HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-Type: text/html
Pubdate: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 Source: The House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee (UK) Contact: Fax: +0171-219 6715 or 0171-219 4931 Mail: Science and Technology Committee, House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW Website: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldhome.htm APPENDIX 1 Members of the Sub-Committee which conducted the enquiry * Lord Butterfield * Lord Butterworth * Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove * Lord Dixon-Smith * Lord Kirkwood * Lord Nathan * Lord Perry of Walton (Chairman) * Lord Porter of Luddenham * Lord Rea * Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior * Lord Walton of Detchant * Lord Winston The Sub-Committee appointed as its Specialist Adviser: Professor Leslie Iversen FRS, Visiting Professor of Pharmacology, University of Oxford APPENDIX 2 Witnesses The following witnesses gave evidence. ** Academy of Medical Sciences (with Royal Society) ** Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs ** Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics ** Anonymous ** Professor Heather Ashton ** Association of Chief Police Officers ** Dr Anthony Blowers, Surrey's Drug Action Team ** Mary Brett, Dr Challoner's Grammar School (Boys), Amersham ** British Medical Association ** J Brown ** Christian Institute ** S Cooke ** David Copestake ** Dr Angela Coutts, University of Aberdeen ** Department of Complementary Medicine, University of Exeter ** R Creasey ** P Davidson ** M Davies ** S Day ** Department of Health ** Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment ** Evangelical Coalition on Drugs Executive Committee ** C Fell ** Forensic Science Service ** L Gibson ** Professor Keith Green, Medical College of Georgia, USA ** Dr Geoffrey Guy ** Professor Wayne Hall, Executive Director, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Australia ** Professor John Henry, Imperial College School of Medicine (on behalf of Royal College of Pathologists) ** Dr Anita Holdcroft, Imperial College School of Medicine ** Home Office ** M Humphreys ** Independent Drug Monitoring Unit ** Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence ** International Drug Strategy Institute ** Edward H Jurith ** Dr David Kendall, University of Nottingham Medical School ** Dr David Lambert ** D Lewis ** London Medical Marijuana Support Group ** Medical Research Council ** Medicines Control Agency ** Dr Tod H Mikuriya ** Austin Mitchell MP ** Mr Neil Montgomery ** Multiple Sclerosis Society ** National Addiction Centre ** National Drug Prevention Alliance ** NHS National Teratology Information Service ** Dr William Notcutt ** Professor David Nutt, University of Bristol ** Dr Roger Pertwee ** A Phillipson ** P Rigby ** Dr Philip Robson ** E Rorison ** Royal College of General Practitioners ** Royal College of Pathologists ** Royal College of Psychiatrists ** Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain ** Royal Society ** J Sayers ** Dr Fred Schon, Mayday Hospital Croydon and St George's Hospital ** Dr P Shaw ** Councillor C Simpson, Aberystwyth ** L Standen ** Dr Colin Stewart, Dundee Limb Fitting Centre ** G Vincent ** Young Christian Democrats APPENDIX 3 Notes on Conference "Marihuana and Medicine" at New York University Medical Center, New York, 20-21 March 1998 by Professor Leslie Iversen FRS, Specialist Adviser 1. The conference, organised by Professor G. Nahas and colleagues, gave an overview of the current position in the USA. A topical issue there is whether smoked marijuana should be permitted for medical use, since oral formulations of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and nabilone are already available medically. 2. M. Huestis (National Institute on Drug Abuse) reviewed new information on the disposition and metabolism of cannabis in human subjects, using sensitive analytical techniques to measure THC and some of the major metabolites. Because a substantial proportion of the absorbed THC is sequestered in fat tissues, the half life of the drug in blood is > 4 days and the half life of the major urinary metabolite 11carboxylic acid THC is > 30 hours. By measuring the ratio of unchanged THC to this metabolite in samples of blood or urine it may be possible to calculate when the last dose of THC was taken-information that could be of importance forensically. An unexpected finding was the large variability between subjects in the amount of THC absorbed by smoking a standard marijuana cigarette under laboratory conditions; even though the number and frequency of puffs was controlled there was a 3fold range. For the same subject tested on different occasions there was also a considerable variability in the amount of THC absorbed (17 per cent on average). 