Antiemetic effect of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in chemotherapy-associated nausea and emesis as compared to placebo and compazine

Review of the Use of Medicinal Cannabis Products in Palliative Care

In this review, we discuss the potential role of cannabis and cannabinoids in the management of cancer-related symptoms. There is limited evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of cannabis-based products in treating cancer-related pain and gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite. Regarding the role of cannabis-based products in the treatment of insomnia and mood disorders, most studies looked at these symptoms as secondary outcomes with mixed results. Cannabis-based products have adverse effects, ranging from neuropsychiatric to systemic effects to potential drug interactions.

Pharmacokinetic of two oral doses of a 1:20 THC:CBD cannabis herbal extract in cats

Objective

To determine the pharmacokinetics (PK) of two oral doses of a Cannabis herbal extract (CHE) containing 1:20 THC:CBD in 12 healthy Domestic Shorthair cats.

Methods

Single-dose PK were assessed after oral administration of CHE at low or high dose (2 mg CBD + 0.1 mg THC, or 5 mg CBD + 0.25 mg THC per kg bw, respectively; n = 6 per group) in fasting cats. Blood samples were drawn up to 48 h following CHE administration. Plasma samples were analyzed for CBD, THC, and metabolites 6-OH-CBD, 7-OH-CBD, 11-OH-THC, and THC-COOH using a previously validated LC-MS/MS method.

Results

CBD and THC were quickly absorbed (mean Tmax of 2.4-2.9 h). Maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) ranged from 36-511 ng/mL and 6.8-61 ng/mL for CBD and THC, respectively. Elimination was initially rapid for both CBD and THC, though a prolonged elimination phase was noted for CBD in some cats (T1/2 λ up to 26 h). Dose-adjusted Cmax and AUC0-last values were not statistically significantly different (p > 0.05) between dose groups indicating CBD and THC concentrations increased in a manner proportional (linear) to the dose. Dose-adjusted THC Cmax and AUC0-last were significantly higher than the corresponding dose-adjusted CBD parameters (p < 0.01). Low concentrations of the metabolite 6-OH-CBD were quantified but metabolites 7-OH-CBD, 11-OH-THC, and THC-COOH were not detected in any plasma samples. Inter-individual variance was notable. Salivation shortly after dosing was observed in two cats in the high dose group; these animals had substantially lower cannabinoid concentrations than other cats in this group. No adverse clinical signs (including vomiting, change in mentation or other neurological signs) were noted.

Clinical significance

Although cats did not display adverse effects after administration of a single oral dose of 1:20 THC:CBD CHE formulation at 2 or 5 mg CBD/kg bw, observed plasma concentrations were highly variable but generally lower than in dogs receiving the same dose and formulation. Administration of CHE in the fasting state may not optimize CBD absorption, and oral dosing may be challenging when administering an oil-based CHE in some cats.

Medical cannabinoids: a pharmacology-based systematic review and meta-analysis for all relevant medical indications

BACKGROUND

Medical cannabinoids differ in their pharmacology and may have different treatment effects. We aimed to conduct a pharmacology-based systematic review (SR) and meta-analyses of medical cannabinoids for efficacy, retention and adverse events.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed (registered at PROSPERO: CRD42021229932) eight databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of dronabinol, nabilone, cannabidiol and nabiximols for chronic pain, spasticity, nausea /vomiting, appetite, ALS, irritable bowel syndrome, MS, Chorea Huntington, epilepsy, dystonia, Parkinsonism, glaucoma, ADHD, anorexia nervosa, anxiety, dementia, depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, sleeping disorders, SUD and Tourette. Main outcomes and measures included patient-relevant/disease-specific outcomes, retention and adverse events. Data were calculated as standardized mean difference (SMD) and ORs with confidence intervals (CI) via random effects. Evidence quality was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias and GRADE tools.

RESULTS

In total, 152 RCTs (12,123 participants) were analysed according to the type of the cannabinoid, outcome and comparator used, resulting in 84 comparisons. Significant therapeutic effects of medical cannabinoids show a large variability in the grade of evidence that depends on the type of cannabinoid. CBD has a significant therapeutic effect for epilepsy (SMD - 0.5[CI - 0.62, - 0.38] high grade) and Parkinsonism (- 0.41[CI - 0.75, - 0.08] moderate grade). There is moderate evidence for dronabinol for chronic pain (- 0.31[CI - 0.46, - 0.15]), appetite (- 0.51[CI - 0.87, - 0.15]) and Tourette (- 1.01[CI - 1.58, - 0.44]) and moderate evidence for nabiximols on chronic pain (- 0.25[- 0.37, - 0.14]), spasticity (- 0.36[CI - 0.54, - 0.19]), sleep (- 0.24[CI - 0.35, - 0.14]) and SUDs (- 0.48[CI - 0.92, - 0.04]). All other significant therapeutic effects have either low, very low, or even no grade of evidence. Cannabinoids produce different adverse events, and there is low to moderate grade of evidence for this conclusion depending on the type of cannabinoid.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabinoids are effective therapeutics for several medical indications if their specific pharmacological properties are considered. We suggest that future systematic studies in the cannabinoid field should be based upon their specific pharmacology.

