BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:

In France, cannabis consumption is illegal. The health impact of its increasing use and higher tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations is still poorly documented, particularly that of unintentional pediatric intoxications. We sought to evaluate the French national trend of admissions for unintentional cannabis intoxication in children over an 11-year period (2004–2014).

METHODS:

A retrospective, national, multicenter, observational study of a pediatric cohort. All children aged <6 years admitted to a tertiary-level pediatric emergency department (PED) for proven cannabis intoxication (compatible symptoms and positive toxicological screening results) during the reference period were included.

RESULTS:

Twenty-four PEDs participated in our study; 235 children were included, and 71% of the patients were 18 months old or younger. Annual admissions increased by a factor of 13. Hashish resin was the main form ingested (72%). During the study period, the evolution was characterized by a national increase in intoxications, younger intoxicated children (1.28 ± 0.4 vs 1.7 ± 0.7 years, P = .005), and more comas (n = 38) (P = .05, odds ratio 3.5 [1.02–11.8]). Compared with other intoxications, other PED admissions, and the same age population, cannabis-related admissions were greater. There was a potential link between the increased incidence of comas and increased THC concentration in resin seized in France over the period.

CONCLUSIONS:

Children are collateral victims of changing trends in cannabis use and a prevailing THC concentration. Intoxicated children are more frequent, are younger, and have intoxications that are more severe. This raises a real issue of public health.

What’s Known on This Subject:

The outbreak of pediatric cannabis intoxication has been recently published in relation to decriminalization in several states in the United States. In France, consumption is illegal. Unintentional pediatric intoxications related to increasing use are poorly documented.

What This Study Adds:

In this national, retrospective, multicenter study, we included 235 intoxications. During the 11-year period, the evolution of intoxications was significant for younger children, and an increase in severe presentations potentially correlated to the increase in cannabis resin potency.

France, where cannabis is illegal, is the highest drug-consuming country in Europe.1 Users are mainly young adults and teenagers aged 15 to 16 years old with rates of 22% and 39%, respectively. Among ninth graders, this rate was 24% among girls and 28% among boys in 2014.2,3 Whereas the herbal cannabis market changes with increased French production, most cannabis resin is imported from Morocco via Spain by air or sea and moves through France toward the Netherlands and Northern Europe by road using “go fast or go slow” vehicles. The resin form has changed to smaller, olive-shaped pellets rather than traditional 250 g bars.1 Another major change is increased Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations in both marijuana and hashish (9.3% in 2004 and 20.7% in 2014 in France).4 The health impact of these trends remains poorly documented, particularly that of the evolution of unintentional intoxication in young children.

The primary objective was to analyze the national evolution of pediatric admissions for unintentional cannabis intoxication in the main French pediatric emergency departments (PEDs) over an 11-year period (2004–2014). The secondary objectives were to detail clinical presentations and analyze the evolution of severe intoxications (coma, respiratory depression, and apnea) and the resulting social and legal measures.

This was a national, multicenter, retrospective, observational study of a pediatric cohort.

All children <6 years of age who were admitted with proven cannabis intoxication (compatible clinical symptoms and positive toxicological screening results) in a tertiary-level PED during the reference period were eligible. Compatible clinical symptoms that defined “intoxicated” children were any acute neurologic symptom(s) (eg, drowsiness, ataxia, hypo- or hypertonia, seizures, comatose status, altered consciousness, agitation, euphoria, and/or mydriasis) occurring in a previously healthy, afebrile toddler with no antecedents. Patients >6 years of age, asymptomatic patients (those who were exposed but not intoxicated), and those with suspected but unproven cannabis intoxications were not included. Since 2000, French hospital medical records have progressively switched from paper charts to electronic records. Two-thirds of French hospitals have electronic medical records. Laboratory results are also electronically linked to medical files. For each hospitalized patient, the diagnostic code is electronically assigned through the medical information system program by using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. The medical files were selected by cross referencing the associated International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision diagnostic codes (T407 and F120-F122) and positive cannabis screening results in urine and/or blood at the toxicology laboratories affiliated with each hospital.

The data collected per patient were as follows: demographic data (age, sex, weight, date and time of admission, and mode of transportation); clinical data (vital parameters on admission, Glasgow Coma Score, heart rate, blood pressure, respiration rate, and body temperature); neurologic symptoms (dizziness, coma, convulsions, agitation, and euphoria); respiratory symptoms (bradypnea and apnea); ophthalmologic symptoms (mydriasis and conjunctival hyperemia); cardiovascular symptoms (hypotension, hypertension, and tachycardia); intoxication-related data (time and mode of exposure, estimated ingested amount, place of intoxication, form of cannabis [resin, joint, edible products (“space cakes” or “space cookies,” candies, and chocolate bars), or liquid (e-cigarettes)]); data related to examinations (blood tests, lumbar puncture, head computed tomography scans, electrocardiograms, EEGs, toxicological tests [blood, urine, and hair]); disposition (home, general pediatric ward, intensive care or resuscitation unit [mechanical ventilation required]); and a notion of parental consumption and evolution (date and time of discharge from the emergency unit, total hospitalization duration, social measures [Child Protective Services (CPS), alert information, reporting to the judge of juvenile or family court, and foster care]). Each center sent its confidential database to the study coordinator. The severity criteria were as follows: coma status (unarousable or unresponsive), seizures, respiratory failure (apneas and/or respiratory rate <10th percentile for age and/or tracheal intubation), hypotension (systolic blood pressure <fifth percentile for age), hypertension (systolic blood pressure >95th percentile for age), bradycardia (pulse rate <80 beats per minute [age ≤1 year]), pulse rate <60 beats per minute [1–6 years]), and a Poisoning Severity Score (PSS) value of 3.5 To depict the evolution of unintentional pediatric cannabis intoxication, our data were compared with French poison control centers (PCCs) data concerning calls for cannabis exposure or intoxications (in symptomatic patients) and calls for other intoxications in the same age group.

For statistical analysis, data were entered in Microsoft Excel tables (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). Analysis was performed with StatView 5.1 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) and EpiInfo 6.04fr (VF, ENSP-Epiconcept, Paris, France). In the descriptive analysis, data are presented as a mean ± SD, a median with extreme values, or with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) when appropriate unless otherwise indicated. To compare qualitative variables, a χ2 test (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) was used, and a 2-tailed Fisher’s exact test was used if the expected value was <5. For quantitative independent variables, a paired Student’s t test was applied. A nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed in cases of non-normal distribution. Statistical significance was considered at P < .05.

The data recorded during this research were subject to electronic processing at the Toulouse University Hospital PED in accordance with law number 78-17 of January 6, 1978, regarding information technology, files, and liberties amended by law 2004-801 of August 6, 2004. The research protocol (number 15.1019a) received a favorable opinion of the National French Institutional Board (Advisory Committee on Health Research Information Processing).