3. M. El Sohly (University of Mississippi) described the development of a rectal suppository formulation for delivery of THC in the form of a "prodrug" (the hemisuccinate ester) dissolved in a lipid base. Absorption of THC increased in a dosedependent manner and was prolonged (THC was measurable in blood for up to 8 hours). Because this route of absorption avoids first pass metabolism in the liver, the amount of THC absorbed into circulation was more than twice as great as after oral dosage. Unfortunately there was a high variability between subjects in the amount of THC absorbed (about 3fold). The advantages of this route of administration seem clear, but it was thought unlikely to be popular in the United States where suppository formulations have never been widely accepted. 4. B. Thomas (Research Triangle Institute) reviewed the operation of his laboratory which supplies standard marijuana cigarettes to the 8 individual glaucoma patients licensed in the US to receive this medication, and to research groups in the US and elsewhere. By using standard growing conditions (at the University of Mississippi) and different strains of cannabis plant they are able to generate marijuana cigarettes of consistent quality and standard THC content (standard 1.8 per cent THC; strong 4.0 per cent THC) free of microbial or insect contamination. Placebo cigarettes are prepared using leaf material extracted with alcohol to remove THC. 5. Roger Pertwee (University of Aberdeen) reviewed current knowledge of the two cannabinoid receptors CB1 (found in the brain and some peripheral organs) and CB2 (peripheral only). The presence of CB2 receptors on cells in the immune system has prompted some pharmaceutical companies to become interested in this as a possible target for the discovery of novel immunesuppressant or antiinflammatory drugs. The French company Sanofi and the Canadian company MerckFrosst have reported novel synthetic antagonists/agonists acting selectively at these sites. The availability of novel synthetic antagonists acting at the CB1 receptors (eg SR141716A (Sanofi), LY 320135 (Eli Lilly)) has provided valuable new research tools. New drugs are also being designed based on the structure of the endogenous cannabinoid anandamide. 6. R. Mechoulam (Hebrew University, Israel) described his identification of Ä9THC as the principal psychoactive compound in cannabis extracts, and his subsequent discovery of anandamide as the naturally occurring cannabislike compound in the brain. Other naturally occurring fatty acid derivatives also interact with cannabis receptors, and one of these, 2arachidonylglycerol, may act selectively at CB2 receptors. 7. E. Gardner (Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York) described studies of the interaction of THC with reward pathways in rat brain. He confirmed earlier work from an Italian laboratory (Tanda et al, 1997, Science, 276:20482050) that administration of THC (0.5mg/kg) to rats caused an increase in dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens region of the brain and, furthermore, that this release could be blocked by coadministration of the drug naloxone, which blocks opiate receptors in the brain. He also found that THC sensitised rats to the rewarding effects of intracranial selfstimulation and that this effect was also blocked by naloxone. These results are potentially important as they indicate that THC stimulates dopamine pathways in the brain known to be activated by various addictive drugs—nicotine, amphetamine, heroin and cocaine. The blocking effects of naloxone suggest that THC may exert at least part of its rewarding effects indirectly by promoting a release of opiatelike chemicals in the brain. 8. D. Tashkin (University of California Los Angeles) surveyed the effects on the lung of long-term marijuana use. He conducted large scale studies in the 1980s in heavy marijuana smokers and compared them with subjects who smoked tobacco. Marijuana smokers showed some bronchial symptoms (cough, wheeze and bronchitis), but there was no evidence for any significant reduction in overall respiratory function. When data were collected annually for a further 8 years, the marijuana smokers did not show the agerelated decline in respiratory function seen in tobacco smokers. Nevertheless, there was concern about the longer-term effects of marijuana smoking. Examination of the lining of the airways revealed inflammatory changes in chronic marijuana smokers, with an increase in the number of mucussecreting cells and sometimes what appeared to be precancerous alterations in cells lining the lungs. Examination of lung biopsy specimens showed an increased expression of certain genes that are markers of lung tumours. In addition the immune defence system appears to be depressed in the lungs of marijuana smokers. The defending white cells (macrophages), although present in increased numbers, had a decreased ability to kill bacteria or fungi and produced reduced amounts of nitric oxide and cytokines, the normal defence chemicals. Suppression of immune system function may be related to a direct effect of cannabis on receptors on the macrophages and other immune system cells. Although there was no evidence for increases in lung cancers in marijuana smokers, there were some reports of increases in cancers of mouth and throat. The reduction in immune system function could make marijuana smokers especially vulnerable to lung infections. 