ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is increasing among adults to treat a variety of health conditions. Given the potential for interactions and adverse events, it is important to assess the use of medical cannabis along with other concomitant medications when assessing for polypharmacy. METHODS: The objective of this observational, longitudinal study was to examine medical cannabis (MC) use along with concomitant medications over 12 months in patients with serious medical conditions enrolled in the Pennsylvania (PA) Department of Health's (DOH) Medical Marijuana Program and to collect and catalog which forms of MC patients are taking along with their concomitant medications. RESULTS: There were 213 participants who completed the baseline surveys in full, and 201, 187, and 175 who completed the 1, 6, and 12-month follow-up surveys. The mean age of the participants was 41.3 years, and 54.5% were female. The mean number of MC products taken at baseline was 3.41 and 3.47 at the 12-month survey. Participants took an average of 3.76 (SD 3.15) medications at baseline and 3.65 (SD 3.4) at 12 months. Most commonly used concomitant medications at baseline included vitamins (42.3%), antidepressants (29.1%), analgesics (22.1%), herbal products (19.7%), and anxiolytics (17.8%). CONCLUSION: Participants used multiple medical cannabis products to treat a number of medication conditions in conjunction with multiple medications.
ABSTRACT
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective but understudied tool for preventing HIV among women who inject drugs (WWID). This article is the first to explore WWID's rationale for PrEP initiation (or refusal) in a real-world setting. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 25 WWID, participating in a PrEP demonstration project operating within a syringe services program, based on whether they initiated or declined PrEP care. Content analysis of qualitative interviews was used to explore decisions to initiate PrEP (or not). We found that WWID view HIV as severe, perceive themselves to be susceptible to HIV, and believe PrEP is beneficial for HIV prevention. For some, however, real and perceived barriers outweighed benefits, leading to decisions not to initiate PrEP. Barriers included HIV stigma, fear of side effects, and needing assurance that PrEP care will be available long-term. Despite viewing PrEP as an important HIV prevention tool, not all WWID who were offered PrEP initiated it. For these women, supports to buffer perceived barriers to initiation and access to post-exposure prophylaxis may be warranted. For women who initiate, it is possible that adherence will wane if perceived risk does not remain high. Research to understand PrEP persistence is needed.