Twenty-four PEDs (80% of national PEDs) in 20 French districts and 21 regions took part in the study. During the study period, 235 children matching the inclusion criteria were admitted. Seventy-one percent were aged 18 months old or younger (Fig 1). Figure 2 illustrates the national geographical distribution of these admissions from 2004 to 2009 and 2010 to 2014. The main demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1 and compared between the 2 periods. Annual admissions increased by a factor of 13 over 11 years (+133%). Between 2004 and 2014, the number of severe cases increased by a factor of 20 and by a factor of 4 between 2013 and 2014. The estimated time of ingestion had a bimodal distribution with 2 peaks (10:00 am–1:00 pm and 06:00 pm–10:00 pm). The average delay between ingestion and admission was 4 hours 24 minutes ± 3 hours 6 minutes. The main place of intoxication was the parental home (72%). Ingestion was the main route of intoxication (75%). Resin sticks, balls, and cones were the principal form ingested (72%), and the most frequent amount (80%) was 1 stick (average weight of 23 g) (data came from the French Office for Drugs and Drug Addiction) or 1 ball (average weight of 2–4 g). The clinical signs at admission are shown in Tables 2 and 3 and were predominantly neurologic symptoms (86%). Eighty-three (35%) children had at least 1 severity criteria. Fifty-three percent of all children with comas were admitted during 2014 (Fig 3). Fourteen patients were diagnosed with respiratory failure, and 8 required assisted ventilation for 24 hours or less. Basic metabolic panel blood tests that were performed on 178 patients (76%) revealed abnormalities (n = 40). These included high blood sugar levels (n = 14), hyponatremia (≤130 mmol/L) (n = 8), metabolic acidosis (n = 5), and functional kidney failure (n = 5). Additional procedures included the following: electrocardiograms (n = 63), head computed tomography scans (n = 39), abdominal ultrasounds (n = 39), lumbar puncture (n = 24), and EEGs (n = 24). In addition to cannabis detection, blood and/or urine toxicological screenings (for benzodiazepines, barbiturates, opiates, amphetamines, methamphetamine, cocaine, buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, methadone, codeine, lysergic acid diethylamide, ethanol, tricyclic antidepressants, paracetamol, and tramadol) were performed in 205 cases. Eight other molecules were isolated in 8 children (4%) (Table 4). None of these patients required assisted ventilation. Paracetamol was allegedly being given to treat hyperthermia (n = 2). Benzodiazepines were detected in children who had received diazepam to stop seizures. Most of the children were hospitalized (88%), of whom 27 were in a resuscitation unit or ICU. Parental cannabis consumption was indicated in 146 cases (62%), and 72% declared to be regular users. Social or legal measures included a referral to CPS for 162 cases, a written report for special concern for 39 children, 5 children were placed in foster care by court order, and 4 families were subject to a complaint filed with a police department.

FIGURE 1

Pediatric cannabis intoxication distribution by age.

FIGURE 1

Pediatric cannabis intoxication distribution by age.

FIGURE 2

French geographical distribution of cannabis unintentional intoxication from 2004 to 2009 and 2010 to 2014 in children aged <6 years (number of cases).

FIGURE 2

French geographical distribution of cannabis unintentional intoxication from 2004 to 2009 and 2010 to 2014 in children aged <6 years (number of cases).

TABLE 1

Comparison of Demographic Characteristics Between the 2010–2014 and 2004–2009 Periods

