Cannabis-based medicines for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

Cannabinoids and Pain: New Insights From Old Molecules

Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for thousands of years. The prohibition of cannabis in the middle of the 20th century has arrested cannabis research. In recent years there is a growing debate about the use of cannabis for medical purposes. The term ‘medical cannabis’ refers to physician-recommended use of the cannabis plant and its components, called cannabinoids, to treat disease or improve symptoms. Chronic pain is the most commonly cited reason for using medical cannabis. Cannabinoids act via cannabinoid receptors, but they also affect the activities of many other receptors, ion channels and enzymes. Preclinical studies in animals using both pharmacological and genetic approaches have increased our understanding of the mechanisms of cannabinoid-induced analgesia and provided therapeutical strategies for treating pain in humans. The mechanisms of the analgesic effect of cannabinoids include inhibition of the release of neurotransmitters and neuropeptides from presynaptic nerve endings, modulation of postsynaptic neuron excitability, activation of descending inhibitory pain pathways, and reduction of neural inflammation. Recent meta-analyses of clinical trials that have examined the use of medical cannabis in chronic pain present a moderate amount of evidence that cannabis/cannabinoids exhibit analgesic activity, especially in neuropathic pain. The main limitations of these studies are short treatment duration, small numbers of patients, heterogeneous patient populations, examination of different cannabinoids, different doses, the use of different efficacy endpoints, as well as modest observable effects. Adverse effects in the short-term medical use of cannabis are generally mild to moderate, well tolerated and transient. However, there are scant data regarding the long-term safety of medical cannabis use. Larger well-designed studies of longer duration are mandatory to determine the long-term efficacy and long-term safety of cannabis/cannabinoids and to provide definitive answers to physicians and patients regarding the risk and benefits of its use in the treatment of pain. In conclusion, the evidence from current research supports the use of medical cannabis in the treatment of chronic pain in adults. Careful follow-up and monitoring of patients using cannabis/cannabinoids are mandatory.

The neuropsychopharmacology of cannabis: A review of human imaging studies

The laws governing cannabis are evolving worldwide and associated with changing patterns of use. The main psychoactive drug in cannabis is Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a partial agonist at the endocannabinoid CB₁ receptor. Acutely, cannabis and THC produce a range of effects on several neurocognitive and pharmacological systems. These include effects on executive, emotional, reward and memory processing via direct interactions with the endocannabinoid system and indirect effects on the glutamatergic, GABAergic and dopaminergic systems. Cannabidiol, a non-intoxicating cannabinoid found in some forms of cannabis, may offset some of these acute effects. Heavy repeated cannabis use, particularly during adolescence, has been associated with adverse effects on these systems, which increase the risk of mental illnesses including addiction and psychosis. Here, we provide a comprehensive state of the art review on the acute and chronic neuropsychopharmacology of cannabis by synthesizing the available neuroimaging research in humans. We describe the effects of drug exposure during development, implications for understanding psychosis and cannabis use disorder, and methodological considerations. Greater understanding of the precise mechanisms underlying the effects of cannabis may also give rise to new treatment targets.

What does the ecological and epidemiological evidence indicate about the potential for cannabinoids to reduce opioid use and harms? A comprehensive review

Pre-clinical research supports that cannabinoids reduce opioid dose requirements, but few studies have tested this in humans. This review evaluates ecological and epidemiological studies that have been cited as evidence that medical cannabis use may reduce opioid use and opioid-related harms. Medline and Embase were searched for relevant articles. Data were extracted on study setting, analyses approach, covariates, and outcomes. Eleven ecological and 14 epidemiological studies were found. In ecological studies, states that allow medical cannabis laws have reported a slower rate of increase in opioid overdose deaths compared with states without such laws. These differences have increased over time and persisted after controlling for state sociodemographic characteristics and use of prescription monitoring programmes. Few studies have controlled for other potential confounders such as opioid dependence treatment and imprisonment rates. Some epidemiological studies provide evidence that cannabis availability may reduce opioid use, but are limited by selection bias, cross-sectional designs, and self-reported assessments of the opioid-sparing effects of cannabis. Some epidemiological and ecological studies suggest that cannabis may reduce opioid use and harms, although important methodological weaknesses were identified. Well-designed clinical studies may provide more conclusive evidence on whether cannabinoids can reduce opioid use and related harm.