Clinical Evidence of Magistral Preparations Based on Medicinal Cannabis

Cannabis has been widely used as a medicinal plant for millennia; however, studies related to its main components were first conducted in 1960. Subsequently, laboratories have produced new components and structures related to its active biological properties. Countries that have approved the medicinal use of cannabis impose regulations that govern its clinical and scientific use. One means of administering medicinal cannabis is via a magistral preparation that must have a medical prescription and be prepared in an establishment that meets quality standards to ensure the quantities of its main components, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Furthermore, suppliers must have a clear indication of its use in the patient before prescription. This review shows the published evidence regarding the clinical use of medicinal cannabis magistral preparations in the management of post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting, neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis, and anorexia and cachexia in patients with HIV.

Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome: A Review of Potential Mechanisms

Introduction: Cannabinoids have long been known for their ability to treat nausea and vomiting. Recent reports, however, have highlighted the paradoxical proemetic effects of cannabinoids. Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) is characterized by cyclical episodes of nausea and vomiting, accompanied by abdominal pain following prolonged, high-dose cannabis use, which is alleviated by hot baths and showers. Little is known about the cause of this syndrome. Discussion: Cannabinoids produce a biphasic effect on nausea and vomiting, with low doses having an antiemetic effect and high doses producing emesis. Presentation and treatment of CHS are similar to cyclical vomiting syndrome as well as chemotherapy-related anticipatory nausea and vomiting, suggesting that these phenomena may share mechanisms. The prevalence of CHS is not known because of the symptomatic overlap with other disorders and the lack of knowledge of the syndrome by the public and physicians. Treatment with typical antiemetic drugs is ineffective for CHS, but anxiolytic and sedative drugs, along with hot showers, seem to be consistently effective at reducing symptoms. The only known way to permanently end CHS, however, is abstinence from cannabinoids. Case studies and limited pre-clinical data on CHS indicate that prolonged high doses of the main psychotropic compound in cannabis, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), result in changes to the endocannabinoid system by acting on the cannabinoid 1 (CB1) receptor. These endocannabinoid system changes can dysregulate stress and anxiety responses, thermoregulation, the transient receptor potential vanilloid system, and several neurotransmitters systems, and are thus potential candidates for mediating the pathophysiology of CHS. Conclusions: Excessive cannabinoid administration disrupts the normal functioning of the endocannabinoid system, which may cause CHS. More clinical and pre-clinical research is needed to fully understand the underlying pathophysiology of this disorder and the negative consequences of prolonged high-dose cannabis use.

The effects of cannabinoid 1 receptor compounds on memory: a meta-analysis and systematic review across species

RATIONALE

While cannabis-based medicinal products have been shown to be effective for numerous neurological and psychiatric disorders, the evidence base regarding their adverse cognitive effects is poorly understood. The cannabinoid 1 receptor modulates memory performance via intracellular and extracellular mechanisms that alter synaptic transmission and plasticity. While previous literature has consistently shown that chronic cannabis users exhibit marked cognitive impairments, mixed findings have been reported in the context of placebo-controlled experimental trials. It is therefore unclear whether these compounds inherently alter cognitive processes or whether individuals who are genetically predisposed to use cannabis may have underlying cognitive deficits.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the effects of full and partial cannabinoid 1 receptor (CB1R) agonists, antagonists, and negative allosteric modulators on non-spatial and spatial memory.

METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched for studies examining the effects of CB1R agonists, antagonists, and negative allosteric modulators on memory performance.

RESULTS

We systematically reviewed 195 studies investigating the effects of cannabinoid compounds on memory. In humans (N = 35 studies, comprising N = 782 subjects), delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (1.5-5 mg/kg) relative to placebo impaired performance on non-spatial memory tests, whereas only high THC doses (67 mg/kg) impaired spatial memory. Similarly, THC (0.2-4 mg/kg) significantly impaired visuospatial memory in monkeys and non-human primates (N = 8 studies, comprising N = 71 subjects). However, acute THC (0.002-10 mg/kg) had no effect on non-spatial (N = 6 studies, comprising 117 subjects; g = 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.18 to 3.63, p = 0.08) or spatial memory (9 studies, comprising 206 subjects; g = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.09 to 2.58, p = 0.43). However, acute, full CB1R agonists significantly impaired non-spatial memory (N = 23 studies, 519 subjects; g = - 1.39, 95% CI - 2.72 to - 0.06, p = 0.03). By contrast, the chronic administration of CB1R agonists had no effect on non-spatial memory (N = 5 studies, comprising 146 subjects; g = - 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.32 to 1.22, p = 0.94). Moreover, the acute administration of CB1R antagonists had no effect on non-spatial memory in rodents (N = 9 studies, N = 149 subjects; g = 0.40, 95% CI - 0.11 to 0.92, p = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

The acute administration of THC, partial CB1R agonist, significantly impaired non-spatial memory in humans, monkeys, and non-human primates but not rodents. However, full CB1R agonists significantly impaired non-spatial memory in a dose-dependent manner but CB1R antagonists had no effect on non-spatial memory in rodents. Moreover, chronic THC administration did not significantly impair spatial or non-spatial memory in rodents, and there is inconclusive evidence on this in humans. Our findings highlight species differences in the effects of cannabinoid compounds on memory.