CharacteristicsTotal, n (%)2010–2014, n (%)2004–2009, n (%)POR (95% CI)
Number of admissions 235 187 48 — — 
Male sex 127 (54) 101 (54) 26 (55) .98 1.0 (0.6–1.9) 
Seasonal distribution      
 Summer (June to August) 55 (23) 44 (24) 11 (23) .93 1.0 (0.5–2.2) 
 Spring (March to May) 29 (12) 18 (9) 11 (23) .015 0.4 (0.2–0.8) 
 Autumn (September to November) 93 (40) 82 (44) 11 (23) .009 2.6 (1.3–5.5) 
 Winter (December to February) 58 (25) 43 (23) 15 (29) .24 0.7 (0.3–1.9) 
Weekly distribution      
 Weekend admission 61 (26) 48 (26) 13 (27) .84 0.9 (0.5–1.9) 
Mode of admission      
 Family 165 (70) 128 (68) 37 (77) — — 
 Sanitary (ambulance, firefighters) and medicalized transport 44 (19) 39 (21) 5 (10) .11 2.3 (0.8–6.1) 
 NS 26 (11) 20 (11) 6 (13) .86 — 
Time of admission      
 8:00 am–11:00 am 28 (12) 24 (13) 4 (8) .39 1.6 (0.5–4.9) 
 12:00 am–5:00 pm 88 (37) 72 (39) 16 (34) .51 1.3 (0.6–2.4) 
 6:00 pm–11:00 pm 103 (44) 79 (42) 24 (50) .34 0.7 (0.4–1.4) 
 12:00 pm–7:00 am 16 (7) 12 (6) 4 (8) .67 0.7 (0.2–2.5) 
Mean delay of admission, min (SD) 270 (190) 293 (209) 176 (99) .08 — 
Age, mo      
 0–11 61 (26) 51 (27) 10 (21) .36 1.4 (0.7–3.1) 
 12–23 136 (58) 109 (59) 27 (56) .79 1.1 (0.6–2.1) 
 24–35 25 (11) 19 (10) 6 (13) .55 0.7 (0.3–1.9) 
 ≥36 13 (5) 8 (4) 5 (10) .11 0.4 (0.1–1.2) 
Mean age, y (SD) [range] 1.5 (0.6) [0.1–5.8] 1.4 (0.5) [0.1–5.3] 1.7 (0.7) [0.2–5.8] .17 — 
Location of intoxication      
 Home 156 (66) 127 (68) 29 (60) .33 1.4 (0.7–2.7) 
 Public area 28 (12) 23 (12) 5 (10) .72 1.2 (0.4–3.4) 
 With friends 24 (10) 13 (7) 11 (33) .002 0.3 (0.1–0.6) 
 Othersa 7 (3) 7 (4) 0 (0) — — 
 NS 20 (9) 17 (9) 3 (7) .53 1.5 (0.4–5.3) 
Cannabis type      
 Resin (hashish) 169 (72) 136 (73) 33 (69) .82 1.1 (0.5–2.1) 
 Marijuana (herbal) 16 (7) 14 (7) 2 (4) .54 1.9 (0.4–17.4) 
 NS 50 (21) 37 (20) 13 (27) .27 0.7 (0.3–1.4) 
Severity of intoxication      
 PSS 1 170 (72) 130 (70) 40 (83) .06 0.5 (0.2–1.0) 
 PSS 2 25 (11) 20 (11) 5 (10) .96 1.0 (0.4–2.9) 
 PSS 3 40 (17) 37 (19) 3 (7) .03 3.7 (1.1–11.8) 
Parental consumption      
 Yes 105 (45) 89 (48) 16 (33) .08 1.8 (0.9–3.5) 
 No 41 (17) 32 (11) 9 (20) — — 
 NS 89 (38) 77 (41) 12 (25) .04 2.1 (1.0–4.3) 
Social measures      
 No report 54 (23) 41 (22) 13 (27) .45 0.7 (0.4–1.6) 
 Simple referral to CPS 162 (69) 132 (71) 30 (63) .28 1.4 (0.7–2.8) 
 Report for special concern to CPS 39 (17) 31 (17) 8 (17) .98 1.0 (0.4–2.3) 
 Foster care placement 5 (0) 4 (2) 1 (2) — — 
 Complaint to the police department 4 (0) 3 (2) 1 (2) — — 
 NS 10 (4) 9 (5) 1 (2) — — 
CharacteristicsTotal, n (%)2010–2014, n (%)2004–2009, n (%)POR (95% CI)
Number of admissions 235 187 48 — — 
Male sex 127 (54) 101 (54) 26 (55) .98 1.0 (0.6–1.9) 
Seasonal distribution      
 Summer (June to August) 55 (23) 44 (24) 11 (23) .93 1.0 (0.5–2.2) 
 Spring (March to May) 29 (12) 18 (9) 11 (23) .015 0.4 (0.2–0.8) 
 Autumn (September to November) 93 (40) 82 (44) 11 (23) .009 2.6 (1.3–5.5) 
 Winter (December to February) 58 (25) 43 (23) 15 (29) .24 0.7 (0.3–1.9) 
Weekly distribution      
 Weekend admission 61 (26) 48 (26) 13 (27) .84 0.9 (0.5–1.9) 
Mode of admission      
 Family 165 (70) 128 (68) 37 (77) — — 
 Sanitary (ambulance, firefighters) and medicalized transport 44 (19) 39 (21) 5 (10) .11 2.3 (0.8–6.1) 
 NS 26 (11) 20 (11) 6 (13) .86 — 
Time of admission      
 8:00 am–11:00 am 28 (12) 24 (13) 4 (8) .39 1.6 (0.5–4.9) 
 12:00 am–5:00 pm 88 (37) 72 (39) 16 (34) .51 1.3 (0.6–2.4) 
 6:00 pm–11:00 pm 103 (44) 79 (42) 24 (50) .34 0.7 (0.4–1.4) 
 12:00 pm–7:00 am 16 (7) 12 (6) 4 (8) .67 0.7 (0.2–2.5) 
Mean delay of admission, min (SD) 270 (190) 293 (209) 176 (99) .08 — 
Age, mo      
 0–11 61 (26) 51 (27) 10 (21) .36 1.4 (0.7–3.1) 
 12–23 136 (58) 109 (59) 27 (56) .79 1.1 (0.6–2.1) 
 24–35 25 (11) 19 (10) 6 (13) .55 0.7 (0.3–1.9) 
 ≥36 13 (5) 8 (4) 5 (10) .11 0.4 (0.1–1.2) 
Mean age, y (SD) [range] 1.5 (0.6) [0.1–5.8] 1.4 (0.5) [0.1–5.3] 1.7 (0.7) [0.2–5.8] .17 — 
Location of intoxication      
 Home 156 (66) 127 (68) 29 (60) .33 1.4 (0.7–2.7) 
 Public area 28 (12) 23 (12) 5 (10) .72 1.2 (0.4–3.4) 
 With friends 24 (10) 13 (7) 11 (33) .002 0.3 (0.1–0.6) 
 Othersa 7 (3) 7 (4) 0 (0) — — 
 NS 20 (9) 17 (9) 3 (7) .53 1.5 (0.4–5.3) 
Cannabis type      
 Resin (hashish) 169 (72) 136 (73) 33 (69) .82 1.1 (0.5–2.1) 
 Marijuana (herbal) 16 (7) 14 (7) 2 (4) .54 1.9 (0.4–17.4) 
 NS 50 (21) 37 (20) 13 (27) .27 0.7 (0.3–1.4) 
Severity of intoxication      
 PSS 1 170 (72) 130 (70) 40 (83) .06 0.5 (0.2–1.0) 
 PSS 2 25 (11) 20 (11) 5 (10) .96 1.0 (0.4–2.9) 
 PSS 3 40 (17) 37 (19) 3 (7) .03 3.7 (1.1–11.8) 
Parental consumption      
 Yes 105 (45) 89 (48) 16 (33) .08 1.8 (0.9–3.5) 
 No 41 (17) 32 (11) 9 (20) — — 
 NS 89 (38) 77 (41) 12 (25) .04 2.1 (1.0–4.3) 
Social measures      
 No report 54 (23) 41 (22) 13 (27) .45 0.7 (0.4–1.6) 
 Simple referral to CPS 162 (69) 132 (71) 30 (63) .28 1.4 (0.7–2.8) 
 Report for special concern to CPS 39 (17) 31 (17) 8 (17) .98 1.0 (0.4–2.3) 
 Foster care placement 5 (0) 4 (2) 1 (2) — — 
 Complaint to the police department 4 (0) 3 (2) 1 (2) — — 
 NS 10 (4) 9 (5) 1 (2) — — 

NS, nonspecified. —, not applicable.

a

Others = grandparent, uncle, aunt, or nanny.

TABLE 2

Clinical Manifestations of Cannabis-Intoxicated Patients Aged <6 Years Admitted Between 2004 and 2014 in French PEDs and Compared With Published Series (Percentage in Columns)

