[Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for chronic neuropathic pain: A systematic review of randomized controlled studies]

Cannabis Use Following Total Joint Arthroplasty is Associated With Increased Risks? A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

With the increased legalization of cannabis, a new unknown emerges for orthopaedic surgeons and their patients. This systematic review aimed to (1) evaluate complications of cannabis use; (2) determine the effects of cannabis on pain and opioid consumption; and (3) evaluate healthcare utilizations associated with cannabis use among patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed. A search of the literature was performed in 5 databases. We included studies between January 2012 and July 2022 reporting cannabis use and complications, pain management, opioid consumption, length of stay, costs, or functional outcomes following TJA. A meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) and continuous variables was performed. A total of 19 articles were included in our final analysis.

RESULTS

Cannabis use was associated with higher odds for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR: 1.46, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.13 to 1.89) and revisions (OR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.41 to 1.53]) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cannabis use was associated with similar odds for DVT in total hip arthroplasty (THA) (OR: 1.30 [95% CI: 0.79 to 2.13]), pulmonary embolus in both TKA (OR: 1.29 [95% CI: 0.95 to 1.77]), THA (OR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.09 to 3.28]), and cardiovascular complications in TKA (OR: 1.97 [95% Cl: 0.93 to 4.14]). Cannabis use did not alter pain scores, opioid consumption, or cost of care in THA (estimate: $2,550.51 [95% CI: $356.58 to $5,457.62]) but was associated with higher costs in TKA (estimate: $3,552.46 [95% CI: $1,729.71 to $5,375.22]). There was no difference in lengths of stay or functional outcomes; however, there may be a potentially increased risk for prosthetic complications, pneumonia, and cerebrovascular accidents among cannabis users.

CONCLUSION

Cannabis use may be associated with an increased risk of DVTs, revisions, pneumonia, cerebrovascular accidents, and cardiac complications after TJA. Higher-level studies are needed to ascertain the impact of cannabis use for patients undergoing TJA.

Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol for Pain Treatment-An Update on the Evidence

In light of the current International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines, the topic of cannabinoids in relation to pain remains controversial, with insufficient research presently available. Cannabinoids are an attractive pain management option due to their synergistic effects when administered with opioids, thereby also limiting the extent of respiratory depression. On their own, however, cannabinoids have been shown to have the potential to relieve specific subtypes of chronic pain in adults, although controversies remain. Among these subtypes are neuropathic, musculoskeletal, cancer, and geriatric pain. Another interesting feature is their effectiveness in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Analgesic benefits are hypothesized to extend to HIV-associated neuropathic pain, as well as to lower back pain in the elderly. The aim of this article is to provide an up-to-date review of the existing preclinical as well as clinical studies, along with relevant systematic reviews addressing the roles of various types of cannabinoids in neuropathic pain settings. The impact of cannabinoids in chronic cancer pain and in non-cancer conditions, such as multiple sclerosis and headaches, are all discussed, as well as novel techniques of administration and relevant mechanisms of action.

The Use of Tetrahydrocannabinol Is Associated with an Increase in Survival Time in Palliative Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Introduction

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is often prescribed for ambulatory palliative patients to improve sleep quality and appetite and to reduce anxiety, stress, and pain. However, it is not known if THC has also an effect on the mortality of these patients.

Method

The objective was the impact of THC on mortality of ambulatory palliative patients. For this purpose, data from the palliative treatment documentation from 5 ambulatory palliative care teams in Brandenburg, Germany were used for this analysis. Survival time was calculated for 3 groups of patients: (1) without THC; (2) with THC in a low dosage (≤4.7 mg per day); and (3) THC in higher doses (≥4.7 mg per day). The analysis was done for 2 cohorts of patients. Cohort 1: all patients with a survival time of at least 7 days after inclusion in specialized ambulatory palliative care (SAPC) and cohort 2: a subgroup of patients with a survival time between 7 and 100 days. Kaplan-Meier curves were created, and multivariate analysis was done to investigate the impact of THC on mortality.

Results

A total of 9,419 patients with a survival time of at least 7 days after inclusion in SAPC were included in the analysis (cohort 1). 7,085 among them had a survival time between 7 and 100 days (cohort 2). In both cohorts, survival time was significantly prolonged by THC, but only when the daily THC dose was above the median of 4.7 mg. Survival time was 15 days longer in cohort 2 (40 vs. 25 days), when more than 4.7 mg THC were prescribed per day.

Conclusion

Use of THC is associated with a significant increase in survival time in ambulatory palliative patients which survive longer than 7 days the initiation of THC prescription and which use of THC >4.7 mg/day.

Perceptions and Preoccupations of Patients and Physicians Regarding Use of Medical Cannabis as an Intervention Against Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Results from a Qualitative Study

Objective

Explore perceptions and preoccupations regarding use of medical cannabis against chronic musculoskeletal pain, among patients and physicians.

Design

Qualitative study using interviews with patients and physicians, based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).

Setting

The study was conducted in Quebec, Canada, in spring 2020.

Subjects

We included 27 adult patients and 11 physicians (GPs, anesthesiologists, psychiatrists, and a rheumatologist); the mean age of patients was 48.2 years; 59.3% of patients and 36.4% of physicians were women; 59.3% of patients used no medical cannabis at the time of study; 45.5% of physicians had never authorized it.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed and for the qualitative analysis codes were developed in a hybrid, inductive and deductive approach. Guided by the TPB, facilitators and barriers, perceived benefits and harms, and perceived norms that may influence cannabis use or authorization were documented.

Results

Although medical cannabis is an interesting avenue for the relief of chronic musculoskeletal pain, doctors and patients agreed that it remained a last line option, due to the lack of scientific evidence regarding its safety and efficacy. The norms surrounding medical cannabis also play an important role in the social and professional acceptance of this therapeutic option.

Conclusion

Medical cannabis is seen as a last line option among interventions in the management of chronic pain, and attitudes and prior experiences play a role in the decision to use it. Study results may contribute to improved shared decision making between patients and physicians regarding this option.

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria.  Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison.  There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I2 = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181).  There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.

Influence of Cannabinoid Treatment on Trajectories of Patient-Related Outcomes in Chronic Pain: Pain Intensity, Emotional Distress, Tolerability and Physical Disability

The treatment of chronic pain with cannabinoids is becoming more widespread and popular among patients. However, studies show that only a few patients experience any benefit from this treatment. It also remains unclear which domains are affected by cannabinoid treatment. Therefore, the present study is novel in that it explores the effects of cannabinoid treatment on four patient-related outcome measures (PROMs), and includes patients with chronic refractory pain conditions who have been given the option of cannabinoid treatment. A retrospective design was used to evaluate the impact of cannabinoid treatment on patients with refractory pain in two German outpatient pain clinics. The present study shows that pain intensity (mean relative reduction (-14.9 ± 22.6%), emotional distress (-9.2 ± 43.5%), pain-associated disability (-7.0 ± 46.5%) and tolerability of pain (-11 ± 23.4%)) improved with cannabinoid treatment. Interestingly, the trajectories of the PROMs seemed to differ between patients, with only 30% of patients responding with respect to pain intensity, but showing improvements in other PROMs. Although the mean treatment effects remained limited, the cumulative magnitude of change in all dimensions may affect patients' quality of life. In summary, a singular evaluation with pain intensity as the sole outcome does not cover the multidimensional effects of cannabinoids. Therefore, the treatment effects of cannabinoids should be evaluated with different PROMs.