Medicinal Properties of Cannabinoids, Terpenes, and Flavonoids in Cannabis, and Benefits in Migraine, Headache, and Pain: An Update on Current Evidence and Cannabis Science

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive literature reviews of historical perspectives and evidence supporting cannabis/cannabinoids in the treatment of pain, including migraine and headache, with associated neurobiological mechanisms of pain modulation have been well described. Most of the existing literature reports on the cannabinoids Δ⁹ -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), or cannabis in general. There are many cannabis strains that vary widely in the composition of cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids, and other compounds. These components work synergistically to produce wide variations in benefits, side effects, and strain characteristics. Knowledge of the individual medicinal properties of the cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids is necessary to cross-breed strains to obtain optimal standardized synergistic compositions. This will enable targeting individual symptoms and/or diseases, including migraine, headache, and pain.

OBJECTIVE

Review the medical literature for the use of cannabis/cannabinoids in the treatment of migraine, headache, facial pain, and other chronic pain syndromes, and for supporting evidence of a potential role in combatting the opioid epidemic. Review the medical literature involving major and minor cannabinoids, primary and secondary terpenes, and flavonoids that underlie the synergistic entourage effects of cannabis. Summarize the individual medicinal benefits of these substances, including analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties.

CONCLUSION

There is accumulating evidence for various therapeutic benefits of cannabis/cannabinoids, especially in the treatment of pain, which may also apply to the treatment of migraine and headache. There is also supporting evidence that cannabis may assist in opioid detoxification and weaning, thus making it a potential weapon in battling the opioid epidemic. Cannabis science is a rapidly evolving medical sector and industry with increasingly regulated production standards. Further research is anticipated to optimize breeding of strain-specific synergistic ratios of cannabinoids, terpenes, and other phytochemicals for predictable user effects, characteristics, and improved symptom and disease-targeted therapies.

Patterns of medicinal cannabis use, strain analysis, and substitution effect among patients with migraine, headache, arthritis, and chronic pain in a medicinal cannabis cohort

BACKGROUND

Medicinal cannabis registries typically report pain as the most common reason for use. It would be clinically useful to identify patterns of cannabis treatment in migraine and headache, as compared to arthritis and chronic pain, and to analyze preferred cannabis strains, biochemical profiles, and prescription medication substitutions with cannabis.

METHODS

Via electronic survey in medicinal cannabis patients with headache, arthritis, and chronic pain, demographics and patterns of cannabis use including methods, frequency, quantity, preferred strains, cannabinoid and terpene profiles, and prescription substitutions were recorded. Cannabis use for migraine among headache patients was assessed via the ID Migraine™ questionnaire, a validated screen used to predict the probability of migraine.

RESULTS

Of 2032 patients, 21 illnesses were treated with cannabis. Pain syndromes accounted for 42.4% (n = 861) overall; chronic pain 29.4% (n = 598;), arthritis 9.3% (n = 188), and headache 3.7% (n = 75;). Across all 21 illnesses, headache was a symptom treated with cannabis in 24.9% (n = 505). These patients were given the ID Migraine™ questionnaire, with 68% (n = 343) giving 3 "Yes" responses, 20% (n = 102) giving 2 "Yes" responses (97% and 93% probability of migraine, respectively). Therefore, 88% (n = 445) of headache patients were treating probable migraine with cannabis. Hybrid strains were most preferred across all pain subtypes, with "OG Shark" the most preferred strain in the ID Migraine™ and headache groups. Many pain patients substituted prescription medications with cannabis (41.2-59.5%), most commonly opiates/opioids (40.5-72.8%). Prescription substitution in headache patients included opiates/opioids (43.4%), anti-depressant/anti-anxiety (39%), NSAIDs (21%), triptans (8.1%), anti-convulsants (7.7%), muscle relaxers (7%), ergots (0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic pain was the most common reason for cannabis use, consistent with most registries. The majority of headache patients treating with cannabis were positive for migraine. Hybrid strains were preferred in ID Migraine™, headache, and most pain groups, with "OG Shark", a high THC (Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol)/THCA (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid), low CBD (cannabidiol)/CBDA (cannabidiolic acid), strain with predominant terpenes β-caryophyllene and β-myrcene, most preferred in the headache and ID Migraine™ groups. This could reflect the potent analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-emetic properties of THC, with anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties of β-caryophyllene and β-myrcene. Opiates/opioids were most commonly substituted with cannabis. Prospective studies are needed, but results may provide early insight into optimizing crossbred cannabis strains, synergistic biochemical profiles, dosing, and patterns of use in the treatment of headache, migraine, and chronic pain syndromes.

Cannabinoids As Potential Treatment for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Despite the advent of classic anti-emetics, chemotherapy-induced nausea is still problematic, with vomiting being somewhat better managed in the clinic. If post-treatment nausea and vomiting are not properly controlled, anticipatory nausea—a conditioned response to the contextual cues associated with illness-inducing chemotherapy—can develop. Once it develops, anticipatory nausea is refractive to current anti-emetics, highlighting the need for alternative treatment options. One of the first documented medicinal uses of Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ⁹-THC) was for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and recent evidence is accumulating to suggest a role for the endocannabinoid system in modulating CINV. Here, we review studies assessing the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids and manipulations of the endocannabinoid system in human patients and pre-clinical animal models of nausea and vomiting.

Cannabinoid Regulation of Acute and Anticipatory Nausea

Chemotherapy-induced nausea is one of the most distressing symptoms reported by patients undergoing treatment, and even with the introduction of newer antiemetics such as ondansetron and aprepitant, nausea remains problematic in the clinic. Indeed, when acute nausea is not properly managed, the cues of the clinic can become associated with this distressing symptom resulting in anticipatory nausea for which no effective treatments are available. Clinical trials exploring the potential of exogenous or endogenous cannabinoids to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea are sparse; therefore, we must rely on the data from pre-clinical rat models of nausea. In this review, we explore the human and pre-clinical animal literature examining the potential for exogenous and endogenous cannabinoid treatments to regulate chemotherapy-induced nausea. The pre-clinical evidence points to a compelling need to evaluate the antinausea potential of cannabidiol, cannabidiolic acid, and treatments that boost the functioning of the endocannabinoid system in human clinical trials.

Cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.

Endocannabinoid Mechanisms Influencing Nausea

One of the first recognized medical uses of Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol was treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Although vomiting is well controlled with the currently available non-cannabinoid antiemetics, nausea continues to be a distressing side effect of chemotherapy and other disorders. Indeed, when nausea becomes conditionally elicited by the cues associated with chemotherapy treatment, known as anticipatory nausea (AN), currently available antiemetics are largely ineffective. Considerable evidence demonstrates that the endocannabinoid system regulates nausea in humans and other animals. In this review, we describe recent evidence suggesting that cannabinoids and manipulations that enhance the functioning of the natural endocannabinoid system are promising treatments for both acute nausea and AN.

Comprehensive Review of Medicinal Marijuana, Cannabinoids, and Therapeutic Implications in Medicine and Headache: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been …

BACKGROUND

The use of cannabis, or marijuana, for medicinal purposes is deeply rooted though history, dating back to ancient times. It once held a prominent position in the history of medicine, recommended by many eminent physicians for numerous diseases, particularly headache and migraine. Through the decades, this plant has taken a fascinating journey from a legal and frequently prescribed status to illegal, driven by political and social factors rather than by science. However, with an abundance of growing support for its multitude of medicinal uses, the misguided stigma of cannabis is fading, and there has been a dramatic push for legalizing medicinal cannabis and research. Almost half of the United States has now legalized medicinal cannabis, several states have legalized recreational use, and others have legalized cannabidiol-only use, which is one of many therapeutic cannabinoids extracted from cannabis. Physicians need to be educated on the history, pharmacology, clinical indications, and proper clinical use of cannabis, as patients will inevitably inquire about it for many diseases, including chronic pain and headache disorders for which there is some intriguing supportive evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To review the history of medicinal cannabis use, discuss the pharmacology and physiology of the endocannabinoid system and cannabis-derived cannabinoids, perform a comprehensive literature review of the clinical uses of medicinal cannabis and cannabinoids with a focus on migraine and other headache disorders, and outline general clinical practice guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The literature suggests that the medicinal use of cannabis may have a therapeutic role for a multitude of diseases, particularly chronic pain disorders including headache. Supporting literature suggests a role for medicinal cannabis and cannabinoids in several types of headache disorders including migraine and cluster headache, although it is primarily limited to case based, anecdotal, or laboratory-based scientific research. Cannabis contains an extensive number of pharmacological and biochemical compounds, of which only a minority are understood, so many potential therapeutic uses likely remain undiscovered. Cannabinoids appear to modulate and interact at many pathways inherent to migraine, triptan mechanisms ofaction, and opiate pathways, suggesting potential synergistic or similar benefits. Modulation of the endocannabinoid system through agonism or antagonism of its receptors, targeting its metabolic pathways, or combining cannabinoids with other analgesics for synergistic effects, may provide the foundation for many new classes of medications. Despite the limited evidence and research suggesting a role for cannabis and cannabinoids in some headache disorders, randomized clinical trials are lacking and necessary for confirmation and further evaluation.

Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid reduces nausea-induced conditioned gaping in rats and vomiting in Suncus murinus

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We evaluated the anti-emetic and anti-nausea properties of the acid precursor of Δ(9) -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), and determined its mechanism of action in these animal models.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

We investigated the effect of THCA on lithium chloride- (LiCl) induced conditioned gaping (nausea-induced behaviour) to a flavour, and context (a model of anticipatory nausea) in rats, and on LiCl-induced vomiting in Suncus murinus. Furthermore, we investigated THCA's ability to induce hypothermia and suppress locomotion [rodent tasks to assess cannabinoid1 (CB1 ) receptor agonist-like activity], and measured plasma and brain THCA and THC levels. We also determined whether THCA's effect could be blocked by pretreatment with SR141716 (SR, a CB1 receptor antagonist).

KEY RESULTS

In rats, THCA (0.05 and/or 0.5 mg·kg(-1) ) suppressed LiCl-induced conditioned gaping to a flavour and context; the latter effect blocked by the CB1 receptor antagonist, SR, but not by the 5-hydroxytryptamine-1A receptor antagonist, WAY100635. In S. murinus, THCA (0.05 and 0.5 mg·kg(-1) ) reduced LiCl-induced vomiting, an effect that was reversed with SR. A comparatively low dose of THC (0.05 mg·kg(-1) ) did not suppress conditioned gaping to a LiCl-paired flavour or context. THCA did not induce hypothermia or reduce locomotion, indicating non-CB1 agonist-like effects. THCA, but not THC was detected in plasma samples.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

THCA potently reduced conditioned gaping in rats and vomiting in S. murinus, effects that were blocked by SR. These data suggest that THCA may be a more potent alternative to THC in the treatment of nausea and vomiting.

