A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot trial with extension using an oral mucosal cannabinoid extract for treatment of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain

Cannabidiol and pain

Chronic pain presents significant personal, psychological, and socioeconomic hurdles, impacting over 30% of adults worldwide and substantially contributing to disability. Unfortunately, current pharmacotherapy often proves inadequate, leaving fewer than 70% of patients with relief. This shortfall has sparked a drive to seek alternative treatments offering superior safety and efficacy profiles. Cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals, notably cannabidiol (CBD), hold promise in pain management, driven by their natural origins, versatility, and reduced risk of addiction. As we navigate the opioid crisis, ongoing research plunges into CBD's therapeutic potential, buoyed by animal studies revealing its pain-relieving prowess through various system tweaks. However, the efficacy of cannabis in chronic pain management remains a contentious and stigmatized issue. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) presently refrains from endorsing cannabinoid use for pain relief. Nevertheless, evidence indicates their potential in alleviating cancer-related, neuropathic, arthritis, and musculoskeletal pain, necessitating further investigation. Crucially, our comprehension of CBD's role in pain management is a journey still unfolding, with animal studies illustrating its analgesic effects through interactions with the endocannabinoid, inflammatory, and nociceptive systems. As the plot thickens, it's clear: the saga of chronic pain and CBD's potential offers a compelling narrative ripe for further exploration and understanding.

Cannabinoid products for pain management: recommendations from the São Paulo State Society of Anesthesiology

There is growing interest in using cannabinoids across various clinical scenarios, including pain medicine, leading to the disregard of regulatory protocols in some countries. Legislation has been implemented in Brazil, specifically in the state of São Paulo, permitting the distribution of cannabinoid products by health authorities for clinical purposes, free of charge for patients, upon professional prescription. Thus, it is imperative to assess the existing evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these products in pain management. In light of this, the São Paulo State Society of Anesthesiology (SAESP) established a task force to conduct a narrative review on the topic using the Delphi method, requiring a minimum agreement of 60% among panelists. The study concluded that cannabinoid products could potentially serve as adjuncts in pain management but stressed the importance of judicious prescription. Nevertheless, this review advises against their use for acute pain and cancer-related pain. In other clinical scenarios, established treatments should take precedence, particularly when clinical protocols are available, such as in neuropathic pain. Only patients exhibiting poor therapeutic responses to established protocols or demonstrating intolerance to recommended management may be considered as potential candidates for cannabinoids, which should be prescribed by physicians experienced in handling these substances. Special attention should be given to individual patient characteristics and the likelihood of drug interactions.

Impact of Cannabidiol and Exercise on Clinical Outcomes and Gut Microbiota for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Cancer Survivors: A Case Report

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) remains a clinical challenge for up to 80% of breast cancer survivors. In an open-label study, participants underwent three interventions: standard care (duloxetine) for 1 month (Phase 1), oral cannabidiol (CBD) for 2 months (Phase 2), and CBD plus multi-modal exercise (MME) for another 2 months (Phase 3). Clinical outcomes and gut microbiota composition were assessed at baseline and after each phase. We present the case of a 52-year-old female with a history of triple-negative breast cancer in remission for over five years presenting with CIPN. She showed decreased monocyte counts, c-reactive protein, and systemic inflammatory index after each phase. Duloxetine provided moderate benefits and intolerable side effects (hyperhidrosis). She experienced the best improvement and least side effects with the combined (CBD plus MME) phase. Noteworthy were clinically meaningful improvements in CIPN symptoms, quality of life (QoL), and perceived physical function, as well as improvements in pain, mobility, hand/finger dexterity, and upper and lower body strength. CBD and MME altered gut microbiota, showing enrichment of genera that produce short-chain fatty acids. CBD and MME may improve CIPN symptoms, QoL, and physical function through anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects in cancer survivors suffering from long-standing CIPN.

The potential neuroprotective effects of cannabinoids against paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy: in vitro study on neurite outgrowth

