ArticleClinical drug investigation2025
The Cost Effectiveness of Adjunctive Medical Cannabis Therapy in the Treatment of Moderate Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Medicinal use of non-prescribed cannabis: a cross-sectional survey on patterns of use, motives for use, and treatment access in the Netherlands.Journal of cannabis research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResearch on the benefits of medical cannabis (MC) is emerging and supports its use as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of MC as an adjunctive therapy for moderate PTSD under varying reimbursement scenarios.
methodsA cost-utility analysis was conducted from the US payor perspective, using pricing data from the largest multi-state MC producer and established literature on standard PTSD treatments. We analyzed eight MC product types: dried flower, oral solutions, tablets, and edibles, each available in low/moderate (LM) and high-cost formulations. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated for these products across reimbursement levels of 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25%. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to assess cost-effectiveness acceptability across willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $0-$100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.
resultsNon-flower MC products (edibles, oral solutions, and tablets) consistently demonstrated cost-effectiveness under a WTP threshold of $50,000, even at 100% reimbursement. Dried flower products, while less cost effective due to higher costs, achieved cost effectiveness under 75% or lower reimbursement levels for LM cost formulations. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robust ICURs for non-flower products, with narrower variability compared to dried flower products.
conclusionsMedical cannabis products, particularly non-flower formulations, represent a cost-effective adjunctive therapy for moderate PTSD under various reimbursement scenarios. This analysis underscores the importance of evidence-based reimbursement policies to improve patient access to cost-effective treatments while ensuring financial sustainability for payors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39998809What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.