Regulation of nausea and vomiting by cannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system

Nausea and vomiting (emesis) are important elements in defensive or protective responses that animals use to avoid ingestion or digestion of potentially harmful substances. However, these neurally-mediated responses are at times manifested as symptoms of disease and they are frequently observed as side-effects of a variety of medications, notably those used to treat cancer. Cannabis has long been known to limit or prevent nausea and vomiting from a variety of causes. This has led to extensive investigations that have revealed an important role for cannabinoids and their receptors in the regulation of nausea and emesis. With the discovery of the endocannabinoid system, novel ways to regulate both nausea and vomiting have been discovered that involve the production of endogenous cannabinoids acting centrally. Here we review recent progress in understanding the regulation of nausea and vomiting by cannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system, and we discuss the potential to utilize the endocannabinoid system in the treatment of these frequently debilitating conditions.

Cannabinoid-Induced Hyperemesis: A Conundrum-From Clinical Recognition to Basic Science Mechanisms

Cannabinoids are used clinically on a subacute basis as prophylactic agonist antiemetics for the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapeutics. Cannabinoids prevent vomiting by inhibition of release of emetic neurotransmitters via stimulation of presynaptic cannabinoid CB₁ receptors. Cannabis-induced hyperemesis is a recently recognized syndrome associated with chronic cannabis use. It is characterized by repeated cyclical vomiting and learned compulsive hot water bathing behavior. Although considered rare, recent international publications of numerous case reports suggest the contrary. The syndrome appears to be a paradox and the pathophysiological mechanism(s) underlying the induced vomiting remains unknown. Although some traditional hypotheses have already been proposed, the present review critically explores the basic science of these explanations in the clinical setting and provides more current mechanisms for the induced hyperemesis. These encompass: (1) pharmacokinetic factors such as long half-life, chronic exposure, lipid solubility, individual variation in metabolism/excretion leading to accumulation of emetogenic cannabinoid metabolites, and/or cannabinoid withdrawal; and (2) pharmacodynamic factors including switching of the efficacy of Δ⁸-THC from partial agonist to antagonist, differential interaction of Δ⁸-THC with Gs and Gi signal transduction proteins, CB₁ receptor desensitization or downregulation, alterations in tissue concentrations of endocannabinoid agonists/inverse agonists, Δ⁸-THC-induced mobilization of emetogenic metabolites of the arachidonic acid cascade, brainstem versus enteric actions of Δ⁸-THC, and/or hypothermic versus hyperthermic actions of Δ⁸-THC. In addition, human and animal findings suggest that chronic exposure to cannabis may not be a prerequisite for the induction of vomiting but is required for the intensity of emesis.

Adverse effects of medical cannabinoids: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabis-based medicines raises safety concerns for patients, clinicians, policy-makers, insurers, researchers and regulators. Although the efficacy of cannabinoids is being increasingly demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, most safety information comes from studies of recreational use.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of safety studies of medical cannabinoids published over the past 40 years to create an evidence base for cannabis-related adverse events and to facilitate future cannabis research initiatives. We critically evaluated the quality of published studies with a view to identifying ways to improve future studies.

RESULTS

A total of 321 articles were eligible for evaluation. After excluding those that focused on recreational cannabis use, we included 31 studies (23 randomized controlled trials and 8 observational studies) of medical cannabis use in our analysis. In the 23 randomized controlled trials, the median duration of cannabinoid exposure was 2 weeks (range 8 hours to 12 months). A total of 4779 adverse events were reported among participants assigned to the intervention. Most (4615 [96.6%]) were not serious. Of the 164 serious adverse events, the most common was relapse of multiple sclerosis (21 events [12.8%]), vomiting (16 events [9.8%]) and urinary tract infection (15 events [9.1%]). The rate of nonserious adverse events was higher among participants assigned to medical cannabinoids than among controls (rate ratio [RR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-2.21); the rates of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between these 2 groups (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.39). Dizziness was the most commonly reported nonserious adverse event (714 events [15.5%]) among people exposed to cannabinoids.

INTERPRETATION

Short-term use of existing medical cannabinoids appeared to increase the risk of nonserious adverse events. The risks associated with long-term use were poorly characterized in published clinical trials and observational studies. High-quality trials of long-term exposure are required to further characterize safety issues related to the use of medical cannabinoids.

Evaluation of cannabinoid agonists using punished responding and midazolam discrimination procedures in squirrel monkeys

RATIONALE

Clinical studies have suggested that marijuana and nabilone have anxiolytic effects in humans, yet studies of anxiolytic-like effects of cannabinoid agonists in mice and rats have yielded mixed results.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of cannabinoid agonists and clinically used anxiolytic drugs in monkeys using punished responding and midazolam discrimination procedures.

METHODS

Monkeys were trained to discriminate an i.m. injection of 0.3 mg/kg midazolam from saline or, in a separate group, to respond under a multiple schedule of food reinforcement composed of punished and nonpunished components. Effects of the cannabinoid agonists Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(9)-THC; 0.01-3 mg/kg), WIN 55,212-2 (0.03-1 mg/kg) and CP 55,940 (0.003-0.03 mg/kg), and the benzodiazepine midazolam (0.01-1 mg/kg) and the barbiturate pentobarbital (1-18 mg/kg) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Delta(9)-THC and CP 55,940 did not have antipunishment effects and Delta(9)-THC and WIN 55,212-2 did not produce midazolam-like discriminative stimulus effects up to doses that substantially decreased response rate. In contrast, pentobarbital, like midazolam, increased punished responding at doses comparable to those that substituted for the midazolam discriminative stimulus.