Present StudyPaSpadari et al6 Onders et al7 Cao et al8 
Type of unit, location PEDs, France  PCC, France PCC, United States PCC, United States 
Study design Retrospective, multicenter  Retrospective, single center Retrospective, multicenter Retrospective, multicenter 
Years 2004–2009 2010–2014 2004–2014  1993–2008 2000–2013 2013–2015 
Patients,bn 46 183 229  93 1969c 92 
Symptoms, % (n       
 Neurologic 80.4 (37) 87.4 (160) 86.0 (197) .22 57.0 (53) 45.5 85.8 (79) 
  Drowsiness 63.0 (29) 60.1 (110) 60.7 (139) .72 48.4 (41) 29.5 66.3 (61) 
  Hypotonia 34.8 (16) 35.5 (65) 35.4 (81) .93 10.7 (10) 0.7  
  Coma 4.35 (2) 16.9 (31) 14.4 (33) .03 <1 (1) 0.9  
  Agitation 6.52 (3) 10.9 (20) 10.0 (23) .58 8.6 (8) 3.3 5.4 (5) 
  Ataxia 17.4 (8) 7.10 (13) 9.17 (21) .04 3.2 (3) 5.4 14.1 (13) 
  Convulsions 6.52 (3) 5.46 (10) 5.24 (12) .77 2.2 (2) 0.5  
  Euphoria 6.52 (3) 4.37 (8) 4.80 (11) .46 3.2 (3) NS NS 
 Cardiovascular 30.4 (14) 29.5 (54) 29.7 (68) .90 6.5 (6) 4.1  
  Hypertension 17.4 (8) 9.28 (17) 10.9 (25) .12  0.3  
  Tachycardia 6.52 (3) 14.2 (26) 13.5 (31) .22 5.4 (5) 3.1 9.8 (9) 
  Hypotension 2.17 (1) 1.09 (2) 1.31 (3) .49 <1 (1) 0.3  
 Ophthalmologic 45.6 (21) 52.4 (98) 51.1 (117) .34 10.7 (10) 5.9  
  Mydriasis 41.3 (19) 46.9 (88) 45.8 (105) .41 8.6 (8) 3.4 9.8 (9) 
  Conjunctival hyperemia 2.17 (1) 12.0 (22) 10.0 (23) .05 2.2 (2) 1.2 8.7 (8) 
 Respiratory 4.35 (2) 10.4 (19) 9.17 (21) .26 5.4 (5) 1.2 — 
  Hypoventilation 6.52 (3) 6.01 (11) 6.11 (14) .89 5.4 (5)  — 
  Apnea 0.00 (0) 3.27 (6) 2.62 (6) .60  0.7 3.3 (3) 
  Assisted ventilation 0.00 (0) 4.37 (8) 3.49 (8) .36  NS 2.2 (2) 
 Temperature        
  Hyperthermia (≥38.5°C) 4.34 (2) 2.73 (5) 3.06 (7) .57 <1 (1) 0.3  
  Hypothermia (<36°C) 2.17 (1) 2.73 (5) 2.62 (6) .83 <1 (1)   
 Disposition        
  Hospitalization, % (n86.9 (40) 88.5 (162) 88.2 (202) .77 
  ICU, % (n4.34 (2) 14.7 (25) 12.1 (27) .08 
Present StudyPaSpadari et al6 Onders et al7 Cao et al8 
Type of unit, location PEDs, France  PCC, France PCC, United States PCC, United States 
Study design Retrospective, multicenter  Retrospective, single center Retrospective, multicenter Retrospective, multicenter 
Years 2004–2009 2010–2014 2004–2014  1993–2008 2000–2013 2013–2015 
Patients,bn 46 183 229  93 1969c 92 
Symptoms, % (n       
 Neurologic 80.4 (37) 87.4 (160) 86.0 (197) .22 57.0 (53) 45.5 85.8 (79) 
  Drowsiness 63.0 (29) 60.1 (110) 60.7 (139) .72 48.4 (41) 29.5 66.3 (61) 
  Hypotonia 34.8 (16) 35.5 (65) 35.4 (81) .93 10.7 (10) 0.7  
  Coma 4.35 (2) 16.9 (31) 14.4 (33) .03 <1 (1) 0.9  
  Agitation 6.52 (3) 10.9 (20) 10.0 (23) .58 8.6 (8) 3.3 5.4 (5) 
  Ataxia 17.4 (8) 7.10 (13) 9.17 (21) .04 3.2 (3) 5.4 14.1 (13) 
  Convulsions 6.52 (3) 5.46 (10) 5.24 (12) .77 2.2 (2) 0.5  
  Euphoria 6.52 (3) 4.37 (8) 4.80 (11) .46 3.2 (3) NS NS 
 Cardiovascular 30.4 (14) 29.5 (54) 29.7 (68) .90 6.5 (6) 4.1  
  Hypertension 17.4 (8) 9.28 (17) 10.9 (25) .12  0.3  
  Tachycardia 6.52 (3) 14.2 (26) 13.5 (31) .22 5.4 (5) 3.1 9.8 (9) 
  Hypotension 2.17 (1) 1.09 (2) 1.31 (3) .49 <1 (1) 0.3  
 Ophthalmologic 45.6 (21) 52.4 (98) 51.1 (117) .34 10.7 (10) 5.9  
  Mydriasis 41.3 (19) 46.9 (88) 45.8 (105) .41 8.6 (8) 3.4 9.8 (9) 
  Conjunctival hyperemia 2.17 (1) 12.0 (22) 10.0 (23) .05 2.2 (2) 1.2 8.7 (8) 
 Respiratory 4.35 (2) 10.4 (19) 9.17 (21) .26 5.4 (5) 1.2 — 
  Hypoventilation 6.52 (3) 6.01 (11) 6.11 (14) .89 5.4 (5)  — 
  Apnea 0.00 (0) 3.27 (6) 2.62 (6) .60  0.7 3.3 (3) 
  Assisted ventilation 0.00 (0) 4.37 (8) 3.49 (8) .36  NS 2.2 (2) 
 Temperature        
  Hyperthermia (≥38.5°C) 4.34 (2) 2.73 (5) 3.06 (7) .57 <1 (1) 0.3  
  Hypothermia (<36°C) 2.17 (1) 2.73 (5) 2.62 (6) .83 <1 (1)   
 Disposition        
  Hospitalization, % (n86.9 (40) 88.5 (162) 88.2 (202) .77 
  ICU, % (n4.34 (2) 14.7 (25) 12.1 (27) .08 

NS, nonspecified. —, not applicable.

a

Compare years 2010–2014 and 2004–2009.

b

Exclusion of patients with cointoxications.

c

Percentages have been calculated out of the number of exposures (symptomatic and asymptomatic patients) and not out of the number of symptomatic patients (intoxicated).

TABLE 3

Comparison of Comatose and Noncomatose Intoxicated Children (Percentage in Columns)