Cannabinoids as a Potential Alternative to Opioids in the Management of Various Pain Subtypes: Benefits, Limitations, and Risks

INTRODUCTION

Pain is a global phenomenon encompassing many subtypes that include neuropathic, musculoskeletal, acute postoperative, cancer, and geriatric pain. Traditionally, opioids have been a mainstay pharmacological agent for managing many types of pain. However, opioids have been a subject of controversy with increased addiction, fatality rates, and cost burden on the US healthcare system. Cannabinoids have emerged as a potentially favorable alternative or adjunctive treatment for various types of acute and chronic pain. This narrative review seeks to describe the efficacy, risks, and benefits of cannabinoids as an adjunct or even potential replacement for opioids in the treatment of various subtypes of pain.

METHODS

In June of 2022, we performed a comprehensive search across multiple databases for English-language studies related to the use of cannabinoids in the treatment of various types pain: neuropathic pain, musculoskeletal pain, acute postoperative pain, cancer pain, and geriatric pain. Data from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized control trials (RCTs) were prioritized for reporting. We sought to focus our reported analysis on more recent literature as well as include older relevant studies with particularly notable findings.

RESULTS

There is conflicting evidence for the use of cannabinoids in the management of pain. While cannabinoids have shown efficacy in treating specific chronic pain subtypes such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia pain, and geriatric pain, they do not show as clear benefit in acute postoperative and the majority of musculoskeletal pain syndromes. Data trends towards cannabinoids having a positive effect in treating cancer pain, but results are not as conclusive. To date, there is a paucity of data comparing cannabinoids directly to opioids for pain relief. Overall, the side effects of cannabinoids appear to be relatively mild. However, there is still potential for addiction, altered brain development, psychiatric comorbidities, and drug-drug interactions.

CONCLUSION

Cannabinoids may be effective in specific subtypes of pain, but current evidence and guidelines do not yet support its use as the first-line treatment for any type of acute or chronic pain. Rather, it may be considered a good adjunct or alternative for patients who have failed more typical or conservative measures. Additional studies are needed with standardized forms of cannabinoids, route of delivery, and dosing for greater-powered analysis. Providers must weigh the individualized patient risks, benefits, and concurrent medication list in order to determine whether cannabinoids are appropriate for a patient's pain treatment plan.

[Cannabinoids reduce opioid use in older patients with pain : Retrospective three-year analysis of data from a general practice]

BACKGROUND

Relevant data for the prescription and therapeutic effects of medical cannabinoids (CAM) are still missing in everyday medicine especially for elderly and geriatric patients.

AIM OF THE STUDY

Documentation of prescription (duration, age) of CAM (dronabinol, nabiximols, cannabinoid extracts) and co-medicated opioids in a doctor's office specializing in pain.

METHODS

Analysis of the consumption of opioids (morphine equivalent) and CAM (THC equivalent) for age and gender.

RESULTS

In all, 178 patients with chronic pain were treated for a period of 366 days (median; range 31-2590 days). Median age was 72 years (26-96 years); 115 were women (64.8%). Of these, 34 were younger than 65 years, 42 were 65-80 years and 40 were more than 80 years old. Of the 63 men, 29 were younger than 65 years, 24 were 65-80 years and 10 were older than 80 years. Indications for CAM were chronic pain and the limitations for opioids because of side effects and worsening of quality of life. To total of 1001 CAM were prescribed, 557 (55.6%) dronabinol as liquid, 328 (32.7%) as full spectrum extracts and 66 (6.6%) as oro-mucosal nabiximols spray. 50 prescriptions (5%) contained more than one CAM simultaneously. The daily consumption of dronabinol liquor and extracts were 9.6 mg/day (median), and of spray 13.6 mg. The dosage over time did not change in patients older than 64; in younger patients, there was a non-significant increasing trend. Women requested lower THC dosages compared to men (8.1 mg vs. 14.8 mg). Furthermore, 10 patients (5.6%) stopped CAM because of failing effectivity, 7 (3.9%) because of failing cost coverage and only 5 because of adverse side effects. 115 patients (65%) with CAM also received opioids a median 65 mg/day morphine equivalents. This opioid dosage was significantly reduced in course of time by 24 mg/day morphine equivalents or 50%. This reduction was independent on CAM dosage, age and gender.

DISCUSSION

Patients with chronic pain profit from long-term CAM which safely and significantly lower the consumption of comedicated opioids, even at low dosages (< 7.5 mg/day). For women, low-dose THC may be sufficient. Older patients benefit from CAM, and adverse effects do not limit the (chronic) use and prescription of CAM in the elderly.

Characteristics of People Seeking Prescribed Cannabinoids for the Treatment of Chronic Pain: Evidence From Project Twenty 21

Background

Prescribed cannabinoids are now legal in the UK and increasingly being used for a variety of conditions, with one of the most frequent conditions being chronic pain. This paper describes the characteristics of individuals seeking prescribed cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain in Project Twenty 21, a UK based real world data registry of prescribed cannabis patients.

Method

By 1st November 2021 data were available for 1,782 people who had sought treatment with medical cannabis as part of Project Twenty 21. The most common diagnosis among this cohort was chronic pain with 949 (53.5%) of the cohort reporting a primary condition related to chronic pain. Medical and self-report data on the characteristics of these patients, their health status and type/s of cannabinoid/s prescribed are summarized in this report.

Results

Of the 949 people reporting chronic pain as a primary condition 54.7% were male and their average age was 42.0 years (range = 18–84). Patients reported a low quality of life and high levels of comorbidity: people reported an average of 4.6 comorbid conditions with the most common comorbid conditions including anxiety, depression, insomnia and stress. A range of cannabinoid products were prescribed with the most common products being classified as high THC flower (48.5%). The majority of patients also reported using at least one other prescribed medication (68.7%).

Conclusions

Consistent with findings in other national and international databases, chronic pain was the most common primary condition in this real world study of prescribed cannabinoids. There was considerable variation in the types of chronic pain, comorbid pathology and in the characteristics of products being prescribed to treat these conditions. Together, this evidence supports the utility of real world evidence, as opposed to clinical trial approaches to studying the potential benefits of prescribed cannabinoids in treating chronic pain.