CONCLUSION

Cannabinoid agonists do not have anxiolytic-like effects in behavioral procedures commonly used to characterize benzodiazepines and other drugs in squirrel monkeys.

Endocannabinoid system in cancer cachexia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

More than 60% of advanced cancer patients suffer from anorexia and cachexia. This review focuses on the possible mechanisms by which the endocannabinoid system antagonizes cachexia-anorexia processes in cancer patients and how it can be tapped for therapeutic applications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cannabinoids stimulate appetite and food intake. Hepatocytes express functional cannabinoid type 1 receptors, activation of which increases the expression of lipogenic genes (e.g those encoding sterol regulatory element binding protein 1c, acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase-1, and fatty acid synthase in the liver and hypothalamus) and increase de-novo fatty acid synthesis, which contributes to development of diet-induced obesity. Both ghrelin and cannabinoids stimulate AMP-activated protein kinase in the hypothalamus, whereas they inhibit it in the liver and adipose tissues. Both anandamide and synthetic cannabinoid type 1 receptor agonists such as HU210 and the plant-derived cannabinoid tetrahydro-cannabinol also significantly inhibit tumor necrosis factor-alpha.

SUMMARY

Cannabinoid type 1 receptor activation stimulates appetite and promotes lipogenesis and energy storage. Further study of cancer-cachexia pathophysiology and the role of endocannabinoids will help us to develop cannabinoids without psychotropic properties, which will help cancer patients suffering from cachexia and improve outcomes of clinical antitumor therapy.

Human studies of cannabinoids and medicinal cannabis

Cannabis has been known as a medicine for several thousand years across many cultures. It reached a position of prominence within Western medicine in the nineteenth century but became mired in disrepute and legal controls early in the twentieth century. Despite unremitting world-wide suppression, recreational cannabis exploded into popular culture in the 1960s and has remained easily obtainable on the black market in most countries ever since. This ready availability has allowed many thousands of patients to rediscover the apparent power of the drug to alleviate symptoms of some of the most cruel and refractory diseases known to humankind. Pioneering clinical research in the last quarter of the twentieth century has given some support to these anecdotal reports, but the methodological challenges to human research involving a pariah drug are formidable. Studies have tended to be small, imperfectly controlled, and have often incorporated unsatisfactory synthetic cannabinoid analogues or smoked herbal material of uncertain composition and irregular bioavailability. As a result, the scientific evaluation of medicinal cannabis in humans is still in its infancy. New possibilities in human research have been opened up by the discovery of the endocannabinoid system, a rapidly expanding knowledge of cannabinoid pharmacology, and a more sympathetic political environment in several countries. More and more scientists and clinicians are becoming interested in exploring the potential of cannabis-based medicines. Future targets will extend beyond symptom relief into disease modification, and already cannabinoids seem to offer particular promise in the treatment of certain inflammatory and neurodegenerative conditions. This chapter will begin with an outline of the development and current status of legal controls pertaining to cannabis, following which the existing human research will be reviewed. Some key safety issues will then be considered, and the chapter will conclude with some suggestions as to future directions for human research.

Cannabidiol: an overview of some pharmacological aspects

Over the past few years, considerable attention has focused on cannabidiol (CBD), a major nonpsychotropic constituent of cannabis. The authors present a review on the chemistry of CBD and discuss the anticonvulsive, antianxiety, antipsychotic, antinausea, and antirheumatoid arthritic properties of CBD. CBD does not bind to the known cannabinoid receptors, and its mechanism of action is yet unknown. It is possible that, in part at least, its effects are due to its recently discovered inhibition of anandamide uptake and hydrolysis and to its antioxidative effect.

The cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonist SR 141716A reverses the antiemetic and motor depressant actions of WIN 55, 212-2

The dibenzopyran cannabinoids (delta-9 (Delta9)-tetrahydrocannabinol and nabilone) are clinically used to suppress nausea and vomiting produced by chemotherapeutic agents such as cisplatin. The purpose of this investigation was to investigate the antiemetic potential of the aminoalkylindole cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN 55, 212-2 [R(+)-[2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-3-[(morpholinyl) methyl] pyrolol [1,2,3-de]-1,4-benzoxazin-yl]-(1-naphthalenyl) methanone mesylate] against cisplatin-induced vomiting. Different doses of WIN 55, 212-2 (0, 1, 2.5 and 5 mg/kg, i.p.) reduced both the frequency of cisplatin (20 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced emesis (ID(50)=0.5 mg/kg) as well as the percentage of shrews vomiting (ID50=1.2 mg/kg) in a dose-dependent manner. Significant reductions in emesis frequency occurred from 2.5 mg/kg dose of WIN 55, 212-2, whereas significant total protection from vomiting was afforded at its 5 mg/kg dose. The antiemetic actions of a 5-mg/kg dose of WIN 55, 212-2 against cisplatin (20 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced vomiting were reversed by nonemetic subcutaneous doses (0, 0.25, 0.5 and 1 mg/kg) of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonist/inverse agonist SR 141716A [N-piperidino-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methylpyrazole-3-carboxamide] (ID50=0.27 and 0.47 mg/kg, respectively) but not by a 5-mg/kg dose of the cannabinoid CB2 receptor antagonist SR 144528 [N-[(1S)-endo-1,3,3-trimethylbicyclo [2.2.1] heptan-2-yl]5-(4-chloro-3-methylphenyl)-1-(4-methybenzyl) pyrazole-3-carboxamide]. The effects of the cited doses of WIN 55, 212-2 were also investigated on several motor parameters (spontaneous locomotor activity, duration of movement and rearing frequency). Significant reductions in motor parameters were only observed at its highest tested dose (ID50=1.97, 2.75 and 2.8 mg/kg; respectively). SR 141716A (0, 0.5, 1, 5 and 10 mg/kg) also reversed the motor suppressant effects of a 5-mg/kg dose of WIN 55, 212-2 (ID50=0.39, 0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg, respectively) and significant reversals were seen from its 0.5 and 1 mg/kg doses. These results suggest that WIN 55, 212-2 reduces both emesis and indeces of locomotion via the stimulation of cannabinoid CB1 receptors. However, cannabinoid CB1 receptors in different loci are most likely responsible for the antiemetic and motor suppressive effects of WIN 55, 212-2 since reduction in the frequency of vomiting occurred at lower doses relative to its sedative actions.