9. K. Coe (formerly at Pfizer Research) and L. Lemberger (formerly at Eli Lilly Research) gave historical reviews of the development of novel drugs for the treatment of pain and prevention of nausea based on cannabinoid chemical structures. A project at Pfizer in the 1970s led to the discovery of the synthetic compound levonantradol and the related compound CP55,940. These compounds had a much greater water solubility than THC and proved to be up to 100 times more potent than morphine in some animal tests of pain. Levonantrodol entered pilot scale clinical trials and was effective in suppressing postoperative pain and in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy. It was evident, however, that the drug did not separate the beneficial clinical effects from intoxicant effects, and the company abandoned the project in 1980. CP55,940 proved valuable, however, in radioactively labelled form as a probe which led to the identification of the cannabis CB1 receptor in the brain. 10. At Eli Lilly during the same period there was also a hope that the beneficial effects of cannabinoids could be separated from unwanted psychoactivity, and this led to the discovery and development of nabilone. Clinical trials established the effectiveness of this drug in the treatment of the nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy. Although some patients complained of the druginduced "high", this appeared milder than that associated with THC. However, although nabilone was approved for medical use by the Food and Drug Administration, the US Drug Enforcement Agency insisted that it be given a "Schedule II" classification [i.e. a compound with some medical use but a high abuse potential, so doctors using it have to keep detailed records]. This led to the company withdrawing from the project and also failing to give any substantial marketing support to the compound. Postmarketing surveillance reports in the UK, where the compound has some limited use, have not shown any danger of abuse. 11. W. Notcutt (Great Yarmouth), a consultant in a pain clinic, reported on the positive effects of nabilone in the relief of pain in some of his patients who were suffering from chronic pain and not responding to other medications. In a total of 55 patients he observed beneficial effects of nabilone (improved sleep, reduced pain) in about one third. 12. K. Green (Medical College of Georgia) and M. Forbes (Columbia University College, NY) discussed the possible use of cannabis in the treatment of glaucoma. There are more than 2 million glaucoma patients in the USA alone, and glaucoma is a major cause of blindness. THC or smoked marijuana does cause a marked fall in intraocular pressure in both normal subjects and patients with glaucoma (up to 45 per cent reduction), but the effect is transient and returns to baseline within 34 hours. It is difficult to achieve longer-term control of intraocular pressure as this would require frequent repeat dosing. THC cannot be delivered topically to the eye (the preferred route for antiglaucoma medications) because of its low water solubility. It is possible that an improved topical delivery formulation, or topical use of a more water soluble synthetic cannabinoid, could be developed in the future. In the USA a small group of patients (8) have individual permission to use smoked marijuana to treat their glaucoma. 13. R. Graller (New Orleans) reviewed the use of cannabis in the treatment of nausea and vomiting. Although there have been several controlled clinical trials showing the effectiveness of orally administered THC and nabilone in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy, there are few data on smoked marijuana. In recent years a new class of antinausea drugs, the 5HT3 antagonists (e.g. ondansetron, granisetron) have radically improved the treatment of nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. He found that a combination of granisetron and the steroid dexamethasone controlled the symptoms in more than 90 per cent of patients. Unlike THC which cannot be given intravenously, granisetron can be given by this route as well as by mouth. 