The Role of Cannabis, Cannabidiol and Other Cannabinoids in Chronic Pain. The Perspective of Physicians

Currently, there is a renewed interest in treatments with medical cannabis and cannabinoids. Based on an increasing number of publications over the last decades that permitted new insights into mechanisms, efficacy and safety of cannabinoids, the use of cannabinergic medications is authorised in an increasing number of European and non-European countries. The alleviation of chronic, painful conditions is, since thousands of years, one of the primary reasons for the use of cannabis. Depending on the country, a wide range of medicinal cannabis preparations are available:ranging from defined cultivars of medical cannabis, mainly varying in their THC:CBD ratio, that are inhaled or taken as whole plant extracts,to highly purified single cannabinoids, such as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD),or mixtures of two enriched extracts, standardised to a 1:1 ratio of THC:CBD (nabiximols). Although conflicting opinions continue to exist, the majority of reviews in the past concluded that medical cannabis and cannabinoids play a significant role in the management of pain. Surprisingly, systematic studies to date do not support an "entourage effect" of the other plant constituents of cannabis (mainly terpenoids) in treatment of chronic pain. An emerging cannabinoid is CBD which is the only cannabinergic medication available at present that does not cause the typical "cannabis high"; it is not a "controlled substance". However, despite years of research, there is either no study or no well-conducted, head-to-head, comparison available between different cannabis cultivars, between pure cannabinoids, and between pure cannabinoids and extracts. It remains unanswered which is the optimal treatment approach.

Pain response to cannabidiol in induced acute nociceptive pain, allodynia, and hyperalgesia by using a model mimicking acute pain in healthy adults in a randomized trial (CANAB I)

ABSTRACT

Preclinical studies have demonstrated the analgesic potential of cannabidiol (CBD). Those suggesting an effect on pain-processing receptors have brought CBD back into focus. This study assessed the effect of CBD on acute pain, hyperalgesia, and allodynia compared with placebo. Twenty healthy volunteers were included in this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, crossover study assessing pain intensities (using numeric rating scale), secondary hyperalgesia (von Frey filament), and allodynia (dry cotton swab) in a well-established acute pain model with intradermal electrical stimulation. The authors compared the effect of 800-mg orally administered CBD on pain compared with placebo. They further examined the effect on hyperalgesia and allodynia. Cannabidiol whole blood levels were also measured. Pain ratings (mean ± SD) did not differ significantly after CBD application compared with placebo (5.2 ± 0.7 vs 5.3 ± 0.7, P-value 0.928), neither did the areas of hyperalgesia and allodynia differ significantly after CBD application compared with placebo (hyperalgesia 23.9 ± 19.2 cm2 vs 27.4 ± 17.0 cm2, P-value 0.597; allodynia 16.6 ± 13.1 cm2 vs 17.3 ± 14.1 cm2, P-value 0.884). The CBD whole blood level (median, first to third quartile) was 2.0 µg/L (1.5-5.1) 60 minutes and 5.0 µg/L (4.0-10.4) 130 minutes after CBD application. Although the oral application of 800-mg CBD failed to show a significant effect, it is important to focus future research on different dosing, routes of administration, and CBD as a part of multimodal treatment strategies before negating its effects on acute pain.

Cannabis-Based Medicines and Medical Cannabis for Chronic Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain represents a broad category of pain syndromes that include a wide variety of peripheral and central disorders. The overall prevalence of neuropathic pain in the general population is reported to be between 7 and 10%. Management of neuropathic pain presents an unmet clinical need, with less than 50% of patients achieving substantial pain relief with medications currently recommended such as pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine and various tricyclic antidepressants. It has been suggested that cannabis-based medicines (CbMs) and medical cannabis (MC) may be a treatment option for those with chronic neuropathic pain. CbMs/MC are available in different forms: licensed medications or medical products (plant-derived and/or synthetic products such as tetrahydrocannabinol or cannabidiol); magistral preparations of cannabis plant derivatives with defined molecular content such as dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol); and herbal cannabis with a defined content of tetrahydrocannabinol and/or cannabidiol, together with other active ingredients (phytocannabinoids other than cannabidiol/tetrahydrocannabinol, terpenes and flavonoids). The availability of different types of CbMs/MC varies between countries worldwide. Systematic reviews of available randomised controlled trials have stated low-quality evidence for CbMs and MC for chronic neuropathic pain. Depending on the studies included in the various quantitative syntheses, authors have reached divergent conclusions on the efficacy of CbMs/MC for chronic neuropathic pain (from not effective to a clinically meaningful benefit). Clinically relevant side effects of CbMs/MC, especially for central nervous system and psychiatric disorders, have been reported by some systematic reviews. Recommendations for the use of CbMs/MC for chronic neuropathic pain by various medical associations also differ, from negative recommendations, no recommendation possible, recommended as third-line therapy, or recommended as an alternative in selected cases failing standard therapies within a multimodal concept. After reading this paper, readers are invited to formulate their own conclusions regarding the potential benefits and harms of CbMs/MC for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain.

Efficacy of cannabis-based medications compared to placebo for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Background

Chronic neuropathic pain (NP) presents therapeutic challenges. Interest in the use of cannabis-based medications has outpaced the knowledge of its efficacy and safety in treating NP. The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of cannabis-based medications in individuals with chronic NP.

Methods

Randomized placebo-controlled trials using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidivarin (CBDV), or synthetic cannabinoids for NP treatment were included. The MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were examined. The primary outcome was the NP intensity. The risk of bias analysis was based on the Cochrane handbook.

Results

The search of databases up to 2/1/2021 yielded 379 records with 17 RCTs included (861 patients with NP). Meta-analysis showed that there was a significant reduction in pain intensity for THC/CBD by -6.624 units (P < .001), THC by -8.681 units (P < .001), and dronabinol by -6.0 units (P = .008) compared to placebo on a 0-100 scale. CBD, CBDV, and CT-3 showed no significant differences. Patients taking THC/CBD were 1.756 times more likely to achieve a 30% reduction in pain (P = .008) and 1.422 times more likely to achieve a 50% reduction (P = .37) than placebo. Patients receiving THC had a 21% higher improvement in pain intensity (P = .005) and were 1.855 times more likely to achieve a 30% reduction in pain than placebo (P < .001).

Conclusion

Although THC and THC/CBD interventions provided a significant improvement in pain intensity and were more likely to provide a 30% reduction in pain, the evidence was of moderate-to-low quality. Further research is needed for CBD, dronabinol, CT-3, and CBDV.

