Paradox of protection: Re-examining cannabis use disorder in sepsis outcomes among cancer patients
Department of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310015, Zhejiang Province, China. shihai954@163.com
Department of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310015, Zhejiang Province, China
Department of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310015, Zhejiang Province, China
Department of General Practice, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310009, Zhejiang Province, China
Abstract
The intersection of cannabis use disorder (CUD) and critical illness outcomes in cancer patients represents a burgeoning area of research, particularly as cannabis legalization and therapeutic applications expand globally. Adjusted analyses of a retrospective cohort study by Sager et al revealed significantly lower odds of all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.83) and respiratory failure (aOR = 0.8) in CUD-positive patients, alongside elevated hospitalization costs. These findings suggest the potential immunomodulatory and organ-protective effects of cannabinoids on sepsis. Future research must prioritize mechanistic studies, prospective clinical trials, and socioeconomic interventions to translate these findings into actionable clinical strategies, to align policy recommendations with guidelines, including those presented by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
Untitled section
Keywords: Cannabis/marijuana, Sepsis, Cannabis use disorder, Cardiovascular outcomes, Critical care, Cancer
Article notes
Untitled section
Received 2025 Feb 17; Revised 2025 Apr 16; Accepted 2025 Jun 20; Collection date 2025 Dec 9.
Core Tip: This letter critiques a recent study revealing reduced sepsis mortality in cancer patients with cannabis use disorder. We highlight methodological limitations (e.g., coding bias and lack of dosage data) and propose future directions, including mechanistic studies on cannabinoid immunomodulation and policy reforms to address socioeconomic disparities. Key innovations include reconciling paradoxical findings through updated preclinical evidence, equitable policy frameworks to translate findings into clinical practice, and aligning policy recommendations with consensus and guidelines (e.g., National Comprehensive Cancer Network).
TO THE EDITOR
The intersection of substance use disorders and critical illness represents a growing challenge in oncology and critical care medicine. Cannabis use disorder (CUD), defined by compulsive use despite adverse consequences, has markedly increased in prevalence, driven by widespread legalization and evolving societal norms[1-3]. Among cancer patients, cannabis is increasingly utilized for symptom management, including chemotherapy-induced nausea, chronic pain, and anorexia[4,5].
However, its impact on critical illness outcomes, particularly sepsis, remains poorly understood. Sepsis, a life-threatening dysregulation of the host response to infection, disproportionately affects immunocompromised cancer patients, and mortality rate exceeds 25%[6-8].
A recent retrospective cohort study by Sager et al[3] investigated the association between CUD and outcomes of severe sepsis in cancer patients, revealing a paradoxical reduction in mortality and respiratory failure among patients with CUD, despite a higher burden of baseline comorbidities.
The present commentary aimed to critically evaluate the study’s methodology, interpret its paradoxical findings in terms of existing literature, and outline directions for future research to clarify the clinical implications of CUD regarding sepsis and cancer.
STRENGTHS
The study utilized the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the largest publicly available all-payer inpatient database in the United States, encompassing 35 million weighted admissions. This provides robust epidemiological insights and ensures generalizability to the broader population. The use of validated ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes for CUD and severe sepsis enhances diagnostic accuracy, while multivariable regression modeling adjusts for a wide range of confounders, including demographics, comorbidities, and hospital-level characteristics. Furthermore, the inclusion of hospitalization costs and temporal trends from 2016 to 2020 adds both clinical and economic relevance to the analysis.
LIMITATIONS
Despite its strengths, the study has several limitations inherent to its retrospective design and reliance on administrative data. The first limitation is the diagnostic validity. Reliance on ICD coding for CUD may result in misclassification, with occasional or infrequent users potentially coded as having a formal disorder, thereby inflating prevalence rate. Sensitivity analysis excluding cases with mild or incidental CUD coding would help address this concern[5].
The second limitation is the Sepsis-3 alignment. The study defined "severe sepsis" using ICD codes rather than Sepsis-3 criteria (e.g., Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score), limiting comparability with contemporary cohorts that employ Sepsis-3 definitions[9].