Cannabinoids for control of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the antiemetic efficacy and adverse effects of cannabis used for sickness induced by chemotherapy.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, bibliographies), any language, to August 2000.

STUDIES

30 randomised comparisons of cannabis with placebo or antiemetics from which dichotomous data on efficacy and harm were available (1366 patients). Oral nabilone, oral dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol), and intramuscular levonantradol were tested. No cannabis was smoked. Follow up lasted 24 hours.

RESULTS

Cannabinoids were more effective antiemetics than prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, thiethylperazine, haloperidol, domperidone, or alizapride: relative risk 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.62), number needed to treat 6 for complete control of nausea; 1.28 (1.08 to 1.51), NNT 8 for complete control of vomiting. Cannabinoids were not more effective in patients receiving very low or very high emetogenic chemotherapy. In crossover trials, patients preferred cannabinoids for future chemotherapy cycles: 2.39 (2.05 to 2.78), NNT 3. Some potentially beneficial side effects occurred more often with cannabinoids: "high" 10.6 (6.86 to 16.5), NNT 3; sedation or drowsiness 1.66 (1.46 to 1.89), NNT 5; euphoria 12.5 (3.00 to 52.1), NNT 7. Harmful side effects also occurred more often with cannabinoids: dizziness 2.97 (2.31 to 3.83), NNT 3; dysphoria or depression 8.06 (3.38 to 19.2), NNT 8; hallucinations 6.10 (2.41 to 15.4), NNT 17; paranoia 8.58 (6.38 to 11.5), NNT 20; and arterial hypotension 2.23 (1.75 to 2.83), NNT 7. Patients given cannabinoids were more likely to withdraw due to side effects 4.67 (3.07 to 7.09), NNT 11.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, the cannabinoids tested in these trials may be useful as mood enhancing adjuvants for controlling chemotherapy related sickness. Potentially serious adverse effects, even when taken short term orally or intramuscularly, are likely to limit their widespread use.

Cannabinoids for control of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the antiemetic efficacy and adverse effects of cannabis used for sickness induced by chemotherapy.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, bibliographies), any language, to August 2000.

STUDIES

30 randomised comparisons of cannabis with placebo or antiemetics from which dichotomous data on efficacy and harm were available (1366 patients). Oral nabilone, oral dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol), and intramuscular levonantradol were tested. No cannabis was smoked. Follow up lasted 24 hours.

RESULTS

Cannabinoids were more effective antiemetics than prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, thiethylperazine, haloperidol, domperidone, or alizapride: relative risk 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.62), number needed to treat 6 for complete control of nausea; 1.28 (1.08 to 1.51), NNT 8 for complete control of vomiting. Cannabinoids were not more effective in patients receiving very low or very high emetogenic chemotherapy. In crossover trials, patients preferred cannabinoids for future chemotherapy cycles: 2.39 (2.05 to 2.78), NNT 3. Some potentially beneficial side effects occurred more often with cannabinoids: "high" 10.6 (6.86 to 16.5), NNT 3; sedation or drowsiness 1.66 (1.46 to 1.89), NNT 5; euphoria 12.5 (3.00 to 52.1), NNT 7. Harmful side effects also occurred more often with cannabinoids: dizziness 2.97 (2.31 to 3.83), NNT 3; dysphoria or depression 8.06 (3.38 to 19.2), NNT 8; hallucinations 6.10 (2.41 to 15.4), NNT 17; paranoia 8.58 (6.38 to 11.5), NNT 20; and arterial hypotension 2.23 (1.75 to 2.83), NNT 7. Patients given cannabinoids were more likely to withdraw due to side effects 4.67 (3.07 to 7.09), NNT 11.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, the cannabinoids tested in these trials may be useful as mood enhancing adjuvants for controlling chemotherapy related sickness. Potentially serious adverse effects, even when taken short term orally or intramuscularly, are likely to limit their widespread use.