Efficacy and safety of therapeutic use of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogs: Overview of systematic reviews

The debate on the use of cannabinoids for therapeutic purposes is constantly on the rise. This overview aimed to map the evidence on the therapeutic effects of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogs. Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized trials were identified through a comprehensive search in several databases, and their methodological quality were evaluated with AMSTAR-2. The results for main outcomes are presented, prioritizing those from updated and better quality SRs. Finally, 68 SRs, addressing 37 different health conditions, were included. The methodological quality was high for eight SRs. The evidence certainty (GRADE) for the effects of cannabinoids is not high for any of the outcomes identified. Evidence certainty was moderate for the following: (a) cannabidiol appears to be beneficial for quality of life but increases the risk of adverse events in ulcerative colitis; (b) cannabinoids in general appear to have no clinically important benefit for chronic non-oncologic pain, spasticity-related pain in multiple sclerosis, or for acute post-operative pain; (c) cannabinoids in general appear to have a benefit in reducing chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. For all other outcomes from remaining comparisons, the evidence certainty was low, very low, or not evaluated, which prevents recommendations for or against their routine use.

A Quality-of-Life Evaluation Study Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients Receiving Medicinal Cannabis (the QUEST Initiative): Protocol for a Longitudinal Observational Study

Background

Evidence supports several countries introducing legislation to allow cannabis-based medicine as an adjunctive treatment for the symptomatic relief of chronic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea, spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS), epileptic seizures, depression, and anxiety. However, clinical trial participants do not represent the entire spectrum of disease and health status seen in patients currently accessing medicinal cannabis in practice.

Objective

This study aims to collect real-world data to evaluate health-related quality of life in patients prescribed medicinal cannabis oil and describe any differences over time, from before starting therapy to after 3 and 12 months of therapy.

Methods

Adult patients newly prescribed medicinal cannabis oil by authorized prescribers and under the Special Access Schemes across Australia will be screened for eligibility and invited to participate. A sample size of 2142 is required, with a 3-month follow-up. All participants will complete the EuroQol 5-Dimension; European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-30; Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21; Patients’ Global Impression of Change; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form (SF) version 1.0: Sleep Disturbance 8b; and PROMIS SF Fatigue 13a questionnaires. Patients with chronic pain conditions will also complete the PROMIS SF version 1.0: Pain Intensity 3a and PROMIS SF version 1.0: Pain Interference 8a. Patients with movement disorders will also complete Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL) SF version 1.0: Upper Extremity Function (Fine Motor and Activities of Daily Living) and if chorea is indicated, the Neuro-QoL SF version 2.0: Huntington’s Disease health-related Quality of LIFE-Chorea 6a. All questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 2 weeks (titration), monthly up to 3 months, and then every 2 months up to 1 year.

Results

Recruitment commenced in November 2020. By June 2021, 1095 patients were screened for the study by 69 physicians in centers across 6 Australian states: Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia. Of the patients screened, 833 (39% of the target sample size) provided consent and completed baseline questionnaires. Results are expected to be published in 2022. Results of this study will show whether patient-reported outcomes improve in patients accessing prescribed medicinal cannabis from baseline to 3 months and whether any changes are maintained over a 12-month period. This study will also identify differences in improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients with different chronic conditions (eg, chronic pain, MS, epilepsy, Parkinson disease, or cancer).

Conclusions

This protocol contains detailed methods that will be used across multiple sites in Australia. The findings from this study have the potential to be integral to treatment assessment and recommendations for patients with chronic pain and other health indicators for accessing medicinal cannabis.

Trial Registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ANZCTRN12621000063819; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380807&isReview=true

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/32327

Cannabis against chronic musculoskeletal pain: a scoping review on users and their perceptions

Background

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) may lead to reduced physical function and is the most common cause of chronic non-cancer pain. Currently, the pharmacotherapeutic options against CMP are limited and frequently consist of pain management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, gabapentinoids, or opioids, which carry major adverse effects. Although the effectiveness of medical cannabis (MC) for CMP still lacks solid evidence, several patients suffering from it are exploring this therapeutic option with their physicians.

Objectives

Little is known about patients’ perceptions of their MC treatment for CMP. We aimed to increase this knowledge, useful for healthcare professionals and patients considering this treatment, by conducting a scoping literature review, following guidance by Arksey and O’Malley, to describe the views and perceptions of adult patients who had consumed MC to relieve chronic CMP.

Methods

Databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science) and websites were searched using combinations of controlled and free vocabulary. All studies and study designs reporting on patients’ perceptions regarding MC against CMP were considered. Studies had to include adult patients reporting qualitatively or quantitatively, i.e., through questionnaires, on MC use to treat CMP or other non-cancer pain, since studies reporting exclusively on perceptions regarding CMP were very rare. Study characteristics were extracted and limitations of the study quality were assessed. The review includes patients’ demographic characteristics, patterns of MC use, perceived positive and negative effects, use of alcohol or other drugs, reported barriers to CM use, and funding sources of the studies.

Results

Participants of the 49 included studies reported that MC use helped them to reduce CMP and other chronic non-cancer pain, with only minor adverse effects, and some reported improved psychological well-being.

In the included studies, men represent between 18 and 88% of the subjects. The mean age of participants in these studies (42/49) varied between 28.4 and 62.8 years old. The most common route of administration is inhalation.

Conclusion

MC users suffering from CMP or other chronic non-cancer pain perceived more benefits than harms. However, the information from these studies has several methodological limitations and results are exploratory. These user-reported experiences must thus be examined by well-designed and methodologically sound clinical or observational studies, particularly regarding CMP, where reports are very scarce.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42238-021-00096-8.

Cannabinoids and chronic pelvic pain in women: Focus on endometriosis

Chronic pelvic pain in women is common and frequently difficult to treat. Chronic pelvic pain often develops in the setting of endometriosis, interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome, and vulvodynia. Cannabinoids are a promising treatment modality for non-cancer chronic pain, but have not been studied in women with chronic pelvic pain nor in specific chronic pelvic pain conditions. This review focuses on the interaction of the endocannabinoid system with the menstrual cycles, with endometriotic lesions, and within the bladder. Furthermore, it provides a brief overview of existing literature of the effects of endocannabinoids on chronic pain generally, with a focus on neuropathic pain. Finally, it discusses limited data available regarding the use of cannabinoids in women with chronic pelvic pain conditions. In the opinion of the authors, cannabinoids are a reasonable treatment modality for refractory chronic pelvic pain, especially if a neuropathic component is suspected. Practitioners should expect a modest effect on pain levels with an acceptable safety profile.

Tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol as an oromucosal spray in a 1:1 ratio: a therapeutic option for patients with central post-stroke pain syndrome?

Central pain after stroke due to brainstem infarction is very rare. Treatment is difficult and specific guidelines are lacking. This is the report of a 61-year-old female patient who, after a posterolateral left medulla oblongata insult with incomplete Wallenberg syndrome, subsequently developed a burning and tingling pain in the contralateral leg and a burning and shooting pain in the ipsilateral face in trigeminal branches 1 and 2. More than 3 years of therapy with amitriptyline, gabapentin, pregabalin and various grade II and III opioids was ineffective or showed intolerable side effects. The administration of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol as an oromucosal spray in a 1:1 ratio improved the pain situation and quality of life quickly and permanently. The encouraging results in the present case may suggest that treatment with medical cannabis should be considered in similar cases when standard therapies are insufficient.

