New Drexel University MCRC Study Provides First Published Insight on Cannabinoid and Terpene Profile Preferences of Medical Cannabis Patients Using Commercially Available Products

The observational study is the first of its kind to explore the cannabinoid and terpene profile preferences of medical cannabis patients that are seeking to treat specific medical conditions. The study looked at certified medical cannabis patients in the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Program who primarily use cannabis to treat chronic pain, anxiety disorder, or both. The data showed that participants’ preferences generally followed dispensary agents' advice. At times, it contradicted animal and human studies of cannabis isolates, which is expected given an entourage effect, where certain cannabinoids and terpenes can act differently as an isolate vs. full-spectrum, plant-derived product.

Other findings of note include:

• Pain-only and pain and anxiety groups having a higher prevalence of high potency THC forms such as moon rocks, caviar, and RSO. This tends to align with existing research of THC as an analgesic.
• Patients seeking to treat both pain and anxiety reported greater use of CBD products.
• The mixed-methods design of the study allows our research team to use explanations from actual medical patients rather than using our own assumptions to interpret the quantitative data.
• Very few patients were aware of minor cannabinoids such as CBN, CBG, or CBC.

The study was conducted in naturalistic settings, meaning that the study participants were consuming commercially available cannabis products as opposed to lab-based controlled studies of cannabis isolates such as CBD only without terpenes or with one or two terpenes, that are not representative of commercially available products. This approach gives the results external validity and makes them generalizable to all medical cannabis patients in Pennsylvania.

This study does have some limitations as patient expectations or experiences with certain terpenes may be influenced by dispensary staff consultations and therefore may be subject to bias. Also, the quantitative results did not examine whether cannabis products choice for a specific health condition was based on products’ efficacy or adverse effects profile. However, qualitative results did shed the light on the decision-making process regarding efficacy and side effects when choosing certain cannabinoids and terpenes, but the study did not analyze specific cannabis forms such as the differences between flower, vapes, concentrates, ingestibles, and topicals.

This observational study will serve to inform future studies into additional research into more specific research questions patient preferences of cannabis, clinical research into the efficacy of full-spectrum, plant-derived products, and the forms of those commercially available products. Additionally, this study highlights the need and serves as a building block for more research and education for both terpenes and minor cannabinoids in full spectrum, commercially available products, in particular.