The third limitation is the dose-response paradox. No mortality gradient was found across CUD severity tiers (mild vs moderate-to-severe), contradicting typical pharmacologic associations. This paradox may be attributed to threshold effects, where minimal cannabinoid exposure is sufficient to elicit immunomodulatory effects, or to unmeasured confounders, such as the ratio of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to cannabidiol (CBD)[5]. The NIS lacks detailed information on cannabis use patterns, including frequency, potency, route of administration, and product composition, restricting the ability to evaluate dose-response relationships. The NIS does not provide longitudinal data, precluding assessment of post-discharge outcomes or the long-term effects of CUD.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Notably, CUD-positive patients were younger (median age, 58 vs 69 years), predominantly male (67.9%), Black (23.7%), and Medicaid-dependent (35.2%)[3]. These demographic patterns reflect broader socioeconomic disparities in cannabis access and substance use prevalence[10,11]. Higher rates of depression (16.2% vs 9.8%) and polysubstance use (alcohol: 13.1%; cocaine: 6.9%) align with prior studies linking CUD to mental health disorders and adverse social determinants of health[1]. Paradoxically, CUD-positive patients exhibited fewer cardiovascular comorbidities (e.g., diabetes and hyperlipidemia), possibly due to younger age or the metabolic effects of cannabinoids (CBs)[12]. The most striking finding, a 17% reduction in mortality (aOR = 0.83) and a 20% lower risk of respiratory failure (aOR = 0.8), contrasts with prior studies associating cannabis use with adverse cardiopulmonary events[13,14]. The observed survival advantage may stem from CB-mediated immunomodulation. Recent preclinical studies suggested that CBD attenuates cytokine storm responses via inhibition of the TLR4/NF-κB signaling pathway in murine sepsis models[6]. CBs can reduce oxidative stress and organ injury in sepsis models[6,15]. CBs may also possess bronchodilatory properties, potentially mitigating the risk of respiratory failure[16]; however, clinical evidence in humans remains limited.
Despite comparable length of stay, hospitalization costs were higher among CUD-positive patients ($94574 vs $86615), likely reflecting the increased complexity of care, including the management of withdrawal syndromes and co-occurring psychiatric conditions. This underscores the necessity of integrated care models addressing both CUD and critical illness in socially vulnerable populations[12,17,18].
This study is the first one to examine CUD's association with sepsis outcomes in cancer patients, a population at high risk for both conditions[3]. By identifying a survival paradox, it challenges prevailing narratives of cannabis’s uniformly detrimental effects. The findings align with emerging evidence of CBs’ anti-inflammatory properties, while diverge from observational studies linking cannabis to arrhythmias and stroke[19,20]. This discrepancy may stem from heterogeneity in cannabis formulations (e.g., THC vs CBD dominance), dosage, and route of administration, which are factors that are not captured in administrative datasets.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Preclinical models of cancer-associated sepsis may help elucidate the immunomodulatory effects of cannabinoids under controlled conditions[13,21]. Prospective trials measuring plasma CB levels and biomarkers (e.g., interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-α) are urgently needed to elucidate pathways underlying reduced mortality.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CBs as an adjunctive therapy for sepsis are warranted. The feasibility of such trials is supported by early-phase evidence, including a Phase 1b study of nabiximols (a THC:CBD extract) in glioblastoma patients that demonstrated improved survival[22]. Longitudinal cohort studies assessing outcomes in cancer survivors with a history of CUD are also required to evaluate long-term effects on recurrence risk, functional status, and quality of life.
Socioeconomic and racial differences, particularly the overrepresentation of Black and Medicaid-insured patients in the CUD-positive cohort, should be explicitly addressed in the future research. Policy initiatives must expand access to CUD therapies while addressing stigma in healthcare settings.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed tiered management framework requires refinement to align with existing guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network[23]. Suggested tiers include:
Tier 1 (High risk): Cannabis use should be contraindicated in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 therapies), due to concerns about potential immune dysregulation and toxicity.
Tier 2 (Moderate risk): For patients undergoing chemotherapy, THC intake should be limited to ≤ 10 mg/day, with monthly screening for signs of CUD.
Tier 3 (Palliative): It is essential to prioritize harm reduction, including recommending vaporizers over smoked cannabis to mitigate respiratory risk.
Global taxation framework should be established, and the elective policies need to be constantly improved and adjusted[4,6,13,17].