[Cannabis and cannabinoids for the treatment of acute and chronic pain]

Since the Act on the medical use of cannabis, at which cannabis-based medicines and cannabinoids became law, there has been an exponential increase in prescriptions for the acquisition of cannabis for medical purposes. The aim of this leading article is to compile and assess the currently available relevant clinical evidence for the use of cannabis and cannabinoids for treatment of acute and chronic pain. Based on the systematic literature review "Cannabis-Potential and risks (CAPRIS)" commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the recently published recommendations of the European Pain Federation EFIC, this article aims to give an orientation aid for the decision-making process in the clinical routine.

Nabiximols in Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

Pooled analysis of nabiximols and placebo in randomized controlled studies (RCTs) of chronic neuropathic pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify double-blind placebo-controlled RCTs of nabiximols for chronic neuropathic pain. The clinical endpoint of interest was change from baseline in mean pain score on 11-point numerical rating scales. Mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD, Hedges' g) were calculated using fixed effect (FE) and random effects (RE) models. Strength of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2).

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with 1289 participants were included. Quality of evidence (GRADE) was moderate. One study had a high risk of bias (RoB 2) and five had some concerns. For the pooled endpoint of change from baseline in mean pain score, nabiximols was superior to placebo, with a MD of -0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -.59 to -.21; FE, P < .0001) or -0.44 (95% CI: -.70 to -.19; RE, P = .0006). A SMD of -0.21 (95% CI: -.32 to -.10; FE) or -0.26 (95% CI: -.42 to -.10; RE) indicated an incremental benefit over background analgesia. Results in favor of nabiximols were maintained in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Nabiximols was superior to placebo for reduction of chronic neuropathic pain, with a small effect size. Larger RCTs designed to assess the effect of nabiximols in neuropathic pain are required to reach more definitive conclusions.

A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Comparing Pharmacotherapy for Chronic Neuropathic Pain, Including Cannabinoids and Cannabis-Based Medical Products

Background:

Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) still represents a major clinical challenge. Collective harnessing of both the scientific evidence base and clinical experience (of clinicians and patients) can play a key role in informing treatment pathways and contribute to the debate on specific treatments (e.g., cannabinoids). A group of expert clinicians (pain specialists and psychiatrists), scientists, and patient representatives convened to assess the relative benefit–safety balance of 12 pharmacological treatments, including orally administered cannabinoids/cannabis-based medicinal products, for the treatment of CNP in adults.

Methods:

A decision conference provided the process of creating a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model, in which the group collectively scored the drugs on 17 effect criteria relevant to benefits and safety and then weighted the criteria for their clinical relevance.

Findings:

Cannabis-based medicinal products consisting of tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD), in a 1:1 ratio, achieved the highest overall score, 79 (out of 100), followed by CBD dominant at 75, then THC dominant at 72. Duloxetine and the gabapentinoids scored in the 60s, amitriptyline, tramadol, and ibuprofen in the 50s, methadone and oxycodone in the 40s, and morphine and fentanyl in the 30s. Sensitivity analyses showed that even if the pain reduction and quality-of-life scores for THC/CBD and THC are halved, their benefit–safety balances remain better than those of the noncannabinoid drugs.

Interpretation:

The benefit–safety profiles for cannabinoids were higher than for other commonly used medications for CNP largely because they contribute more to quality of life and have a more favorable side effect profile. The results also reflect the shortcomings of alternative pharmacological treatments with respect to safety and mitigation of neuropathic pain symptoms. Further high-quality clinical trials and systematic comprehensive capture of clinical experience with cannabinoids is warranted. These results demonstrate once again the complexity and multimodal mechanisms underlying the clinical experience and impact of chronic pain.

Guideline "diagnosis and non interventional therapy of neuropathic pain" of the German Society of Neurology (deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie)

2019 the DGN (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurology) published a new guideline on the diagnosis and non-interventional therapy of neuropathic pain of any etiology excluding trigeminal neuralgia and CRPS (complex regional pain syndrome). Neuropathic pain occurs after lesion or damage of the somatosensory system. Besides clinical examination several diagnostic procedures are recommended to assess the function of nociceptive A-delta and C-Fibers (skin biopsy, quantitative sensory testing, Laser-evoked potentials, Pain-evoked potentials, corneal confocal microscopy, axon reflex testing). First line treatment in neuropathic pain is pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine and amitriptyline. Second choice drugs are topical capsaicin and lidocaine, which can also be considered as primary treatment in focal neuropathic pain. Opioids are considered as third choice treatment. Botulinum toxin can be considered as a third choice drug for focal limited pain in specialized centers only. Carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine cannot be generally  recommended, but might be helpful in single cases. In Germany, cannabinoids can be prescribed, but only after approval of reimbursement. However, the use is not recommended, and can only be considered as off-label therapy within a multimodal therapy concept.

The Role of the Cannabinoid System in Pain Control: Basic and Clinical Implications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive update of the different known components of the endogenous cannabinoid system and the mechanisms of action, as it applies to analgesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Following the discovery of the endogenous cannabinoid system in the early 1990s and the subsequent characterization of the cannabinoid receptor, there has been a renewed interest in cannabinoid research. Recent work has demonstrated its efficacy as a pharmacologic agent. There is limited evidence in the literature about the understanding of the endocannabinoid system and its role in the treatment and management of acute and chronic pain. Further work may elucidate additional roles for the endocannabinoid system within our nervous system and, moreover, additional subtypes of cannabinoid receptors have yet to be discovered. Cannabinoid compounds mediate their biological effects via binding and subsequent activation of cannabinoid receptors. These receptors are located throughout the body and make up the endocannabinoid system. These receptors are best understood and have been cloned, type 1 (CB₁) and type 2 (CB₂) [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)] [ (1, 2)]. The CB₂ receptor is located primarily in the immune system. CB₁ receptors are primarily located in the nervous system with the highest concentrations in the brain and lower concentrations in the spine and peripheral nervous tissues. Cannabinoids may be promising treatments for neuropathic pain with limited evidence, whereas, the evidence for other uses is insufficient.

Cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management: current and future prospects

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The medicinal use of cannabis has recently become the focus of much medical, as well as political, attention. This reality of growing use but limited evidence creates unique dilemmas for the prescribing clinician. The purpose of this review is to explore current evidence and gaps in knowledge and offer some practical considerations.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is robust preclinical data regarding the relevance of the endocannabinoid system to many pain-relevant processes. However, evidence to support cannabis-based medicines clinical use is still lacking. The best evidence to date is in managing neuropathic pain, although whether effects are clinically significant remains undetermined. However, the safety profile of cannabinoids seems favorable, especially by comparison to other medications used for pain control.