Comatosean (%), (n = 32)Noncomatose, n (%), (n = 197)POR (95% CI)
Mean age, y 1.5 ± 0.4 1.5 ± 0.6 .24 — 
Age group, mo     
 0–5 0 (0) 2 (1) .99 1.02 (0.05–21.6) 
 6–11 7 (18) 52 (26) .59 0.78 (0.32–1.91) 
 12–17 12 (37) 89 (45) .42 0.73 (0.34–1.57) 
 18–23 8 (25) 21 (11) .03 2.79 (1.11–7.00) 
 ≥24 5 (16) 33 (17) .87 0.92 (0.33–2.56) 
Autumn admission 14 (44) 93 (47) .72 0.87 (0.41–1.35) 
Weekend admission 7 (22) 61 (26) .30 0.62 (0.26–1.52) 
Nonreferred by a physician 20 (63) 141 (82) .30 0.66 (0.30–1.44) 
Time of admission     
 8:00 am–11:00 am 6 (19) 21 (11) .19 1.93 (0.71–5.23) 
 12:00 am–5:00 pm 8 (25) 79 (40) .11 0.49 (0.21–1.16) 
 6:00 pm–11:00 pm 14 (44) 85 (43) .95 1.02 (0.48–2.17) 
 12:00 pm–7:00 am 4 (11) 12 (6) .25 2.19 (0.48–7.91) 
Tachycardia 5 (16) 24 (12) .57 1.33 (0.37–3.99) 
Hypertension 5 (16) 84 (43) .004 0.27 (0.10–0.67) 
Hypotension 7 (22) 14 (7) .01 3.66 (1.35–9.93) 
Hypoventilation 22 (69) 87 (44) .01 2.78 (1.25–6.18) 
Mydriasis 24 (75) 82 (42) .001 4.20 (1.80–9.83) 
High glycemia 3 (9) 8 (6) .19 2.43 (0.39–10.9) 
Hyponatremia 3 (9) 3 (12) .04 6.59 (1.28–34.7) 
Comatosean (%), (n = 32)Noncomatose, n (%), (n = 197)POR (95% CI)
Mean age, y 1.5 ± 0.4 1.5 ± 0.6 .24 — 
Age group, mo     
 0–5 0 (0) 2 (1) .99 1.02 (0.05–21.6) 
 6–11 7 (18) 52 (26) .59 0.78 (0.32–1.91) 
 12–17 12 (37) 89 (45) .42 0.73 (0.34–1.57) 
 18–23 8 (25) 21 (11) .03 2.79 (1.11–7.00) 
 ≥24 5 (16) 33 (17) .87 0.92 (0.33–2.56) 
Autumn admission 14 (44) 93 (47) .72 0.87 (0.41–1.35) 
Weekend admission 7 (22) 61 (26) .30 0.62 (0.26–1.52) 
Nonreferred by a physician 20 (63) 141 (82) .30 0.66 (0.30–1.44) 
Time of admission     
 8:00 am–11:00 am 6 (19) 21 (11) .19 1.93 (0.71–5.23) 
 12:00 am–5:00 pm 8 (25) 79 (40) .11 0.49 (0.21–1.16) 
 6:00 pm–11:00 pm 14 (44) 85 (43) .95 1.02 (0.48–2.17) 
 12:00 pm–7:00 am 4 (11) 12 (6) .25 2.19 (0.48–7.91) 
Tachycardia 5 (16) 24 (12) .57 1.33 (0.37–3.99) 
Hypertension 5 (16) 84 (43) .004 0.27 (0.10–0.67) 
Hypotension 7 (22) 14 (7) .01 3.66 (1.35–9.93) 
Hypoventilation 22 (69) 87 (44) .01 2.78 (1.25–6.18) 
Mydriasis 24 (75) 82 (42) .001 4.20 (1.80–9.83) 
High glycemia 3 (9) 8 (6) .19 2.43 (0.39–10.9) 
Hyponatremia 3 (9) 3 (12) .04 6.59 (1.28–34.7) 

—, not applicable.

a

Cointoxications with molecules of neurologic effects are excluded (n = 6).

FIGURE 3

Distribution of pediatric cannabis intoxications and comatose presentations and THC concentration in hashish resin (results obtained from the analysis of products seized by French customs) during the study period (2004–2014).

FIGURE 3

Distribution of pediatric cannabis intoxications and comatose presentations and THC concentration in hashish resin (results obtained from the analysis of products seized by French customs) during the study period (2004–2014).

TABLE 4

Characteristics of Pediatric Patients With Cointoxications

Patients1234
Year 2005 2007 2010 2011 
Age, mo 10 19 13 22 
Symptoms Hypotension, tachycardia, agitation, seizures, and altered consciousness Tachycardia, comatose, apneas, and hypoventilation Hypertension, comatose, and hypothermia Tachycardia and ataxia 
Mydriasis No No Yes Yes 
GCS 10 14 
Cointoxicants Cocaine Buprenorphine Cocaine and tramadol Levorphanol 
LOS, d NS 
PICU No No Yes Yes 
Social measures Foster care placement Simple CPS report Special concern CPS report None 
Patients 
Year 2013 2013 2014 2014 
Age, mo 13 17 14 
Symptoms Tachycardia, hypothermia, hyperventilation, hypertonia, and hyponatremia Tachycardia, hypotonia, and altered consciousness Comatose, nystagmus, and hyponatremia Tachycardia, hypoventilation, altered consciousness, and hyperthermia 
Mydriasis Yes No Yes No 
GCS 13 12 
Cointoxicants Benzodiazepines Paracetamol Benzodiazepines Paracetamol 
LOS, d 
PICU Yes No Yes No 
Social measures Simple CPS report Simple CPS report Simple CPS report Special concern CPS report 
Patients1234
Year 2005 2007 2010 2011 
Age, mo 10 19 13 22 
Symptoms Hypotension, tachycardia, agitation, seizures, and altered consciousness Tachycardia, comatose, apneas, and hypoventilation Hypertension, comatose, and hypothermia Tachycardia and ataxia 
Mydriasis No No Yes Yes 
GCS 10 14 
Cointoxicants Cocaine Buprenorphine Cocaine and tramadol Levorphanol 
LOS, d NS 
PICU No No Yes Yes 
Social measures Foster care placement Simple CPS report Special concern CPS report None 
Patients 
Year 2013 2013 2014 2014 
Age, mo 13 17 14 
Symptoms Tachycardia, hypothermia, hyperventilation, hypertonia, and hyponatremia Tachycardia, hypotonia, and altered consciousness Comatose, nystagmus, and hyponatremia Tachycardia, hypoventilation, altered consciousness, and hyperthermia 
Mydriasis Yes No Yes No 
GCS 13 12 
Cointoxicants Benzodiazepines Paracetamol Benzodiazepines Paracetamol 
LOS, d 
PICU Yes No Yes No 
Social measures Simple CPS report Simple CPS report Simple CPS report Special concern CPS report 

GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; LOS, length of stay; NS, nonspecified.

Table 2 shows the comparison of clinical manifestations between the 2004–2009 and 2010–2014 periods. The most recent period was marked by the number of comas (excluding patients with cointoxications) (16.9% vs 4.4%, P = .03, odds ratio 4.9, 95% CI 1.03–19.5). The comparison of PSS distribution (excluding patients with cointoxications) indicated more severe presentations (PSS 3) (18.5% vs 4.3%, OR 5.0, 95% CI 1.2–21.7, P = .02). When 2004 was compared with 2014, the average age of intoxicated patients revealed younger children (P = .005) (Table 1). The increase in intoxications and comas was compared with the concentration of THC in resin seized by French customs over the same period (Fig 3). Data were compared with cannabis-related calls and other toxic exposure-related calls (in symptomatic and nonsymptomatic patients) received by French PCCs during the same period. Patients included in this study represented 84% of national cannabis-related calls for symptomatic children. Between 2004 and 2014, the rate for cannabis exposures in children aged <6 years progressed from 5.4 to 15.4 per 10 000 toxic exposures. The number of cannabis-related calls to French PCCs increased by 312%, 8.3% for noncannabis exposures and 3.3% for the pediatric population younger than 6 years old between 2004 and 2014 in the same geographical areas (data came from the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies). Compared with the French population of children <6 years old in 2004 and 2014, the overall national rate per capita for cannabis-related calls progressed from 0.7 to 3.6 per 100 000. Compared with PED admissions for children aged <6 years between 2004 and 2014, cannabis-related PED visits increased from 1.7 to 16.1 per 100 000 admissions per year.