14. G. Francis (McGill University, Montreal) discussed the use of cannabis in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. There are few effective treatments for this disease, and more than 250,000 patients in the USA. Some symptoms are particularly poorly controlled by existing medicines, notably tremor, pain and spasticity. There are many anecdotal reports that these symptoms are eased by smoked marijuana, but so far there have been few controlled clinical trials. A currently ongoing study with 600 subjects aims to compare smoked marijuana with a placebo (cigarettes with THC removed). Results available so far suggest that the subjective reports of improvement by patients are not always accompanied by improvement in objective measures of performance. APPENDIX 4 Notes on the International Cannabinoid Research Society 1998 Symposium on Cannabinoids, La Grande Motte, France, 23-25 July 1998 by Professor Leslie Iversen FRS, Specialist Adviser 1. The annual meeting of this group of research scientists was held for the first time outside North America and was attended by about 150 scientists, largely from academia. Of the 135 papers presented 73 originated from the United States and 50 from Europe (including 12 from Britain, 5 of which were from Dr Pertwee's group in Aberdeen). Endogenous cannabinoids 2. A substantial number of papers focused on the naturally occurring cannabinoids in the brain and in peripheral tissues. At least two lipid derivatives are now recognised: anandamide (arichidonylethanolamide) and an arichidonic acid ester, 2arachidonylglycerol (2AG). The latter substance is as potent as anandamide and is present in much larger quantities than anandamide in the brain. Several papers focused on the biochemical mechanisms involved in the synthesis and degradation of these lipids in the brain, and progress has been made in defining the biochemical mechanisms involved. Attention has also focused on the development of metabolically more stable chemical analogues of anandamide and 2AG with improved activity in whole animal studies: the naturally occurring compounds are rapidly degraded and are thus not very active in vivo. Another lipid, palmitoylethanolamide, may represent the natural activator of CB2 receptors, although there was some disagreement about its pharmacological activity and selectivity. Cannabinoid receptors 3. Several groups are studying the detailed molecular architecture of the CB1 and CB2 receptors and beginning to identify the precise sites at which the cannabinoids bind to these proteins. Studies of the receptors in in vitro model systems have revealed some interesting differences between the effectiveness of various cannabinoids in activating the receptors. In particular A9THC appears to act as only a partial agonist at the CB1 receptor (i.e. it cannot elicit a maximum response). Cannabidiol, one of the most abundant plant alkaloids, on the other hand appears to act as an antagonist at the CB1 receptor. 4. The CB1selective antagonist drug SR141716A and the related CB2selective antagonist SR144528 from the French pharmaceutical company Sanofi were the subject of many papers, and these compounds have proved to be important new research tools for probing cannabinoid functions. Scientists from Sanofi revealed that they are developing SR141716A for clinical trials, with schizophrenia as their first target (on the rationale that high doses of THC can cause a schizophrenialike psychosis). A novel CB1 antagonist CP272871 from Pfizer was described for the first time; it has properties similar to those of SR141716A. 5. The CB2 receptor, located principally on cells in the immune system, has attracted attention from a number of major pharmaceutical companies as a potential target for discovering novel antiinflammatory or immuno-suppressant drugs. There has been progress in identifying CB2selective drugs (by Merck Frosst, GlaxoWellcome, and Smith Kline Beecham) but so far there is little confidence that this target will prove useful. Dr Nancy Buckley (US National Institutes of Health) described the "CB2 knockout mouse" in which as a result of genetic engineering the CB2 receptor is no longer expressed. These mice seem remarkably normal in their immune cell population and in immune function and have not so far assisted in understanding the role normally played by the CB2 receptors. Adverse effects 6. D. Tashkin (UCLA) reported that treatment of mice with THC (5 mg/kg four times a week) led to more rapid growth of implanted lung cancer cells and decreased survival. He suggests that THC may suppress immunemediated eradication of tumour cells. 7. A session sponsored by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse focused on the effects of long-term cannabis use on frontal lobe function in man. A series of studies using imaging, cerebral blood flow and electroencephalographic measurements indicated depressed frontal lobe function in long-term cannabis users, and there were accompanying subtle deficits in sensory and cognitive processing, the so-called "executive functions" of the brain. There was little evidence that any of these effects persisted after cessation of drug intake. 