SUMMARY

The endocannabinoid system is undoubtedly a new and exciting pharmaceutical target for chronic pain management, but transition from preclinical to clinical studies has so far proved difficult. Although it is reasonable to consider cannabinoids for otherwise unresponsive pain, care should be taken in frail clinical populations. As this has become a socioeconomic and political issue in which agendas often take precedence over due diligence, there is a pressing need for unbiased empirical data and high quality evidence to better inform prescribers and patients.

Therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids: an evidence mapping and appraisal of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Although cannabis and cannabinoids are widely used with therapeutic purposes, their claimed efficacy is highly controversial. For this reason, medical cannabis use is a broad field of research that is rapidly expanding. Our objectives are to identify, characterize, appraise, and organize the current available evidence surrounding therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids, using evidence maps.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) published from their inception up to December 2017. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. We assessed methodological quality of the included SRs using the AMSTAR tool. To illustrate the extent of use of medical cannabis, we organized the results according to identified PICO questions using bubble plots corresponding to different clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

A total of 44 SRs published between 2001 and 2017 were included in this evidence mapping with data from 158 individual studies. We extracted 96 PICO questions in the following medical conditions: multiple sclerosis, movement disorders (e.g. Tourette Syndrome, Parkinson Disease), psychiatry conditions, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, acute and chronic pain, cancer, neuropathic pain, symptoms related to cancer (e.g. emesis and anorexia related with chemotherapy), rheumatic disorders, HIV-related symptoms, glaucoma, and COPD. The evidence about these conditions is heterogeneous regarding the conclusions and the quality of the individual primary studies. The quality of the SRs was moderate to high according to AMSTAR scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on medical uses of cannabis is broad. However, due to methodological limitations, conclusions were weak in most of the assessed comparisons. Evidence mapping methodology is useful to perform an overview of available research, since it is possible to systematically describe the extent and distribution of evidence, and to organize scattered data.

Identification of neuropathic pain-associated genes and pathways via random walk with restart algorithm

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain (NP) develops from neuropathic lesions or diseases affecting the nervous system, and has become a serious public health issue due to its complex symptoms, high incidence and long duration. At present, the exact pathogenesis of NP is still unclear. In this study, we sought to identify the genes as well as the related molecular mechanisms associated with NP occurrence and development.

METHODS

We firstly identified the differentially expressed genes between NP spinal nerve ligation (SNL) rats and control sham rats and then projected them onto a STRING network for functional association analysis. Then, Random Walk with Restart (RWR) was conducted to find some new NP-related genes, with their potential functions sequentially analyzed by GO annotation and KEGG pathway analysis.

RESULTS

Some new NP-related genes, like Gng13, C3 and Cxcl2, were identified by RWR analysis. Meanwhile, some biological functions like inflammatory responses, chemotaxis and immune responses, as well as some signaling pathways, such as those involved in neuroactive ligand-receptor interactions, complement and blood coagulation cascade reactions, and cytokine-receptor interactions that the new NP- related genes were most activated were found to be associated with NP occurrence and development.

CONCLUSIONS

This study extends our knowledge of NP occurrence and development and provides new therapeutic targets for future NP treatment.

Treatment of Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome with Cannabis-Based Medicine: Results from a Retrospective Analysis and Online Survey

Introduction: Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (GTS) is a neuropsychiatric disorder that is characterized by motor and vocal tics and psychiatric comorbidities, including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and obsessive-compulsive behavior/disorder (OCB/OCD). From anecdotal reports and preliminary controlled studies, it is suggested that cannabis-based medicine (CBM) may improve tics and comorbidities in adults with GTS. This study was designed to further investigate efficacy and safety of CBM in GTS and specifically compare effects of different CBM. Materials and Methods: First, we performed a retrospective data analysis including all those adult patients seen at our clinic, who had used CBM for the treatment of GTS at some time. All these patients were asked to complete an online survey (second study part) to receive more detailed data about treatment with CBM. Results: From medical records, we identified 98 patients who had used CBM (most often street cannabis followed by nabiximols, dronabinol, medicinal cannabis) for the treatment of GTS: Of the 38 patients who were able to judge, 66% preferred treatment with medicinal cannabis, 18% dronabinol, 11% nabiximols, and 5% street cannabis. Altogether, CBM resulted in a subjective improvement of tics (of about 60% in 85% of treated cases), comorbidities (55% of treated cases, most often OCB/OCD, ADHD, and sleeping disorders), and quality of life (93%). The effects of CBM appear to persist in the long term. Adverse events occurred in half of the patients, but they were rated as tolerable. Dosages of all CBM varied markedly. Patients assessed cannabis (with a preference for tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]-rich strains) as more effective and better tolerated compared with nabiximols and dronabinol. These data were confirmed by results obtained from the online survey (n=40). Conclusion: From our results, it is further supported that CBM might be effective and safe in the treatment of tics and comorbidities at least in a subgroup of adult patients with GTS. In our sample, patients favored THC-rich cannabis over dronabinol and nabiximols, which might be related to the entourage effect of cannabis. However, several limitations of the study have to be taken into considerations such as the open uncontrolled design and the retrospective data analysis.

[Dronabinol in geriatric pain and palliative care patients : A retrospective evaluation of statutory-health-insurance-covered outpatient medical treatment]

BACKGROUND

Geriatric patients often suffer from a long history of pain and have a limited life expectancy. Cannabinoid receptor agonists like dronabinol may be an effective, low-risk treatment option for geriatric patients with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

The effectiveness and side effects of dronabinol therapy in geriatric patients are analyzed. The effects of the approval requirement are presented.

METHODS

In our retrospective monocentric cohort study, the study population comprised all geriatric patients over the age of 80 years who were treated in our office since the cannabis law came into effect on 10 March 2017 until 17 July 2018 (evaluation date). Geriatric, nonpalliative pain patients (group A) and geriatric palliative patients (group B) were investigated. The basis of the evaluation was a questionnaire sheet that we use in our office with details of dosages, pain intensity, treatment effects and side effects from dronabinol therapy.

RESULTS

By using dronabinol, 21 of the 40 geriatric patients (52.5%) achieved pain relief of more than 30%, 10% of the patients of more than 50%. On average, about four symptoms or side effects related to previous treatment were positively influenced. 26% of patients reported side effects. The rejection rates on the part of the health insurances were 38.7% (group A) and 10.3% (group B).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is one of the few analyses of the use of Dronabinol in geriatric patients. We show that cannabis-based drugs (in this case dronabinol) are an effective, low-risk treatment option that should be considered early in therapy. Regarding the indication spectrum, further clinical studies and an approval-free test phase are necessary.