The evolution of unintentional pediatric cannabis intoxications is remarkable because of increased admissions throughout the country and an increase in severe presentations (Fig 3). Between 2004 and 2014, the evolution of PED visits for cannabis intoxication in toddlers increased 133%, and cannabis exposure-related calls to French PCCs increased 312%. Calls for other toxic exposures increased by only 45%. The phenomenon was not related to an equivalent increase in the French pediatric population for the same age group. Between 2000 and 2013, the evolution of similar calls to American PCCs showed a variation of 147% for pediatric exposure to cannabis.7 In France, Spadari et al6 of the Marseille PCC raised an initial alert in 2009 when they reported 93 calls for pediatric intoxications. They suspected a link between higher THC concentrations in cannabis products and more severe cases. Since this warning, 1 French series of 8 pediatric intoxications was reported in 2015.9 Contrary to other European countries, hashish (resin) is the most popular cannabis form in France. Increased THC concentration in resin has been demonstrated and is related to a change in production. Cannabis hybrids that allow higher resin yields and THC content10,11 have replaced the traditional Moroccan plants. In France, Dujourdy and Besacier recently published that almost three-quarters of records corresponded to a mean THC content >20% per gram (cannabis potency).12 European data on cannabis potency are based on forensic analysis of seized materials. This is not necessarily representative of the market, especially in countries with significant domestic cultivation (eg, the Netherlands).13 Detailed data on cannabis product potency have been studied in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, the United States,14 and Australia.15 In the Netherlands, the THC content of resin is higher than herbal products of the same origin (local or imported), and Dutch products are more potent than imported ones (local resin 29.6% vs 14.3%).13,16 In the United Kingdom, cannabis seized by law enforcement showed no change in the mean potency of resin (5.9%) or imported herbs (8.5%) in 2008.17 In the United States, ElSohly et al,14 focusing on seized products, published a mean cannabis potency of 12%. In Australia, Swift et al15 found the same evolution toward a higher potency of herbal cannabis (a mean THC content of 14.9%). Cannabis decriminalization also seems to contribute to the progression of moderate to severe pediatric intoxications. In the United States, these clinical forms are significantly more represented in states where cannabis has been decriminalized.18,21 In these states, the ingestion of food products containing cannabis is of concern.22 The risk of exposure is high because of attractive packaging and naming that is phonetically similar to the original candy (eg, “Beef-Kat” or “Oeo”).10,22,24 In France, the ingestion of resin sticks or balls is the main source of intoxication.6,8,9,25,29 Intoxication in infants through passive inhalation has also been described.30 The main compounds in cannabis have a plasma peak between 1 hour for inhalation and 3 to 4 hours for ingestion. The effects last between 6 and 24 hours.30 More prolonged neurologic effects have been published.31 The comparison of the evolution of clinical manifestations of pediatric intoxications presented by Spadari et al6 or Cao et al8 to the current study indicates a higher proportion of neurologic and cardiovascular symptoms in our cohort (Table 2). We believe this difference could be related to an elevated resin potency. The occurrence of seizures was described by several authors.6,8,25 The proconvulsive effect of cannabis is not unanimous. Some authors advocate the opposite effect because of the physiopathology of cannabinoids and the capacity to reduce the release of neurotransmitters, such as γ-aminobutyric acid or glutamate, and therefore neuronal excitability.31,32 Seizures would be related to possible adulterants of the resin (eg, anticholinergic substances, cocaine, or methamphetamine) or a concomitant ingestion of another toxin instead.33 The adulteration of cannabis resin was previously alleged. Moroccan hashish is cut mainly with a range of inert or active substances (eg, soil, henna, paraffin or bee wax, glue, licorice, or coffee).34 There is little data on adulterants in cannabis resin, and the existing data are controversial. The presence of adulterants in cannabis resin could not been confirmed by studies conducted in France by the French Office for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2007) or the French Reitox focal point.34 Therefore, positive results for cannabis and other drugs or molecules through a blood and/or urine screening are more likely because of separate poisonings. Because other drugs or toxic molecules may not be detected by classic enzyme immunoassays, more sophisticated techniques (such as gas chromatography and mass spectrometry) should be requested for their isolation, especially when clinical presentation is unusual or severe. The existence of mydriasis associated with other neurologic signs is a decisive element suggesting cannabis intoxication in children, but its presence is inconsistent (Table 2). This inconsistency explains the diagnostic uncertainty in cases of coma and the use of additional tests (eg, head computed tomography scans, lumbar puncture, EEGs, and metabolic tests).35 Cardiovascular symptoms are the result of the stimulation of type 1 cannabinoid receptors located in the heart. This stimulation generates an orthostatic and parasympathetic imbalance and the activation of the sympathetic system and potential blockage of the parasympathetic system.36,38 These transitory manifestations, which are dominated by sinus tachycardia, do not usually require any specific therapy.38,39 Adulterants should also be considered in the presence of severe cardiovascular manifestations (eg, myocardial infarction, coronary syndrome, and rhythm disorder). Hyponatremia may be explained by the direct effect of THC on the hypothalamic-pituitary axis (the release of vasopressin)23 or the effects of an adulterant, such as methamphetamine.40 In our cohort, 6 of 8 patients with hyponatremia were screened. Results were negative for methamphetamine.

The increase in severe pediatric patients admitted to a pediatric intensive care or resuscitation unit was identified in France by Le Garrec et al.35 Because of the current prevalence of cannabis intoxication in young children, this diagnosis should be considered when an afebrile comatose child is admitted to a French emergency unit.29,35 Given the increased frequency, it could also be assumed that physicians investigated cannabis intoxication more often, and this may have contributed to the increase in prevalence in the last 2 years.

No pediatric deaths because of cannabis intoxication have been reported. The systematic postmortem toxicological detection in a pediatric cohort of 730 children <19 years of age showed that 38% tested positive for toxic drugs or medications, but none of them were for cannabis.41 

The variation in social measures accounts for the difficulty (in legal terms) of such cases in which the intoxicated person is not the user of the illicit drug but is vulnerable and subjected to the environment and parental or caregiver supervision.42 

Because of the retrospective character of the study, some data available were insufficient (eg, parental cannabis consumption). Some children could have been admitted to non-PEDs, but usually (because of the alarming clinical presentation), they are transferred to the nearest regional PED. Extensive toxicological screening was not performed for all children. Cointoxications could have been underestimated for 30 patients. Cointoxication was detected in 4% (n = 8) of the screened patients (n = 205), making the risk of underestimation low for the unscreened patients. Most molecules known to produce false-positives for THC in urinalysis were not taken by our pediatric population (eg, dronabinol, efavirenz, naproxen, pantoprazole, and tolmetin). Concerning ibuprofen, a false-positive result for cannabinoids in urine tests has been shown only in 2 of 24 adult patients with chronic treatment.43 Niflumic acid can cause false-positive urine test results in some commercial immunoassays for cannabinoids,44 but it is not recommended in France for fever management. The risk of false-positive urine detection because of niflumic acid use was therefore limited in nonscreened patients.