8. Billy Martin et al (Virginia, USA) described an animal model of cannabis dependence. When dogs were treated with high doses of THC for 714 days and then challenged with the CB1 antagonist SR141716A clear physical signs of withdrawal became apparent; these included trembling, shaking, restlessness, vomiting and diarrhoea. By using the antagonist challenge model it has become much clearer that physical dependence and withdrawal can occur with THC, at least in animals. Furthermore, de Fonseca et al (Madrid) reported that the administration of SR141716A to morphinedependent animals elicited a behavioural and endocrine syndrome similar to that seen in opiate withdrawal, although considerably milder. Conversely some withdrawal signs could be elicited in cannabinoid-dependent animals when challenged with the opiate receptor antagonist naloxone, suggesting an interaction between the opioid and cannabinoid systems in the brain. Possible applications of cannabinoids 9. The interaction of opiate and cannabinoid mechanisms was also highlighted by Sandra Welch (Medical College of Virginia, USA) who reported that low doses of THC significantly potentiated the painrelieving effects of morphine and other opiates in a mouse model of arthritislike pain. Higher doses of THC were also by themselves fully effective in causing analgesia in this model. She is planning a clinical trial (with the approval of the US Food & Drug Administration) of low doses of THC (dronabinol) in conjunction with selfadministered morphine in patients suffering from cancer pain, in the hope that the drug combination may make morphine more effective in such patients. 10. D. Piomelli ( San Diego, USA) described powerful analgesic effects of anandamide when injected directly into the rat paw in an inflamed paw model of inflammatory pain. The mechanism appeared to involve both CB1 and CB2 receptors located on sensory nerve fibres in the skin, and when a combination of CB1selective and CB2selective compounds was injected there was synergy between them. Experiments using radiolabelled anandamide showed that >90 per cent of the injected dose remained in the paw, and very little entered the brain or spinal cord. These results are highly original and suggest the possibility that cannabinoids can exert painrelieving actions without having to penetrate into the central nervous system. 11. P. Consroe and R. Musty (University of Arizona, USA) described the results of an anonymous survey of 106 patients with spinal cord injuries who were selfmedicating with smoked marijuana. Patients smoked an average of 4 joints a day, 6 days a week and had been doing so for >10 years. More than 90 per cent reported that cannabis helped improve symptoms of muscle spasms of arms or legs, and improved urinary control and function. Around 70 per cent reported pain relief. The results of this survey and a similar one conducted with R. Pertwee in MS patients may help to pinpoint the relevant symptoms to focus on as outcome measures in future clinical trials of cannabis or cannabinoids. 12. D. Pate (University of Kuopio, Finland) described promising results in the reduction of intraocular pressure when a metabolically stable anandamide analogue was applied topically to normal rabbit eye. This effect appeared to involve a local CB1 receptor mechanism as it could be blocked by pretreating the animals with the antagonist SR141716A. In order to deliver the waterinsoluble lipid derivative to the eye it was dispersed in an aqueous solution containing a betacyclodextrin carrier. Miscellaneous 13. M. El Sohly (University of Mississippi, USA) summarised results obtained from the analysis of confiscated marijuana samples, a service which has been running since 1980 and which involves the analysis of samples from all regions of the United States. Data from 35,312 samples were available. The potency of marijuana leaf samples (the commonest in US seizures) rose from around 1.5 per cent THC content in 1980 to around 3 per cent in the 1980s and most recently to 3.87 per cent in 1996 and 4.15 per cent in 1997. The THC content of sinsemilla (the female plant flower head) rose from around 6.5 per cent in 1980 to 9.22 per cent (1996) and 11.53 per cent (1997). The increases are thought to be due to improved culture conditions rather than to any genetic improvements. Analysis of samples of cannabis resin or oil revealed few discernible trends, with figures ranging from 3 per cent to 19 per cent THC content. 14. J. Khodabaks and O. Engelsma (Maripharm, Netherlands) described their development of "The standardised medical grade marihuana plant". Until recently this group has been supplying Dutch pharmacists with medical grade marijuana, but its legal status has recently been questioned. The laboratory cultivates standard cannabis plants selected for a high yield of THC and low content of other cannabinoids; these are cloned by propagating (by cuttings) from female plants. The plants are grown under standard conditions and the female flower heads harvested and vacuum-sealed for storage and then gammairradiated to sterilise the preparations. Samples are routinely checked for THC and other cannabinoids and to ensure that they are free of pesticides. The THC content in different batches was highly consistent at 10.7 + or - 0.1 per cent (standard deviation). Interestingly, in the light of discussions about the relevance of other cannabinoids in herbal cannabis, cannabidiol and cannabinol were present in only minor amounts (<0.1 per cent) in these samples. (end) - --- Checked-by: Richard Lake