Stimulant and medicinal cannabis prescribing in patients referred to an early psychosis service in Queensland: A brief report.
Saved in:
| Title: | Stimulant and medicinal cannabis prescribing in patients referred to an early psychosis service in Queensland: A brief report. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | McArdle, Peter (AUTHOR), Trott, Mike (AUTHOR), Warren, Nicola (AUTHOR), De Silva, Dilprasan (AUTHOR), Smith, Lesley (AUTHOR), Ritchie, Sarah (AUTHOR), Siskind, Dan (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Australasian Psychiatry. Jun2026, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p253-257. 5p. |
| Subjects: | Tetrahydrocannabinol, Stimulants, Psychoses, Inappropriate prescribing (Medicine), Medical marijuana, Mental health services |
| Geographic Terms: | Australia, Queensland |
| Abstract: | Objective: This study examined stimulant and medicinal cannabis prescribing in individuals before and after referral to an early psychosis (EP) service in Queensland, Australia. Methods: A retrospective review of 220 consecutive EP referrals (2019–2023) was conducted, extracting data on stimulant and medicinal cannabis prescriptions from clinical records. Longitudinal prescribing patterns were analysed, with descriptive comparisons of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations in medicinal cannabis prescriptions before and after the onset of psychosis. Results: Prior to referral, 4.5% of patients were prescribed stimulants and 3.2% medicinal cannabis, with most having a history of substance use. After a psychotic episode, 3.2 % were prescribed stimulants and 6.8% were prescribed medicinal cannabis, with mean THC concentrations higher after the onset of a psychotic illness (31.4% vs 16.9%). Over 70% of those prescribed stimulants and 60% prescribed medicinal cannabis after experiencing a psychotic episode had further contact with mental health services due to concerns about a deterioration in mental state where these medications were thought to be a contributory factor. Conclusions: It is of concern that THC concentrations were higher in prescriptions made post-EP discharge. Enhanced safeguards are required to mitigate risks and reliably identify patients where such prescription would be contraindicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Australasian Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objective: This study examined stimulant and medicinal cannabis prescribing in individuals before and after referral to an early psychosis (EP) service in Queensland, Australia. Methods: A retrospective review of 220 consecutive EP referrals (2019–2023) was conducted, extracting data on stimulant and medicinal cannabis prescriptions from clinical records. Longitudinal prescribing patterns were analysed, with descriptive comparisons of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations in medicinal cannabis prescriptions before and after the onset of psychosis. Results: Prior to referral, 4.5% of patients were prescribed stimulants and 3.2% medicinal cannabis, with most having a history of substance use. After a psychotic episode, 3.2 % were prescribed stimulants and 6.8% were prescribed medicinal cannabis, with mean THC concentrations higher after the onset of a psychotic illness (31.4% vs 16.9%). Over 70% of those prescribed stimulants and 60% prescribed medicinal cannabis after experiencing a psychotic episode had further contact with mental health services due to concerns about a deterioration in mental state where these medications were thought to be a contributory factor. Conclusions: It is of concern that THC concentrations were higher in prescriptions made post-EP discharge. Enhanced safeguards are required to mitigate risks and reliably identify patients where such prescription would be contraindicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10398562 |
| DOI: | 10.1177/10398562251406048 |