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a shared burden for 68.1% of oncological patients undergoing chemotherapy with Paclitaxel (PTX). The symptoms are intense and troublesome, patients reporting paresthesia, loss of sensation, and dysesthetic pain. While current medications focus on decreasing the symptom intensity, often ineffective, no medication is yet recommended by the guidelines for the prevention of CIPN. Cannabinoids are an attractive option, as their neuroprotective features have already been demonstrated in neuropathies with other etiologies, by offering the peripheral neurons protection against toxic effects, which promotes analgesia. Methods: We aim to screen several new cannabinoids for their potential use as neuroprotective agents for CIPN by investigating the cellular toxicity profile and by assessing the potential neuroprotective features against PTX using a primary dorsal root ganglion neuronal culture. Results: Our study showed that synthetic cannabinoids JWH-007, AM-694 and MAB-CHMINACA and phytocannabinoids Cannabixir® Medium dried flowers (NC1) and Cannabixir® THC full extract (NC2) preserve the viability of fibroblasts and primary cultured neurons, in most of the tested dosages and time-points. The combination between the cannabinoids and PTX conducted to a cell viability of 70%-89% compared to 40% when PTX was administered alone for 48 h. When assessing the efficacy for neuroprotection, the combination between cannabinoids and PTX led to better preservation of neurite length at all tested time-points compared to controls, highly drug and exposure-time dependent. By comparison, the combination of the cannabinoids and PTX administered for 24 h conducted to axonal shortening between 23% and 44%, as opposed to PTX only, which shortened the axons by 63% compared to their baseline values. Discussion and Conclusion: Cannabinoids could be potential new candidates for the treatment of paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy; however, our findings need to be followed by additional tests to understand the exact mechanism of action, which would support the translation of the cannabinoids in the oncological clinical practice.

Medical cannabis use in oncology and associated outcomes: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Natural and synthetic cannabinoids are being used worldwide to treat various symptoms in cancer patients. This study aims to map the therapeutic benefits and adverse effects associated with the use of cannabis-based drugs in these outcomes.

METHODS

Following Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines a scoping review was conducted. The study protocol was available in the Open Science Framework public repository. An extensive search strategy involving databases like Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Medline/PubMed, Lilacs, Google Scholar, and Open Gray for gray literature analysis was executed by a skilled librarian. The inclusion criteria were primary studies (observational and randomized) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids in cancer patients. The review encompassed studies of diverse designs, publication years, and types, as long as they addressed cannabinoids' impact in oncology.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine (82.86%) out of total of 35 were randomized and 6 (14.14%) were non-randomized. About 57.1% of studies utilized registered products as interventions, with THC being the most natural cannabinoid cited in variable doses and administration routes. Moreover, 62.85% of studies specified the cancer types (breast, lung, sarcomas, hematological and reproductive system), while only one study detailed cancer staging. The evaluated outcomes encompassed nausea and vomiting (77.14%), appetite (11.43%), pain (8.57%), and tumor regression (2.86%) across different proportions of studies.

CONCLUSION

Cannabinoids show promise in managing pain, emesis, and anorexia/cachexia linked to cancer progression. New randomized clinical trials with a larger number of participants and observational studies on long-term safety are crucial to affirm their medicinal utility for cancer patients unresponsive to conventional drugs.

Does medicinal cannabis affect depression, anxiety, and stress in people with cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies

INTRODUCTION

Medicinal cannabis might have a role in supporting the mental health of people with cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis, compared with any control, as an intervention for depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms in people living with cancer. A secondary aim was to examine the effect of low versus high Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) dose on these outcomes.

METHODS

Five databases were systematically searched, and complemented with a snowball search from inception to May 2023, for any type of interventional study that included humans of any age with any cancer type. Primary outcomes were incidence and severity of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. Secondary outcomes were mood, cognition, quality of life, appetite, nutrition status, gastrointestinal symptoms, and adverse events. Data were pooled using Review Manager. Evidence was appraised using Cochrane risk of bias tools. Confidence in the estimated effect of pooled outcomes was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (n = 11 randomized trials, n = 4 non-randomized trials) of 18 interventions (N = 1898 total participants; 100 % ≥18 years of age) were included. Ten studies examined THC (70 % synthetic), two synthetic cannabidiol with or without THC, and six whole-plant extracts. No clinically significant effects of medicinal cannabis were found on primary outcomes. The likelihood of anxiety events increased with higher-dose synthetic THC compared with a lower dose (OR: 2.0; 95 % CI: 1.4, 2.9; p < 0.001; Confidence: very low). Medicinal cannabis (THC, cannabidiol, and whole-plant extract) increased the likelihood of improved appetite (OR: 12.3; 95 % CI: 3.5, 45.5; p < 0.001; n = 3 interventions; Confidence: moderate) and reduced severity of appetite loss (SMD: -0.4; 95 % CI: -0.8, -0.1; p = 0.009; Confidence: very low). There was very low confidence that higher doses of synthetic THC increased the likelihood of any adverse event (OR: 0.5; 95 % CI: 0.3, 0.7; p < 0.001). Medicinal cannabis had no effect on emotional functioning, mood changes, confusion, disorientation, quality of life, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Confidence in findings was limited by some studies having high or unclear risk of bias and imprecise pooled estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis as a therapeutic intervention for depression, anxiety, or stress in people with active cancer. Further research should explore whether medicinal cannabis might improve and maintain appetite and if high-dose synthetic THC might increase the incidence of side-effects, including anxiety. To inform clinical practice, well-powered and rigorously designed trials are warranted that evaluate the effects of medicinal cannabis prescribed to target anxiety, depression, and stress.