In France, the increase of cannabis-related PED admissions seems obviously linked to changing consumption trends and a higher potency of the predominant form on the market (hashish). In countries where marijuana has been decriminalized, this increase is related to greater availability and the growing lucrative market of edible products containing marijuana. In countries where cannabis potency has remained low, this pediatric health issue has not been reported. In the Netherlands, cannabis has been culturally smoked in coffee shops for some time. This could explain the absence of published pediatric intoxication. The most recent trends (2015–2016) provided by French PCCs confirm our results, showing an increase in the phenomenon and raising a real public health issue. Unintentional intoxication should be tightly monitored, and it should be mandatory to report such cases. Our data demonstrate incomplete reporting to CPS, especially when clinical presentation is not severe. Intervention by social services must also be mandatory and homogeneous across the country.

     
  • CI

    confidence interval

  •  
  • CPS

    Child Protective Services

  •  
  • PCC

    poison control center

  •  
  • PED

    pediatric emergency department

  •  
  • PSS

    Poisoning Severity Score

  •  
  • THC

    tetrahydrocannabinol

Dr Claudet conceived the project and the study design, analyzed results, interpreted data, and drafted the initial manuscript; Dr Labadie performed all the data extraction and analysis from the national database of French poison control centers; Drs Mouvier, Manin, Michard-Lenoir, Eyer, and Dufour collected data and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript; all authors contributed to data collection and substantially participated in data analysis; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

FUNDING: No external funding.

We thank the following members of the Marie-Jeanne Study Group for sharing and collecting data: Nicolas Franchitto, MD, PhD; Camille Bréhin MD, MSc (Centre Antipoison et Toxicovigilance, Urgences Pédiatriques, CHU Toulouse); Philippe Minodier, MD, PhD (Urgences pédiatriques, Hopital Nord, AP-HM, CHU Marseille); Luigi Titomanlio, MD, PhD; Simon Rivière, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, Robert-Debré, Paris); Gaël Guyon, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, CHU Montpellier); Marion Favier, MD; Olivier Richer, MD; Magali Labadie (Urgences Pédiatriques et Centre Antipoison, CHU Bordeaux); Christèle Gras-Le Guen, MD, PhD; Bénédicte Vrignaud, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, CHU Nantes); Delphine Minette-Brunel, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, CHU Reims); Marie Bournez, MD; Louise Hautin, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, CHU Dijon); Gérard Chéron, MD, PhD; Anne-Laure Tarbé de Saint Hardouin, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, Necker-Enfants Malades, Paris); Tiphaine Hervé (Urgences Pédiatriques, CHU Rennes); Hervé Haas, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, CHU Nice); Alexandra David, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, CH Pau); Olivier Mory, MD; Aymeric Cantais, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, CHU Saint-Etienne); François Dubos, MD, PhD (Urgences Pédiatriques, CHU Lille); Christine Laguille, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, CHU Limoges); Anne Borsa-Dorion, MD; Maud André, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, CHU Nancy); and Emmanuel Cixous, MD (Urgences Pédiatriques, CH Roubaix). We thank Jacques Manel, MD (Centre Antipoison et Toxicovigilance, CHU Nancy) for giving the authorization to extract data from French PCCs to depict the evolution of cannabis intoxication as accurately as possible. We also thank Mrs Vanessa Houzé-Cerfon for her help in the management of mandatory declarations for ethical and regulatory considerations. We gratefully acknowledge Mrs Claire Walker for her help with translating the article.

