Potency levels of regulated cannabis products in Michigan 2021-2022.

Evaluation of cannabinoid concentrations in products from the legal cannabis market has been fraught with uncertainty. The lack of standardized testing methodology and the susceptibility of cannabinoids to degradation under certain storage conditions complicates the efforts to assess total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels across wide geographic areas. There are few peer-reviewed surveys of cannabinoid concentrations in regulated products. Those that have been done have not characterized the effects of differences in analytical methodology, sample population, and storage conditions. Viridis Laboratories, which operates two cannabis safety compliance facilities in Michigan, has analyzed over 34,000 cannabis products throughout 2021 and 2022 before the sale in the regulated market. Fifteen cannabinoids in cannabis flower, concentrates, and infused products were tested using methanolic extraction and analysis by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode-array detection. Methods were validated before use, and the flower analysis procedure was certified by the Association of Analytical Collaboration. All the samples were tested before submission for sale and therefore had not undergone prolonged storage. The results are compared with those seen in other states as well as in the illicit market. Total THC levels in cannabis flower from the regulated market are significantly higher than those seen in illicit products. The distribution of cannabinoid levels is similar in flowers intended for either the medicinal or adult-use markets, with an average potency of 18%-23% of total THC. Total THC in concentrates averages up to 82%. Other cannabinoids are observed at significant levels, mostly in products specifically formulated to contain them. These results may act as a benchmark for potency levels in the regulated market.

Urinary Concentrations of Topically Administered Pain Medications.

A common treatment for chronic pain is prescription of analgesics, but their long-term use entails risk of morbidity, addiction and misuse. One way to reduce the risk of abuse is prescribing of analgesics in a topical form. Physicians are urged to perform urine drug testing to ensure that patients are compliant with their medication regimens. However, there is little data on the efficiency of transdermal delivery for many analgesic drugs, and no data on expected urine drug levels. This study includes data from over 29,000 specimens tested for gabapentin, ketamine, cyclobenzaprine or amitriptyline used orally or topically. Gabapentin and amitriptyline concentrations were more likely to be below the limits of detection (25-40 ng/mL) in the urine of patients using them topically as compared with patients using them orally. Levels in gabapentin-positive topical specimens were much lower than in gabapentin-positive oral specimens (261 ng/mL vs >10,000 ng/mL). In contrast, ketamine and cyclobenzaprine were more readily detectable in the urine of topical users. Ketamine topical specimens were positive 12% more often than oral specimens, and mean topical specimen levels were 68-100% those of oral specimens. Cyclobenzaprine specimens were equally likely to be positive whether the dose was oral or topical, although mean levels after topical dosing were approximately 13-21% those after oral dosing. These findings are consistent with the reported percutaneous absorption efficiencies of gabapentin and ketamine, and are likely to be related to the absorption efficiencies of cyclobenzaprine and amitriptyline.