Opioid analgesics for nociceptive cancer pain: A comprehensive review

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo-controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate-certainty to low-certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals.

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.

Natural Products Derived from Cannabis sativa for Pain Management

Cannabis sativa is one of the oldest medicinal plants in human history. Even ancient physicians from hundreds of years ago used Cannabis sativa to treat several conditions like pain. In the modern era, the research community, including health-care providers, have witnessed wide-scale changes in cannabis policy, legislation, and marketing, with a parallel increase in patient interest. A simple search in PubMed using "cannabis and pain" as keywords provides more than 2,400 articles, about 80% of which were published in the last 8-10 years. Several advancements have been achieved in understanding the complex chemistry of cannabis along with its multiple pharmacological activities. Preclinical data have demonstrated evidence for the promising potential of cannabis for pain management, and the continuous rise in the prevalence of pain increases the urgency to translate this into clinical practice. Despite the large body of cannabis literature, researchers still need to find rigorous answers for the questions about the efficacy and safety of cannabis in treatment of certain disorders such as pain. In the current chapter, we seek to present a critical overview about the current knowledge on cannabis with special emphasis on pain-related disorders.

Classical cannabinoid receptors as target in cancer-induced bone pain: a systematic review, meta-analysis and bioinformatics validation

To test the hypothesis that genetic and pharmacological modulation of the classical cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) and 2 (CB2) receptors attenuate cancer-induced bone pain, we searched Medline, Web of Science and Scopus for relevant skeletal and non-skeletal cancer studies from inception to July 28, 2022. We identified 29 animal and 35 human studies. In mice, a meta-analysis of pooled studies showed that treatment of osteolysis-bearing males with the endocannabinoids AEA and 2-AG (mean difference [MD] - 24.83, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] - 34.89, - 14.76, p < 0.00001) or the synthetic cannabinoid (CB) agonists ACPA, WIN55,212-2, CP55,940 (CB1/2-non-selective) and AM1241 (CB2-selective) (MD - 28.73, 95%CI - 45.43, - 12.02, p = 0.0008) are associated with significant reduction in paw withdrawal frequency. Consistently, the synthetic agonists AM1241 and JWH015 (CB2-selective) increased paw withdrawal threshold (MD 0.89, 95%CI 0.79, 0.99, p < 0.00001), and ACEA (CB1-selective), AM1241 and JWH015 (CB2-selective) reduced spontaneous flinches (MD - 4.85, 95%CI - 6.74, - 2.96, p < 0. 00001) in osteolysis-bearing male mice. In rats, significant increase in paw withdrawal threshold is associated with the administration of ACEA and WIN55,212-2 (CB1/2-non-selective), JWH015 and AM1241 (CB2-selective) in osteolysis-bearing females (MD 8.18, 95%CI 6.14, 10.21, p < 0.00001), and treatment with AM1241 (CB2-selective) increased paw withdrawal thermal latency in males (mean difference [MD]: 3.94, 95%CI 2.13, 5.75, p < 0.0001), confirming the analgesic capabilities of CB1/2 ligands in rodents. In human, treatment of cancer patients with medical cannabis (standardized MD - 0.19, 95%CI - 0.35, - 0.02, p = 0.03) and the plant-derived delta-9-THC (20 mg) (MD 3.29, CI 2.24, 4.33, p < 0.00001) or its synthetic derivative NIB (4 mg) (MD 2.55, 95%CI 1.58, 3.51, p < 0.00001) are associated with reduction in pain intensity. Bioinformatics validation of KEGG, GO and MPO pathway, function and process enrichment analysis of mouse, rat and human data revealed that CB1 and CB2 receptors are enriched in a cocktail of nociceptive and sensory perception, inflammatory, immune-modulatory, and cancer pathways. Thus, we cautiously conclude that pharmacological modulators of CB1/2 receptors show promise in the treatment of cancer-induced bone pain, however further assessment of their effects on bone pain in genetically engineered animal models and cancer patients is warranted.

