From the analysis of the current legislation in states where clinical trials and proposed protocols on medical Cannabis and derived products have been published in the last 3 years, many significant differences have been found regarding the products available, the indicated pathologies for which it may be prescribed, the production of the raw plant material, as well as its reimbursement and prescription. It was evaluated to consider the studies published in the last 3 years supposing that the researchers have benefited from the latest knowledge on medical Cannabis and to make an overview of the pathologies currently under study.

In particular, regarding industrial products, practically every country, with the exception of the United States, has approved the use of Sativex^®. However, Epidiolex^®, dronabinol.Netherlands, and nabilone are also quite common.

In all the countries, the use of herbal Cannabis is also authorised. The only exception is Brazil, which is certainly the country with the most restrictive legislation. Netherlands is the only country to provide directions for use, which are not binding, but quite strict, regarding the plant strain to be used for a determined pathology based on the concentration of active molecules (THC and CBD). Instead, for the other countries, it must be pointed out that the current legislation provides for the use of inflorescences or herbal Cannabis extracts without providing specific directions concerning the recommended concentration of active molecules to treat a determined condition.

Regarding the pathologies or symptoms associated with the more or less well-defined conditions, the most common are pain, nausea, vomiting, spasticity, and epilepsy followed by spasms, and weight and appetite loss. The less frequently indicated conditions in this case include Tourette’s syndrome, PTSD, and glaucoma. In many countries, additional conditions are considered in more or less detail.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that the country with the greatest number of specifically recommended pathologies not indicated in other countries is the Netherlands: perhaps based on the longstanding use of Cannabis both for medical use and recreational purposes. Although the legislation regarding medical Cannabis is quite comprehensive in all the countries considered, some of them, namely Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, and the United States, also permit the prescription of Cannabis for any therapeutic application at the discretion of the medical doctor. However, in Germany, Netherlands and Israel, this is limited to cases in which other therapies have proved ineffective, excessive adverse reactions to standard treatments have occurred, or valid alternative treatments are not available. Instead, in Australia, Canada, Denmark, and the United States, therapeutic strategies different from those specified are authorised regardless of any prior treatment. The prescription of medical Cannabis for any condition certainly does not conform to the procedures generally in force for other medicinal products, and especially products with a psychoactive effect such as those prepared containing THC.

It is interesting to note that in Canada, and in some states in the United States, the medical inflorescences may be grown directly by the patient, and the treatment may be recommended by a health worker, and not only a medical doctor; in the event that the plant species is not home-grown, it is distributed through a licensed dispensary. In Germany, Israel and Netherlands, herbal Cannabis is grown locally under the supervision of a government agency. This is significant if one considers that, in these three countries, the prescription process is highly deregulated regarding the recommended pathologies to be treated with Cannabis, but the same does not apply to its cultivation.

The normal administration routes are oral or by inhalation. Some countries, such as Israel, authorise smoking Cannabis inflorescences as a route of administration, something that is categorically banned in some states of the United States.

In addition, regarding prescription, it is noteworthy that the United Kingdom is the only country where this must be obtained from a hospital specialist. In some states in the United States, on the other hand, the prescribing medical doctor must be registered to prescribe this therapy and have attended a specific training course. In Australia and Switzerland, medical doctors may write the prescription only after receiving authorisation from a specific agency. Therefore, there is a different focus on the prescription process and hence inhomogeneity in this aspect too. The treatment costs are generally borne by the patient, and no reimbursement is foreseen, unless it is from a private health insurance scheme. This certainly restricts access to this kind of therapy to the more privileged members of society.

Concerning the results of the clinical trials, some interesting observations may be made. In the first place, a greater number of studies have been published in certain countries. These countries are the United States (11) and Australia (9), followed by Israel (7) and the United Kingdom (7). In general, the majority of the studies featured randomisation, the use of a double-blind method, and a placebo control group: these are factors which guarantee the quality of the data gathered. On the other hand, the majority of the studies took place with a small sample size. Moreover, the studies made use of a heterogeneous population: healthy and ill volunteers, adults and children, acute and chronically ill patients, and subjects who had previously used or had never used Cannabis prior to the study. Factors that, being so numerous, make it particularly challenging to draw any conclusive evaluations of the results of these trials, and more in general, the real efficacy of medical Cannabis.

Considering only the studies with a positive outcome, it should be noted that the studied pathologies are coherent with those provided for in current legislation i.e., pain, epilepsy, nausea, and vomiting; on the contrary, psychosis, behavioural problems, memory and cerebral activity represent a novelty. Furthermore, there is a net distinction between the products used based on the different conditions to be treated: the trials on pain, nausea and vomiting with positive outcomes administered herbal Cannabis derivatives in which, in 3 cases out of 4, both THC and CBD are present; the other studies with a positive outcome administered CBD alone. In those trials with a negative outcome, CBD was administered for pain, while herbal Cannabis derivatives were used for conditions such as OCD or PTSD. This consideration supports the use of herbal Cannabis in which both THC and CBD are present for pain, even though it should be stressed that the studies with a positive outcome for this pathology had a maximum of 30 enrolled subjects.

The studies with an inconclusive outcome regarded a variegated list of conditions including anxiety, Crohn’s syndrome, ulcerative colitis, pain, and appetite loss. Many of these are already included in some national regulations although the efficacy of Cannabis in these cases according to the currently available data is not satisfactorily demonstrated.

It is evident that the only pathology present in all three study categories is pain, for which 4 studies had a positive outcome, 1 had a negative outcome, and 1 had an inconclusive outcome.

Among the study protocols to be trialled, pain and spasticity appear again, approved by legislation in most countries and the object of numerous studies, as well as a number of less-investigated conditions such as dementia, phobias, tic disorders and the activation of the immune system in HIV patients.

Based on the research conducted, it is, therefore, possible to stress that in spite of the growing number of recent studies on medical Cannabis, many of which have had a positive outcome while many others have had an inconclusive or negative outcome. The presumed broad spectrum action of Cannabis has led to the initiation of many trials and the preparation of many study protocols for a wide range of pathologies with the enrolment of subjects with diverse characteristics from study to study. This means that there is very little data for each pathology or symptomology.

Another important factor is that the products used are very diverse from each other; consequently, a comparison is extremely difficult to make, especially for the herbal products. All of the trials indicate the precise dosages used in terms of active molecules, but when it comes to inflorescences, or extracts derived from them, the concentration is provided only for the THC and CBD content and not for the other active molecules. Furthermore, the diverse administration routes make a comparison based on pharmacokinetics difficult for the molecules of interest.

Therefore, it is difficult to compare the studies and draw conclusions concerning the efficacy of the protocol for the single pathologies. However, for some, substantial evidence is emerging regarding their efficacy and the suitable products to ensure that. From the analysed data, it is clear that the best pain treatment is herbal Cannabis derivatives containing both THC and CBD, just as the best way to treat epilepsy is to administer CBD.

One interesting point is that for some of the pathologies approved for treatment with medical Cannabis under the current legislation, the data do not paint a definitive picture. This is true for conditions such as anxiety, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s syndrome, and appetite enhancement.

On the other hand, the current legislation often authorises inflorescences or extracts without indicating the exact concentration of the active molecules. In parallel, many studies use different plant strains or study a small number of subjects, making it difficult to compare and consequently interpret the results. Moreover, in many studies, the Cannabis-based medicines were administered in addition to other treatments making any evaluation of their efficacy it even more complex.