Cannabinoid Delivery Systems for Pain and Inflammation Treatment

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that cannabinoids are beneficial for a range of clinical conditions, including pain, inflammation, epilepsy, sleep disorders, the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, anorexia, schizophrenia and other conditions. The transformation of cannabinoids from herbal preparations into highly regulated prescription drugs is therefore progressing rapidly. The development of such drugs requires well-controlled clinical trials to be carried out in order to objectively establish therapeutic efficacy, dose ranges and safety. The low oral bioavailability of cannabinoids has led to feasible methods of administration, such as the transdermal route, intranasal administration and transmucosal adsorption, being proposed. The highly lipophilic nature of cannabinoids means that they are seen as suitable candidates for advanced nanosized drug delivery systems, which can be applied via a range of routes. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery strategies have flourished in several therapeutic fields in recent years and numerous drugs have reached the market. This review explores the most recent developments, from preclinical to advanced clinical trials, in the cannabinoid delivery field, and focuses particularly on pain and inflammation treatment. Likely future directions are also considered and reported.

Plant-Based Cannabinoids for the Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

Chronic neuropathic pain is a prevalent condition that places a heavy burden on individuals and the healthcare system. Current medications have limitations and new approaches are needed, particularly given the current opioid crisis. There is some clinical evidence that the plant Cannabis sativa produces relief from neuropathic pain. However, current meta-analyses suggest that this efficacy is limited and there are problems with side effects. Most of this clinical research has examined whole cannabis, the psychoactive phytocannabinoid 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and nabiximols, which are a mixture of THC and the non-psychoactive phytocannabinoid cannabidiol. In the past, there has been little evidence based, preclinical animal research to guide clinical studies on phytocannabinoids. Recent animal studies indicate that while THC and high dose nabiximols are effective in animal neuropathic pain models, significant pain relief is only achieved at doses that produce substantial side effects. By contrast, cannabidiol and low dose nabiximols have moderate pain relieving efficacy, but are devoid of cannabinoid-like side effects. This animal data suggests that cannabidiol and low dose nabiximols warrant consideration for clinical studies, at least as adjuvants to current drugs. Preclinical research is also required to identify other phytocannabinoids that have therapeutic potential.

Cannabinoids and agmatine as potential therapeutic alternatives for cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy

Cisplatin is a widely used antineoplastic agent in the treatment of various cancers. Peripheral neuropathy is a well-known side effect of cisplatin and has the potential to result in limiting and/or reducing the dose, decreasing the quality of life. Unfortunately, the mechanism for cisplatin-induced neuropathy has not been completely elucidated. Currently, available treatments for neuropathic pain (NP) are mostly symptomatic, insufficient and are often linked with several detrimental side effects; thus, effective treatments are needed. Cannabinoids and agmatine are endogenous modulators that are implicated in painful states. This review explains the cisplatin-induced neuropathy and antinociceptive effects of cannabinoids and agmatine in animal models of NP and their putative therapeutic potential in cisplatin-induced neuropathy.

The Intricate Influence of the Placebo Effect on Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoids

The botanical drug cannabis flos (inflorescence of Cannabis sativa L.) has a unique popular status as being a potent recreational drug and bona fide universal remedy (panacea). Generally, cannabinoids exert therapeutic effects in a broad range of pathophysiologies related to inflammation, pain, metabolic and stress-related conditions in preclinical animal models. However, the translation of such data to humans still lacks an evidence-based foundation. Motivated by the booming cannabis manufacturing industry and the increasing worldwide self-therapy by patients, there are cumulative accounts about broad therapeutic effects of cannabis and legal cannabinoids like cannabidiol (CBD) beyond statistical evidence. The numerous affirming anecdotal reports by patients pose a challenge to physicians and legal authorities. Moreover, the lack of standardization of cannabis products and widely missing randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials largely hinder the scientific assessment of medical cannabis in humans. Given the recent insight that the endocannabinoid system is mediating, at least in part, a placebo effect, psychoactive cannabis and cannabinoids could exert complex neuropharmacological actions. As discussed in this commentary, the meaning response may play a role in the broad palliative and therapeutic effects of medical cannabis unprecedented by other phytopharmaceuticals.

