 2015; 45: 677-680.
Reference Order: 
19
Reference Text: 
Roxburgh A, Bruno R, Larance B, Burns L. Prescription of opioid analgesics and related harms in Australia. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 280-284.
Reference Order: 
20

Re: Medicinal cannabis in Australia: the missing links

Add new comment (maximum 250 words)

Dear Editor,
I write to comment, for publication, on the article Medicinal cannabis in Australia: the missing links, MJA 204 (10) 6 June 2016.

One Australian state has already legalised access to medicinal cannabis for people in exceptional circumstances with exactly the kinds of safeguards and support for research proposed by Professor Martin and Associate Professor Bonomo: Victoria.

The Access to Medicinal Cannabis Act 2016 passed the Victorian Parliament with the support of all members of both houses on 12 April 2016. It sets up a scheme under which patients with severe, disabling and life-threatening conditions will be able to access quality-controlled non-smokeable medicinal cannabis products under the supervision and support of their treating specialists and GPs. It will also allow both the medical profession and industry to conduct the kind of research and development advocated in the article.

Our scheme will be compassionate, but it will also be evidence based. It will be guided by an Independent Medical Advisory Committee comprised of experienced clinicians, researchers, pharmacists and others. These experts will mine the best and latest data to inform efficacy, safety, dosing and methods of administration. An important feature of the scheme will be the collection of pharmacovigilance data through a patient register to continue to build the evidence base about the safety and efficacy of medicinal cannabis products. This data together with emerging evidence will be evaluated by the Independent Medical Advisory Committee and will provide the basis for clinical, patient and community education as well as ongoing development of the scheme. As new research is undertaken, we will be able to respond. It is a learning model.

Manufacturers in Victoria will be required to meet stringent quality standards and any product approved for supply will be thoroughly and independently tested and quality assured. Pharmacists will be required to store and dispense medicinal cannabis in accordance with best practice.

The Victorian scheme will tightly regulate prescribing, restricting it to medical practitioners who specialise in the relevant conditions and applying key learnings from our regulation of the other drugs of dependence that pose risks of diversion and misuse. The legislation requires the preparation and dissemination of educational and guidance materials in relation to medicinal cannabis products. This will support the medical profession in its role in prescribing and supplying medicinal cannabis products and will educate patients and families about eligibility requirements for the scheme.

The Victorian Government will also continue to encourage and support Victorian patients' participation in clinical trials.
Competing Interests: 
The letter to the editor was authored by the Director of the Medicinal Cannabis and Real Time Prescription Monitoring Taskforces.
Matthew McCrone Director, Medicinal Cannabis and Real Time Prescription Monitoring Taskforces, Regulation, Health Protection and Emergency Management Division
Department of Health and Human Services
The authors acknowledge the information that the Access to Medicinal Cannabis Act 2016 passed the Victorian Parliament on 12 April 2016, after their manuscript was accepted for publication. The legislation increases from one (New South Wales) to two the number of Australian States that enable patients with life-threatening conditions to access medicinal cannabis under the supervision and support of their treating doctor. Both schemes should facilitate some of the research and education that needs to be undertaken to enable information to be generated about safety for future patients. Both enable access to patients with symptoms from life threatening disorders.

These compassionate access schemes are developing on a state-by-state basis, in response to community demand.  A national framework however, would enable consistency in roll out of medicinal cannabis programs and all that these entail including research and education agendas and a national pharmacovigilance program.  The authors remain concerned that increasing compassionate supply could reduce the likelihood that NHMRC and similar bodies fund the high quality (including randomised, and/or with a control arm of current best practice) research that is vital in this area.
Competing Interests: 
We wrote the original manuscript in MJA
Jennifer H Martin MBChB, MA (Oxon.), FRACP, PhD
University of Newcastle
Yvonne Bonomo MBBS, FRACP, PhD
St Vincent's Hospital