[Position paper on medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines in pain medicine]

Since March 2017, the prescription of medical cannabis at the expense of the statutory health insurance is possible after approval by the respective medical services. Chronic pain is the most common indication, as health claims data and the accompanying survey show. From the point of view of the law, a prescription is indicated in cases of serious illness, missing or not indicated established therapeutic approaches and a not entirely remote prospect of improvement of the illness or its symptoms. This describes a broader indication spectrum than can currently be based on randomised controlled clinical trials. There is weak evidence of low efficacy for neuropathic pain. For pain related to spasticity and cancer-related pain there is evidence of improvements in quality of life, but effects on pain are of little relevance. For all other indications, only an individual therapeutic trial can be justified based on the available external evidence. However, this usually corresponds to the demand of "a not entirely remote prospect" of a noticeably positive effect of medical cannabis. It is also problematic that almost no long-term studies for the application and efficacy of flowers and extracts are available.Current knowledge on the use of cannabis-based drugs and, more clearly, medical cannabis for chronic pain is insufficient. The increase in the number of countries with marketing authorisations or exemptions for medicinal cannabis or cannabis-based drugs for chronic pain will also pave the way for larger empirical and population-based studies that will further improve the evidence base of research and clinical use.

[Efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis: results of the CaPRis study]

In the 1990s, the endocannabinoid system was discovered as part of the human physiology. Since then, the effects of cannabis as a medicine have been researched more systematically. To summarize the scientific knowledge, the German Federal Ministry of Health commissioned an expertise.The project "Cannabis: Potential and Risks: a Scientific Analysis" (CaPRis), which started in 2016, aimed at analyzing the potential of medicinal cannabis and the risks of recreational cannabis use. A search of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted in five international databases (publication date: 2006-2017). For the medical use of cannabis 16 SRs (of 186 RCTs) were included from a global search and nine further RCTs were comprised from a de novo search. All studies were methodologically assessed.Evidence for the efficacy of cannabis medicine (given as an adjunct to other medication) was found in patients with chronic pain and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. Benefits were also found for appetite stimulation, improvement of nausea, and weight gain in patients with cancer, HIV/AIDS or in palliative care. Effects were often small. For other physical or mental disorders, only few or no controlled human studies are available. Adverse effects of cannabis medicine are often reported; severe adverse effects were mentioned in single cases only.To provide reliable treatment recommendations for clinicians and patients, more large-sized RCTs with follow-up assessments, consistent outcome measures, and active comparisons are needed.

[Cannabis for medical purposes and its prescription]

Since 10 March 2017, physicians have been allowed to prescribe cannabis to patients with serious illnesses and in the absence of alternative therapies. Patients can obtain it as dried flowers or extracts in standardised pharmaceutical quality by prescription (narcotic prescription, except for cannabidiol) in pharmacies. When prescribing, physicians have to take a few things into account. The first step is to decide which therapeutic effects are to be achieved and which is the most suitable cannabis product.Cannabis for medical use must meet the requirements for pharmaceutical quality. An identity check must be carried out in the pharmacy on the basis of the monographs of the German Pharmacopoeia (DAB) or the German Pharmaceutical Codex/New Prescription Form (DAC/NRF). For the production of prescription drugs, e.g. capsules, drops or inhalates, there are also corresponding monographs for the preparation of prescription drugs. These standardised, quality-assured prescription formulas should be given preference in the case of a medical prescription.When prescribing an oral or inhalative form of application, it should be noted that the onset and duration of action are very different. Also, due to the complex pharmacology of cannabinoids, interindividual genetic differences in the metabolisation of ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the individual structure and function of the cannabinoid receptors, as well as differences in receptor density and distribution, the dosage and frequency of application must be individually determined. Last but not least, the dosage also depends on the type of disease and individual susceptibility to side effects. When prescribed for the first time, a creeping dosage with a very low initial dose is recommended.

Understanding the evidence for medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain

The use of medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines has received increasing interest in recent years; with a corresponding surge in the number of studies and reviews conducted in the field. Despite this growth in evidence, the findings and conclusions of these studies have been inconsistent. In this paper, we outline the current evidence for medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines in the treatment and management of chronic non-cancer pain. We discuss limitations of the current evidence, including limitations of randomised control trials in the field, limits on generalisability of previous findings and common issues such as problems with measurements of dose and type of cannabinoids. We discuss future directions for medicinal cannabinoid research, including addressing limitations in trial design; developing frameworks to monitor for use disorder and other unintended outcomes; and considering endpoints other than 30% or 50% reductions in pain severity.

European Pain Federation (EFIC) position paper on appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for chronic pain management

Cannabis-based medicines are being approved for pain management in an increasing number of European countries. There are uncertainties and controversies on the role and appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines for the management of chronic pain. EFIC convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of basic science and relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper to empower and inform specialist and nonspecialist prescribers on appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and harnessed the clinical experience to produce these series of recommendations. Therapy with cannabis-based medicines should only be considered by experienced clinicians as part of a multidisciplinary treatment and preferably as adjunctive medication if guideline-recommended first- and second-line therapies have not provided sufficient efficacy or tolerability. The quantity and quality of evidence are such that cannabis-based medicines may be reasonably considered for chronic neuropathic pain. For all other chronic pain conditions (cancer, non-neuropathic noncancer pain), the use of cannabis-based medicines should be regarded as an individual therapeutic trial. Realistic goals of therapy have to be defined. All patients must be kept under close clinical surveillance. As with any other medical therapy, if the treatment fails to reach the predefined goals and/or the patient is additionally burdened by an unacceptable level of adverse effects and/or there are signs of abuse and misuse of the drug by the patient, therapy with cannabis-based medicines should be terminated.

SIGNIFICANCE

This position paper provides expert recommendations for nonspecialist and specialist healthcare professionals in Europe, on the importance and the appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines as part of a multidisciplinary approach to pain management, in properly selected and supervised patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cannabinoids in palliative medicine