Cannabidiol as an Alternative Analgesic for Acute Dental Pain

Odontogenic pain can be debilitating, and nonopioid analgesic options are limited. This randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of cannabidiol (CBD) as an analgesic for patients with emergency acute dental pain. Sixty-one patients with moderate to severe toothache were randomized into 3 groups: CBD10 (CBD 10 mg/kg), CBD20 (CBD 20 mg/kg), and placebo. We administered a single dose of respective oral solution and monitored the subjects for 3 h. The primary outcome measure was the numerical pain differences using a visual analog scale (VAS) from baseline within and among the groups. Secondary outcome measures included ordinal pain intensity differences, the onset of significant pain relief, maximum pain relief, changes in bite force within and among the groups, psychoactive effects, mood changes, and other adverse events. Both CBD groups resulted in significant VAS pain reduction compared to their baseline and the placebo group, with a maximum median VAS pain reduction of 73% from baseline pain at the 180-min time point (P < 0.05). CBD20 experienced a faster onset of significant pain relief than CBD10 (15 versus 30 min after drug administration), and both groups reached maximum pain relief at 180-min. Number needed to treat was 3.1 for CBD10 and 2.4 for CBD20. Intragroup comparisons showed a significant increase in bite forces in both CBD groups (P < 0.05) but not in the placebo group (P > 0.05). CBD20 resulted in a significant difference in mean percent bite force change in the 90- and 180-min time points compared to the placebo group (P < 0.05). Compared to placebo, sedation, diarrhea, and abdominal pain were significantly associated with the CBD groups (P < 0.05). There were no other significant psychoactive or mood change effects. This randomized trial provides the first clinical evidence that oral CBD can be an effective and safe analgesic for dental pain.

Phytocannabinoids for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: A Scoping Review of Randomised Controlled Trials Published Between 2012 and 2023

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuropathic pain (NP) remains a challenge to treat, with 50% of patients experiencing limited efficacy from current treatments. Medicinal cannabis, which contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) and other minor cannabinoids, is garnering attention as an alternative treatment for NP. This paper reviews the clinical evidence for phytocannabinoid treatment of NP.

RECENT FINDINGS

Seventeen randomised controlled trials (RCT) were identified for inclusion in this review. Of these, ten studies using phytocannabinoid preparations containing THC alone had the most evidence for pain relief. Four studies investigating THC/CBD combinations showed some reductions in pain scores, although not all findings were statistically significant, whereas studies investigating CBD (two studies) or cannabidivarin (one study) showed no analgesic effect over placebo. However, CBD studies were of small sample size when compared to other studies in the review and short duration. Results for treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients with THC showed better improvements over those for NP induced by chemotherapy and multiple sclerosis, with these trials using vaporised whole plant cannabis. This formulation may have trace amounts of other minor cannabinoids, compared with synthetic cannabinoids such as dronabinol or nabilone that were investigated in other studies. This review provides an overview of RCTs that have investigated phytocannabinoid use for the treatment of NP. There appears to be evidence to necessitate further high quality RCTs into novel formulations of phytocannabinoids for the treatment of NP.

Synthesis and Evaluation of Natural and Unnatural Tetrahydrocannabiorcol for Its Potential Use in Neuropathologies

(-)-trans-Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (trans-(-)-Δ9-THC) has shown neuroprotective potential, but its medicinal benefits are not fully exploited due to the limitations of psychoactive properties. The lower homologues are non-psychoactive in nature but lack comprehensive scientific validation regarding neuroprotective potential. The present study describes the synthesis of non-psychoactive lower homologues of THC-type compounds and their neuroprotective potential. Both natural tetrahydro-cannabiorcol (trans-(-)-Δ9-THCO) and unnatural Δ9-tetrahydrocannabiorcol (trans-(+)-Δ9-THCO) were successfully synthesized starting from R-limonene and S-limonene, respectively, and investigated for neuroprotective potential in cellular models. The structures of both enantiomers were confirmed by NMR, HMBC, HQSC, NOESY, and COSY experiments. Results indicated that both enantiomers were nontoxic to the cells treated up to 50 μM. Neuroprotective properties of the enantiomers showed that treatments could significantly reverse the corticosterone-induced toxicity in SH-SY5Y cells and simultaneously cause elevated expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). It was also observed that unnatural trans-(+)-Δ9-THCO displayed better activity than the natural enantiomer and can be further explored for its potential use in neuropathological ailments.