CONCLUSION
Sager et al[3] challenge assumptions about cannabis’s role in critical illness, and provide valuable insights into the paradoxical association between CUD and sepsis outcomes. Clinicians should balance potential benefits against socioeconomic differences in this cohort. Further clarification is needed on the interplay between confounders (e.g., socioeconomic variables) and biological mechanisms. Clinicians should screen for CUD in cancer patients, recognizing its dual role as a risk factor for substance use disorders and a potential modifier of critical illness. To translate findings into practice, future research must address coding biases, integrate Sepsis-3 criteria, explore CBs in RCTs, and disentangle CBs’ therapeutic potential from confounding socioeconomic variables, ensuring equitable translation of findings into practice. As cannabis legalization expands, rigorous scientific inquiry—unencumbered by regulatory barriers—is imperative to optimize care for this vulnerable population.
Footnotes
Footnote Group
Contributor Information
Wu-Si Qiu, Department of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310015, Zhejiang Province, China. shihai954@163.com.
Hao-Dong Chen, Department of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310015, Zhejiang Province, China.
Wen-Jie Yang, Department of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310015, Zhejiang Province, China.
Ming-Min Chen, Department of General Practice, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310009, Zhejiang Province, China.
References
Untitled section
References
- 1.Mills L, Lintzeris N, O'Malley M, Arnold JC, McGregor IS. Prevalence and correlates of cannabis use disorder among Australians using cannabis products to treat a medical condition. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2022;41:1095–1108. doi: 10.1111/dar.13444.
- 2.Hasin DS, Wall MM, Choi CJ, Alschuler DM, Malte C, Olfson M, Keyes KM, Gradus JL, Cerdá M, Maynard CC, Keyhani S, Martins SS, Fink DS, Livne O, Mannes Z, Sherman S, Saxon AJ. State Cannabis Legalization and Cannabis Use Disorder in the US Veterans Health Administration, 2005 to 2019. JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80:380–388. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.0019.
- 3.Sager AR, Desai R, Mylavarapu M, Shastri D, Devaprasad N, Thiagarajan SN, Chandramohan D, Agrawal A, Gada U, Jain A. Cannabis use disorder and severe sepsis outcomes in cancer patients: Insights from a national inpatient sample. World J Crit Care Med. 2025;14:100844. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v14.i2.100844.
- 4.Azizoddin DR, Cohn AM, Ulahannan SV, Henson CE, Alexander AC, Moore KN, Holman LL, Boozary LK, Sifat MS, Kendzor DE. Cannabis use among adults undergoing cancer treatment. Cancer. 2023;129:3498–3508. doi: 10.1002/cncr.34922.
- 5.Legare CA, Raup-Konsavage WM, Vrana KE. Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis, Cannabidiol, and Cannabinoid-Based Pharmaceuticals. Pharmacology. 2022;107:131–149. doi: 10.1159/000521683.
- 6.Maayah ZH, Ferdaoussi M, Alam A, Takahara S, Silver H, Soni S, Martens MD, Eurich DT, Dyck JRB. Cannabidiol Suppresses Cytokine Storm and Protects Against Cardiac and Renal Injury Associated with Sepsis. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2024;9:160–173. doi: 10.1089/can.2022.0170.
- 7.Hensley MK, Donnelly JP, Carlton EF, Prescott HC. Epidemiology and Outcomes of Cancer-Related Versus Non-Cancer-Related Sepsis Hospitalizations. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:1310–1316. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003896.
- 8.Padwa H, Huang D, Mooney L, Grella CE, Urada D, Bell DS, Bass B, Boustead AE. Medical conditions of primary care patients with documented cannabis use and cannabis use disorder in electronic health records: a case control study from an academic health system in a medical marijuana state. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2022;17:36. doi: 10.1186/s13011-022-00467-1.
- 9.Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith CM, Hotchkiss RS, Levy MM, Marshall JC, Martin GS, Opal SM, Rubenfeld GD, van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Angus DC. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) JAMA. 2016;315:801–810. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287.
- 10.Ahuja M, Haeny AM, Sartor CE, Bucholz KK. Perceived racial and social class discrimination and cannabis involvement among Black youth and young adults. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;232:109304. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109304.
- 11.Ahrens J, Ford SD, Schaefer B, Reese D, Khan AR, Tibbo P, Rabin R, Cassidy CM, Palaniyappan L. Convergence of Cannabis and Psychosis on the Dopamine System. JAMA Psychiatry. 2025;82:609–617. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.0432.