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol differentially suppresses cisplatin-induced emesis and indices of motor function via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors in the least shrew

We have recently shown that the cannabinoid CB(1) receptor antagonist, SR 141716A, produces emesis in the least shrew (Cryptotis parva) in a dose- and route-dependent manner. This effect was blocked by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(9)-THC). The present study investigates the cannabinoid receptor mechanisms by which Delta(9)-THC produces its antiemetic effects against cisplatin (20 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced emesis as well as its cannabimimetic activity profile (motor reduction) in the least shrew. Intraperitoneal administration of Delta(9)-THC (1, 2.5, 5 and 10 mg/kg) dose-dependently reduced both the percentage of animals vomiting (ID(50)=1.8+/-1.6 mg/kg) and the frequency of vomits (ID(50)=0.36+/-1.18 mg/kg) in a potent manner. The lowest significantly effective antiemetic dose of Delta(9)-THC for the latter emesis parameters was 2.5 mg/kg. Although Delta(9)-THC reduced the frequency of vomits up to 98%, it failed to completely protect all tested shrews from vomiting (80% protection). The cannabinoid CB(1) antagonist (SR 141716A) and not the CB(2) antagonist (SR 144528), reversed the antiemetic effects of Delta(9)-THC in a dose-dependent fashion. Delta(9)-THC (1, 5, 10 and 20 mg/kg, ip) suppressed locomotor parameters (spontaneous locomotor activity, duration of movement and rearing frequency) in a biphasic manner and only the 20-mg/kg dose simultaneously suppressed the triad of locomotor parameters to a significant degree. Subcutaneous (1-10 mg/kg) and intraperitoneal (0.05-40 mg/kg) injection of some doses of SR 141716A caused significant reductions in one or more components of the triad of locomotor parameters but these reductions were not dose dependent. Subcutaneous injection of SR 141716A (0.2, 1, 5 and 10 mg/kg) reversed the motor suppressant effects of a 20-mg/kg dose of Delta(9)-THC (ip) in a dose-dependent manner. Relative to its motor suppressant effects, Delta(9)-THC is a more potent antiemetic agent. Both effects are probably mediated via CB(1) receptors in distinct loci.

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) interferes with conditioned retching in Suncus murinus: an animal model of anticipatory nausea and vomiting (ANV)

Little is understood about effective countermeasures to the expression of anticipatory nausea and vomiting (ANV) in chemotherapy patients. We present a model of ANV based on the emetic reactions of the Suncus murinus (musk shrew). Following two pairings of a novel distinctive contextual cue with the emetic effects of an injection of lithium chloride, the context acquired the potential to elicit retching in the absence of the toxin. The expression of this conditioned retching reaction was completely suppressed by pretreatment with THC at a dose that did not suppress general activity. This provides the first experimental evidence in support of anecdotal reports that THC suppresses ANV.

Therapeutic aspects of cannabis and cannabinoids

BACKGROUND

Review commissioned in 1996 by the Department of Health (DOH).

AIMS

Assess therapeutic profile of cannabis and cannabinoids.

METHOD

Medline search, references supplied by DOH and others, and personal communications.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis and some cannabinoids are effective anti-emetics and analgesics and reduce intra-ocular pressure. There is evidence of symptom relief and improved well-being in selected neurological conditions, AIDS and certain cancers. Cannabinoids may reduce anxiety and improve sleep. Anticonvulsant activity requires clarification. Other properties identified by basic research await evaluation. Standard treatments for many relevant disorders are unsatisfactory. Cannabis is safe in overdose but often produces unwanted effects, typically sedation, intoxication, clumsiness, dizziness, dry mouth, lowered blood pressure or increased heart rate. The discovery of specific receptors and natural ligands may lead to drug developments. Research is needed to optimise dose and route of administration, quantify therapeutic and adverse effects, and examine interactions.

Biomedical benefits of cannabinoids?

Cannabinoids appear to be of therapeutic value as antiemetics, antispasmodics, analgesics and appetite stimulants and may have potential uses in epilepsy, glaucoma and asthma. Scientific evidence for any of these indications, except for antiemetic effects, is extremely sparse and claims for clinical utility are largely based on anecdotal reports. Furthermore, the mechanisms of action of any of the therapeutic effects are unknown. This paper reviews the clinical trials which have been carried out with cannabinoids including Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and synthetic cannabinoids such as nabilone and levonantradol, and discusses the advantages and adverse effects of cannabinoids in clinical use. The place of cannabinoids in modern medicine remains to be properly evaluated, but present evidence suggests that they could be valuable, particularly as adjuvants, for symptom control in a range of conditions for which standard drugs are not fully satisfactory.

Reinforcing properties of oral delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol, smoked marijuana, and nabilone: influence of previous marijuana use

The reinforcing properties of delta 9THC (17.5 mg), a 1 g marijuana cigarette containing 1.83% delta 9-THC, a synthetic cannabis compound (Nabilone 2 mg orally), and their respective placebos were assessed with self-report and operant work-contingent choice procedures. Three groups of eight subjects were selected on the basis of a history of regular, intermittent, or occasional marijuana-smoking behavior. All subjects served as their own controls for each drug condition and studies were carried out under double-blind and "double-dummy" conditions in a controlled, residential research ward. Placebo responding did not vary as a function of history of marijuana use, but the past history of drug use had a significant influence on the reinforcing properties of cannabis compounds as well as the behavioral and physiological effects of these drugs. Regular marijuana users reported a significant increase in elation following marijuana smoking, but this was not associated with a significant increment in pulse rate. Intermittent and occasional marijuana smokers had significant increases in pulse rate, but no significant marijuana-induced elation. Nabilone and delta 9-THC produced a significant increase in pulse rate for all subject groups, but there was no significant increase in elation following ingestion of these compounds. Given a choice between the three drugs and three placebos, 18 of 23 subjects worked to obtain a marijuana cigarette in an operant work choice paradigm. These data indicate that smoked marijuana was significantly more reinforcing than all other cannabis compounds studied, regardless of past drug-use history.