We provide a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids in palliative medicine. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and http://clinicaltrials.gov, and a selection of cancer journals were searched up until 15th of March 2017. Of the 108 screened studies, nine studies with a total of 1561 participants were included. Overall, the nine studies were at moderate risk of bias. The quality of evidence comparing cannabinoids with placebo was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation as low or very low because of indirectness, imprecision, and potential reporting bias. In cancer patients, there were no significant differences between cannabinoids and placebo for improving caloric intake (standardized mean differences [SMD]: 0.2 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-0.66, 1.06] P = 0.65), appetite (SMD: 0.81 95% CI: [-1.14, 2.75]; P = 0.42), nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.21 [-0.10, 0.52] P = 0.19), >30% decrease in pain (risk differences [RD]: 0.07 95% CI: [-0.01, 0.16]; P = 0.07), or sleep problems (SMD: -0.09 95% CI: [-0.62, 0.43] P = 0.72). In human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients, cannabinoids were superior to placebo for weight gain (SMD: 0.57 [0.22; 0.92]; P = 0.001) and appetite (SMD: 0.57 [0.11; 1.03]; P = 0.02) but not for nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.20 [-0.15, 0.54]; P = 0.26). Regarding side effects in cancer patients, there were no differences between cannabinoids and placebo in symptoms of dizziness (RD: 0.03 [-0.02; 0.08]; P = 0.23) or poor mental health (RD: -0.01 [-0.04; 0.03]; P = 0.69), whereas in HIV patients, there was a significant increase in mental health symptoms (RD: 0.05 [0.00; 0.11]; P = 0.05). Tolerability (measured by the number of withdrawals because of adverse events) did not differ significantly in cancer (RD: 1.15 [0.80; 1.66]; P = 0.46) and HIV patients (RD: 1.87 [0.60; 5.84]; P = 0.28). Safety did not differ in cancer (RD: 1.12 [0.86; 1.46]; P = 0.39) or HIV patients (4.51 [0.54; 37.45]; P = 0.32) although there was large uncertainty about the latter reflected in the width of the CI. In one moderate quality study of 469 cancer patients with cancer-associated anorexia, megestrol was superior to cannabinoids in improving appetite, producing >10% weight gain and tolerability. In another study comparing megestrol to dronabinol in HIV patients, megestrol treatment led to higher weight gain without any differences in tolerability and safety. We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids are of value for anorexia or cachexia in cancer or HIV patients.

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.

Availability and approval of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management and palliative/supportive care in Europe: A survey of the status in the chapters of the European Pain Federation

BACKGROUND

There is considerable public and political interest in the use of cannabis products for medical purposes.

METHODS

The task force of the European Pain Federation (EFIC) conducted a survey with its national chapters representatives on the status of approval of all types of cannabis-based medicines, the covering of costs and the availability of a position paper of a national medical association on the use of medical cannabis for chronic pain and for symptom control in palliative/supportive care.

RESULTS

Thirty-one out of 37 contacted councillors responded. Plant-derived tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD) oromucosal spray is approved for spasticity in multiple sclerosis refractory to conventional treatment in 21 EFIC chapters. Plant-derived THC (dronabinol) is approved for some palliative care conditions in four EFIC chapters. Synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) is approved for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting refractory to conventional treatment in four EFIC chapters'. Eight EFIC chapters' countries have an exceptional and six chapters an expanded access programme for medical cannabis. German and Israeli pain societies recommend the use of cannabis-based medicines as third-line drug therapies for chronic pain within a multicomponent approach. Conversely, the German medical association and a team of finish experts and officials do not recommend the prescription of medical cannabis due to the lack of high-quality evidence of efficacy and the potential harms.

CONCLUSIONS

There are marked differences between the countries represented in EFIC in the approval and availability of cannabis-based products for medical use. EFIC countries are encouraged to collaborate with the European Medicines Agency to publish a common document on cannabis-based medicines.

SIGNIFICANCE

There are striking differences between European countries in the availability of plant-derived and synthetic cannabinoids and of medical cannabis for pain management and for symptom control in palliative care and in the covering of costs by health insurance companies or state social security systems.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management - An overview of systematic reviews

Medicinal cannabis has already entered mainstream medicine in some countries. This systematic review (SR) aimed at evaluating the efficacy, acceptability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. Qualitative systematic review of SRs of randomized controlled trials with cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. The Cochrane databases of SRs, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and PubMed were searched for SR published in the period January 2009 to January 2017. Assessment of the methodological quality of SR was performed by the AMSTAR checklist. Out of 748 papers identified, 10 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was high in four and moderate in six SRs. There were inconsistent findings of four SRs on the efficacy of cannabis-based medicines in neuropathic pain and of one SR for painful spasms in multiple sclerosis. There were consistent results that there was insufficient evidence of any cannabis-based medicine for pain management in patients with rheumatic diseases (three SRs) and in cancer pain (two SRs). Cannabis-based medicines undoubtedly enrich the possibilities of drug treatment of chronic pain conditions. It remains the responsibility of the health care community to continue to pursue rigorous study of cannabis-based medicines to provide evidence that meets the standard of 21st century clinical care.

SIGNIFICANCE

We provide an overview of systematic reviews on the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. There are inconsistent findings of the efficacy of cannabinoids in neuropathic pain and painful spasms in multiple sclerosis. There are inconsistent results on tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for any chronic pain.

[Pain in patients with paraplegia]

Chronic pain is one of the most reported health problems in patients suffering from spinal cord injuries and is described by the patients as one of the most burdensome sequelae of paraplegia. Various types of pain, such as nociceptive, neuropathic and other types of pain can occur. In addition, multiple pathophysiological mechanisms based on the biopsychosocial pain model play a role in the origins of the pain. These aspects necessitate a multimodal pain management approach in this patient group. This article presents an overview of the occurrence, importance and pathophysiology of chronic pain following spinal cord injury as well as diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

Cannabinoids in Pain Management and Palliative Medicine

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting interpretations of the evidence regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids in pain management and palliative medicine.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review (SR) of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and prospective long-term observational studies of the use of cannabinoids in pain management and palliative medicine. Pertinent publications from January 2009 to January 2017 were retrieved by a selective search in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Medline. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR instrument, and the clinical relevance of quantitative data syntheses was assessed according to the standards of the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Of the 750 publications identified, 11 SRs met the inclusion criteria; 3 of them were of high and 8 of moderate methodological quality. 2 prospective long-term observational studies with medical cannabis and 1 with tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol spray (THC/CBD spray) were also analyzed. There is limited evidence for a benefit of THC/CBD spray in the treatment of neuropathic pain. There is inadequate evidence for any benefit of cannabinoids (dronabinol, nabilone, medical cannabis, or THC/CBD spray) to treat cancer pain, pain of rheumatic or gastrointestinal origin, or anorexia in cancer or AIDS. Treatment with cannabis-based medicines is associated with central nervous and psychiatric side effects.

CONCLUSION

The public perception of the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabis-based medicines in pain management and palliative medicine conflicts with the findings of systematic reviews and prospective observational studies conducted according to the standards of evidence-based medicine.

Are cannabinoids an effective treatment for chronic non-cancer pain?

The use of cannabinoids has been proposed as an analgesic for different painful conditions, especially for chronic pain refractory to usual treatment. However, its real efficacy and safety remains controversial. We sought to determine whether cannabinoids are an effective treatment for chronic non-cancer pain. To answer this question, we used Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We identified 37 systematic reviews including 41 studies overall, of which 32 were randomized trials relevant for the question of interest. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. We concluded it is not clear whether cannabinoids decrease pain in patients with chronic non-cancer pain because the certainty of available evidence is very low. On the other hand, they are associated with significant adverse effects.