- 12.Kicman A, Toczek M. The Effects of Cannabidiol, a Non-Intoxicating Compound of Cannabis, on the Cardiovascular System in Health and Disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:6740. doi: 10.3390/ijms21186740.
- 13.Sorkhou M, Dent EL, George TP. Cannabis use and mood disorders: a systematic review. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1346207. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1346207.
- 14.Vozoris NT, Zhu J, Ryan CM, Chow CW, To T. Cannabis use and risks of respiratory and all-cause morbidity and mortality: a population-based, data-linkage, cohort study. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2022;9:e001216. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2022-001216.
- 15.Dinu AR, Rogobete AF, Bratu T, Popovici SE, Bedreag OH, Papurica M, Bratu LM, Sandesc D. Cannabis Sativa Revisited-Crosstalk between microRNA Expression, Inflammation, Oxidative Stress, and Endocannabinoid Response System in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis. Cells. 2020;9:307. doi: 10.3390/cells9020307.
- 16.Gunasekaran K, Voruganti DC, Singh Rahi M, Elango K, Ramalingam S, Geeti A, Kwon J. Trends in Prevalence and Outcomes of Cannabis Use Among Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Hospitalizations: A Nationwide Population-Based Study 2005-2014. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2021;6:340–348. doi: 10.1089/can.2020.0133.
- 17.Garrison-Desany HM, Meyers JL, Linnstaedt SD, Koenen KC, House SL, Beaudoin FL, An X, Neylan TC, Clifford GD, Jovanovic T, Germine LT, Bollen KA, Rauch SL, Haran JP, Storrow AB, Lewandowski C, Musey PI Jr, Hendry PL, Sheikh S, Jones CW, Punches BE, Pascual JL, Seamon MJ, Harris E, Pearson C, Peak DA, Domeier RM, Rathlev NK, O'Neil BJ, Sergot P, Bruce SE, McLean SA, Denckla CA. Multi-level socioeconomic modifiers of the comorbidity of post-traumatic stress and tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis use: the importance of income. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2025;60:1135–1149. doi: 10.1007/s00127-025-02821-7.
- 18.Buetti N, Tabah A, Setti N, Ruckly S, Barbier F, Akova M, Aslan AT, Leone M, Bassetti M, Morris AC, Arvaniti K, Paiva JA, Ferrer R, Qiu H, Montrucchio G, Cortegiani A, Kayaaslan B, De Bus L, De Waele JJ, Timsit JF EUROBACT-2 Study Group, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, the Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Infections in Critically Ill Patients (ESGCIP), and the OUTCOMEREA Network. The role of centre and country factors on process and outcome indicators in critically ill patients with hospital-acquired bloodstream infections. Intensive Care Med. 2024;50:873–889. doi: 10.1007/s00134-024-07348-0.
- 19.McGuinness B, Goel A, Elias F, Rapanos T, Mittleman MA, Ladha KS. Cannabis use disorder and perioperative outcomes in vascular surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73:1376–1387.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.07.094.
- 20.Baumeister SE, Baurecht H, Nolde M, Alayash Z, Gläser S, Johansson M, Amos CI International Lung Cancer Consortium, Johnson EC, Hung RJ. Cannabis Use, Pulmonary Function, and Lung Cancer Susceptibility: A Mendelian Randomization Study. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16:1127–1135. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.03.025.
- 21.Khoj L, Zagà V, Amram DL, Hosein K, Pistone G, Bisconti M, Serafini A, Cammarata LM, Cattaruzza MS, Mura M. Effects of cannabis smoking on the respiratory system: A state-of-the-art review. Respir Med. 2024;221:107494. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2023.107494.
- 22.Twelves C, Sabel M, Checketts D, Miller S, Tayo B, Jove M, Brazil L, Short SC GWCA1208 study group. A phase 1b randomised, placebo-controlled trial of nabiximols cannabinoid oromucosal spray with temozolomide in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Br J Cancer. 2021;124:1379–1387. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01259-3.
- 23.Dela Pena JC, Marshall VD, Smith MA. Impact of NCCN Guideline Adherence in Adult Cancer Pain on Length of Stay. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2022;36:95–102. doi: 10.1080/15360288.2022.2066746.