1
French Monitoring Center for Drugs and Addiction (OFDT)
. European Drugs Report [in French]. Available at: www.ofdt.fr/BDD/publications/docs/OEDT2015EDR.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016
2
Spilka
S
,
Ehlinger
V
,
Le Nézet
O
, et al;
French Monitoring Center for Drugs and Addiction
. Alcohol, tobacco and cannabis in 2014, during “high school years” [in French]. Available at: www.ofdt.fr/BDD/publications/docs/eftxssvc.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016
3
Cadet-Taïrou
A
,
Gandilhon
M
,
Martinez
M
,
Nefau
T
;
French Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction (OFDT)
. Illicit substances: recent trends (2013–2014) [in French].
2014
. Available at: www.ofdt.fr/BDD/publications/docs/eftxacuc.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016
4
French Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction (OFDT)
. Drugs, key figures – 6th edition [in French].
2015
:
8
. Available at: www.ofdt.fr/BDD/publications/docs/dcc2015.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016
5
Persson
HE
,
Sjöberg
GK
,
Haines
JA
,
Pronczuk de Garbino
J
.
Poisoning severity score. Grading of acute poisoning.
J Toxicol Clin Toxicol
.
1998
;
36
(
3
):
205
213
[PubMed]
6
Spadari
M
,
Glaizal
M
,
Tichadou
L
, et al
.
Accidental cannabis poisoning in children: experience of the Marseille poison center [in French].
Presse Med
.
2009
;
38
(
11
):
1563
1567
[PubMed]
7
Onders
B
,
Casavant
MJ
,
Spiller
HA
,
Chounthirath
T
,
Smith
GA
.
Marijuana exposure among children younger than six years in the United States.
Clin Pediatr (Phila)
.
2016
;
55
(
5
):
428
436
[PubMed]
8
Cao
D
,
Srisuma
S
,
Bronstein
AC
,
Hoyte
CO
.
Characterization of edible marijuana product exposures reported to United States poison centers.
Clin Toxicol (Phila)
.
2016
;
54
(
9
):
840
846
[PubMed]
9
Patissier
C
,
Akdhar
M
,
Manin
C
, et al
.
Intoxication from accidental ingestion of cannabis: analysis of eight cases [in French].
Arch Pediatr
.
2015
;
22
(
1
):
43
46
[PubMed]
10
Chouvy
PA
,
Afsahi
K
.
Hashish revival in Morocco.
Int J Drug Policy
.
2014
;
25
(
3
):
416
423
[PubMed]
11
Cannabis. In:
2016 EU Drug Markets Report: In-depth Analysis
.
Lisbon, Portugal
:
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)
;
2016
:
55
71
. Available at: www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/2373/TD0216072ENN.PDF
12
Dujourdy
L
,
Besacier
F
.
A study of cannabis potency in France over a 25 years period (1992-2016).
Forensic Sci Int
.
2017
;
272
:
72
80
[PubMed]
13
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
EMCDDA Insights: Cannabis Production and Markets in Europe
.
Lisbon, Portugal
:
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
;
2012
14
ElSohly
MA
,
Mehmedic
Z
,
Foster
S
,
Gon
C
,
Chandra
S
,
Church
JC
.
Changes in cannabis potency over the last 2 decades (1995-2014): analysis of current data in the United States.
Biol Psychiatry
.
2016
;
79
(
7
):
613
619
[PubMed]
15
Swift
W
,
Wong
A
,
Li
KM
,
Arnold
JC
,
McGregor
IS
.
Analysis of cannabis seizures in NSW, Australia: cannabis potency and cannabinoid profile.
PLoS One
.
2013
;
8
(
7
):
e70052
[PubMed]
16
Niesink
RJ
,
Rigter
S
,
Koeter
MW
,
Brunt
TM
.
Potency trends of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and cannabinol in cannabis in the Netherlands: 2005-15.
Addiction
.
2015
;
110
(
12
):
1941
1950
[PubMed]
17
Harwick
S
,
King
L
. Home office cannabis potency study 2008.
2008
. Available at: www.dldocs.stir.ac.uk/documents/potency.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016
18
Wang
GS
,
Roosevelt
G
,
Heard
K
.
Pediatric marijuana exposures in a medical marijuana state.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2013
;
167
(
7
):
630
633
[PubMed]
19
Amirav
I
,
Luder
A
,
Viner
Y
,
Finkel
M
.
Decriminalization of cannabis–potential risks for children?
Acta Paediatr
.
2011
;
100
(
4
):
618
619
[PubMed]
20
Wang
GS
,
Roosevelt
G
,
Le Lait
MC
, et al
.
Association of unintentional pediatric exposures with decriminalization of marijuana in the United States.
Ann Emerg Med
.
2014
;
63
(
6
):
684
689
[PubMed]
21
Wang
GS
,
Narang
SK
,
Wells
K
,
Chuang
R
.
A case series of marijuana exposures in pediatric patients less than 5 years of age.
Child Abuse Negl
.
2011
;
35
(
7
):
563
565
[PubMed]
22
MacCoun
RJ
,
Mello
MM
.
Half-baked–the retail promotion of marijuana edibles.
N Engl J Med
.
2015
;
372
(
11
):
989
991
[PubMed]
23
Boros
CA
,
Parsons
DW
,
Zoanetti
GD
,
Ketteridge
D
,
Kennedy
D
.
Cannabis cookies: a cause of coma.
J Paediatr Child Health
.
1996
;
32
(
2
):
194
195
[PubMed]
24
Wang
GS
,
Le Lait
MC
,
Deakyne
SJ
,
Bronstein
AC
,
Bajaj
L
,
Roosevelt
G
.
Unintentional pediatric exposures to Marijuana in Colorado, 2009-2015.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2016
;
170
(
9
):
e160971
[PubMed]
25
Bonkowsky
JL
,
Sarco
D
,
Pomeroy
SL
.
Ataxia and shaking in a 2-year-old girl: acute marijuana intoxication presenting as seizure.
Pediatr Emerg Care
.
2005
;
21
(
8
):
527
528
[PubMed]
26
Molly
C
,
Mory
O
,
Basset
T
,
Patural
H
.
Acute cannabis poisoning in a 10-month-old infant [in French].
Arch Pediatr
.
2012
;
19
(
7
):
729
732
[PubMed]
27
Appelboam
A
,
Oades
PJ
.
Coma due to cannabis toxicity in an infant.
Eur J Emerg Med
.
2006
;
13
(
3
):
177
179
[PubMed]
28
Macnab
A
,
Anderson
E
,
Susak
L
.
Ingestion of cannabis: a cause of coma in children.
Pediatr Emerg Care
.
1989
;
5
(
4
):
238
239
[PubMed]
29
Lavi
E
,
Rekhtman
D
,
Berkun
Y
,
Wexler
I
.
Sudden onset unexplained encephalopathy in infants: think of cannabis intoxication.
Eur J Pediatr
.
2016
;
175
(
3
):
417
420
[PubMed]
30
Zarfin
Y
,
Yefet
E
,
Abozaid
S
,
Nasser
W
,
Mor
T
,
Finkelstein
Y
.
Infant with altered consciousness after cannabis passive inhalation.
Child Abuse Negl
.
2012
;
36
(
2
):
81
83
[PubMed]
31
Carstairs
SD
,
Fujinaka
MK
,
Keeney
GE
,
Ly
BT
.
Prolonged coma in a child due to hashish ingestion with quantitation of THC metabolites in urine.
J Emerg Med
.
2011
;
41
(
3
):
e69
e71
[PubMed]
32
Borgelt
LM
,
Franson
KL
,
Nussbaum
AM
,
Wang
GS
.
The pharmacologic and clinical effects of medical cannabis.
Pharmacotherapy
.
2013
;
33
(
2
):
195
209
[PubMed]
33
Tilelli
JA
,
Spack
LD
.
Marijuana intoxication presenting as seizure–comment.
Pediatr Emerg Care
.
2006
;
22
(
2
):
141
[PubMed]
34
Chouvy
PA
. The supply of hashish to Europe. Background paper commissioned by the EMCDDA for the 2016 EU Drug Markets Report.
2016
. Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/2373/downloads/EDRM2016%20Background%20paper_CHOUVY_The%20Supply%20of%20Hashish%20to%20Europe.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016
35
Le Garrec
S
,
Dauger
S
,
Sachs
P
.
Cannabis poisoning in children.
Intensive Care Med
.
2014
;
40
(
9
):
1394
1395
[PubMed]
36
Derkinderen
P
,
Valjent
E
,
Darcel
F
,
Damier
P
,
Girault
JA
.
Cannabis and cannabinoid receptors: from pathophysiology to therapeutic options.
Rev Neurol (Paris)
.
2004
;
160
(
6–7
):
639
649
[PubMed]
37
Thomas
G
,
Kloner
RA
,
Rezkalla
S
.
Adverse cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular effects of marijuana inhalation: what cardiologists need to know.
Am J Cardiol
.
2014
;
113
(
1
):
187
190
[PubMed]
38
Franz
CA
,
Frishman
WH
.
Marijuana use and cardiovascular disease.
Cardiol Rev
.
2016
;
24
(
4
):
158
162
[PubMed]
39
Barber
PA
,
Roberts
S
,
Spriggs
DA
,
Anderson
NE
.
Adverse cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular effects of marijuana: what cardiologists need to know.
Am J Cardiol
.
2014
;
113
(
6
):
1086
[PubMed]
40
Crippa
JA
,
Derenusson
GN
,
Chagas
MH
, et al
.
Pharmacological interventions in the treatment of the acute effects of cannabis: a systematic review of literature.
Harm Reduct J
.
2012
;
9
(
1
):
7
[PubMed]
41
Naso
C
,
Jenkins
AJ
,
Younger
D
 III
.
A study of drug detection in a postmortem pediatric population.
J Forensic Sci
.
2008
;
53
(
2
):
483
490
[PubMed]
42
Pélissier
F
,
Claudet
I
,
Pélissier-Alicot
AL
,
Franchitto
N
.
Parental cannabis abuse and accidental intoxications in children: prevention by detecting neglectful situations and at-risk families.
Pediatr Emerg Care
.
2014
;
30
(
12
):
862
866
[PubMed]
43
Rollins
DE
,
Jennison
TA
,
Jones
G
.
Investigation of interference by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in urine tests for abused drugs.
Clin Chem
.
1990
;
36
(
4
):
602
606
[PubMed]
44
Saitman
A
,
Park
HD
,
Fitzgerald
RL
.
False-positive interferences of common urine drug screen immunoassays: a review.
J Anal Toxicol
.
2014
;
38
(
7
):
387
396
[PubMed]

Competing Interests

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.