Cannabis-based medicines for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Estimates of the population prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic components range between 6% and 10%. Current pharmacological treatment options for neuropathic pain afford substantial benefit for only a few people, often with adverse effects that outweigh the benefits. There is a need to explore other treatment options, with different mechanisms of action for treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain. Herbal cannabis is currently strongly promoted by some patients and their advocates to treat any type of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabis-based medicines (herbal, plant-derived, synthetic) compared to placebo or conventional drugs for conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries for published and ongoing trials, and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised, double-blind controlled trials of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults, with a treatment duration of at least two weeks and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data of study characteristics and outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for pain relief of 30% and 50% or greater, patient's global impression to be much or very much improved, dropout rates due to lack of efficacy, and the standardised mean differences for pain intensity, sleep problems, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and psychological distress. For tolerability, we calculated number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for withdrawal due to adverse events and specific adverse events, nervous system disorders and psychiatric disorders. For safety, we calculated NNTH for serious adverse events. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with 1750 participants. The studies were 2 to 26 weeks long and compared an oromucosal spray with a plant-derived combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (10 studies), a synthetic cannabinoid mimicking THC (nabilone) (two studies), inhaled herbal cannabis (two studies) and plant-derived THC (dronabinol) (two studies) against placebo (15 studies) and an analgesic (dihydrocodeine) (one study). We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study quality. We defined studies with zero to two unclear or high risks of bias judgements to be high-quality studies, with three to five unclear or high risks of bias to be moderate-quality studies, and with six to eight unclear or high risks of bias to be low-quality studies. Study quality was low in two studies, moderate in 12 studies and high in two studies. Nine studies were at high risk of bias for study size. We rated the quality of the evidence according to GRADE as very low to moderate.Primary outcomesCannabis-based medicines may increase the number of people achieving 50% or greater pain relief compared with placebo (21% versus 17%; risk difference (RD) 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.09); NNTB 20 (95% CI 11 to 100); 1001 participants, eight studies, low-quality evidence). We rated the evidence for improvement in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with cannabis to be of very low quality (26% versus 21%;RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.17); NNTB 11 (95% CI 6 to 100); 1092 participants, six studies). More participants withdrew from the studies due to adverse events with cannabis-based medicines (10% of participants) than with placebo (5% of participants) (RD 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.07); NNTH 25 (95% CI 16 to 50); 1848 participants, 13 studies, moderate-quality evidence). We did not have enough evidence to determine if cannabis-based medicines increase the frequency of serious adverse events compared with placebo (RD 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.03); 1876 participants, 13 studies, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesCannabis-based medicines probably increase the number of people achieving pain relief of 30% or greater compared with placebo (39% versus 33%; RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.15); NNTB 11 (95% CI 7 to 33); 1586 participants, 10 studies, moderate quality evidence). Cannabis-based medicines may increase nervous system adverse events compared with placebo (61% versus 29%; RD 0.38 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.58); NNTH 3 (95% CI 2 to 6); 1304 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence). Psychiatric disorders occurred in 17% of participants using cannabis-based medicines and in 5% using placebo (RD 0.10 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.15); NNTH 10 (95% CI 7 to 16); 1314 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence).We found no information about long-term risks in the studies analysed.Subgroup analysesWe are uncertain whether herbal cannabis reduces mean pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Herbal cannabis and placebo did not differ in tolerability (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The potential benefits of cannabis-based medicine (herbal cannabis, plant-derived or synthetic THC, THC/CBD oromucosal spray) in chronic neuropathic pain might be outweighed by their potential harms. The quality of evidence for pain relief outcomes reflects the exclusion of participants with a history of substance abuse and other significant comorbidities from the studies, together with their small sample sizes.