Toward reducing racialized pain care disparities: Approaching cannabis research and access through the lens of equity and inclusion

There is growing interest in cannabis use for cancer pain. This commentary aims to discuss the evidence surrounding cannabis use for cancer pain in the context of the long-racialized landscape of cannabis policies and the disparity in pain control among cancer patients holding minoritized racial identities. Much evidence surrounding both the benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer patients, and all patients in general, is lacking. Although drawing on the research in cancer that is available, it is also important to illustrate the broader context about how cannabis' deep roots in medical, political, and social history impact patient use and health care policies. There are lessons we can learn from the racialized disparities in opioid risk mitigation strategies, so they are not replicated in the settings of cannabis for cancer symptom management. Additionally, the authors intentionally use the term "cannabis" here rather than "marijuana.: In the early 1900s, the lay press and government popularized the use of the word "marijuana" instead of the more common "cannabis" to tie the drug to anti-Mexican prejudice.

IUPHAR review: Navigating the role of preclinical models in pain research

Chronic pain is a complex and challenging medical condition that affects millions of people worldwide. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of chronic pain is a key goal of preclinical pain research so that more effective treatment strategies can be developed. In this review, we explore nociception, pain, and the multifaceted factors that lead to chronic pain by focusing on preclinical models. We provide a detailed look into inflammatory and neuropathic pain models and discuss the most used animal models for studying the mechanisms behind these conditions. Additionally, we emphasize the vital role of these preclinical models in developing new pain-relief drugs, focusing on biologics and the therapeutic potential of NMDA and cannabinoid receptor antagonists. We also discuss the challenges of TRPV1 modulation for pain treatment, the clinical failures of neurokinin (NK)- 1 receptor antagonists, and the partial success story of Ziconotide to provide valuable lessons for preclinical pain models. Finally, we highlight the overall success and limitations of current treatments for chronic pain while providing critical insights into the development of more effective therapies to alleviate the burden of chronic pain.

Medicinal Plants for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: A Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Neuropathic pain is a disabling condition caused by various diseases and can profoundly impact the quality of life. Unfortunately, current treatments often do not produce complete amelioration and can be associated with potential side effects. Recently, herbal drugs have garnered more attention as an alternative or a complementary treatment. In this article, we summarized the results of randomized clinical trials to evaluate the effects of various phytomedicines on neuropathic pain. In addition, we discussed their main bioactive components and potential mechanisms of action to provide a better view of the application of herbal drugs for treating neuropathic pain.

Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: Diagnosis, Agents, General Clinical Presentation, and Treatments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to discuss pathophysiology, diagnosis, clinical presentation, and treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Agent-specific presentation and pathophysiology is also being discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

As new systemic oncological treatments continue to be developed, the number of cancer survivors continues to grow. Survivors are living longer with the long-term side effects of oncological treatments. We reviewed the pathophysiology of agent-specific chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and the updates in its treatment and preventative tools. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy is a debilitating long-term side effect that often impairs cancer survivors' function and quality of life. The increasing life expectancy of cancer survivors has resulted in increased prevalence of this condition. Understanding its intricacies can provide physicians with better treatment tools and research opportunities to develop or identify new therapeutic agents.

Tetrahydrocannabinols: potential cannabimimetic agents for cancer therapy

Tetrahydrocannabinols (THCs) antagonize the CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors, whose signaling to the endocannabinoid system is essential for controlling cell survival and proliferation as well as psychoactive effects. Most tumor cells express a much higher level of CB1 and CB2; THCs have been investigated as potential cancer therapeutic due to their cannabimimetic properties. To date, THCs have been prescribed as palliative medicine to cancer patients but not as an anticancer modality. Growing evidence of preclinical research demonstrates that THCs reduce tumor progression by stimulating apoptosis and autophagy and inhibiting two significant hallmarks of cancer pathogenesis: metastasis and angiogenesis. However, the degree of their anticancer effects depends on the origin of the tumor site, the expression of cannabinoid receptors on tumor cells, and the dosages and types of THC. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge on the molecular processes that THCs target for their anticancer effects. It also emphasizes the substantial knowledge gaps that should be of concern in future studies. We also discuss the therapeutic effects of THCs and the problems that will need to be addressed in the future. Clarifying unanswered queries is a prerequisite to translating the THCs into an effective anticancer regime.

Cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for adults with cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis). We found no studies using herbal cannabis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.

Improving Quality of Life During Chemotherapy: Cannabinoids, Cryotherapy, and Scalp Cooling

There have been significant advances in the treatment of cancer in the past decade. However, patients continue to suffer from significant side effects of antineoplastic agents that greatly affect their quality of life (QOL), including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), and chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA). This review aims to provide an updated overview of emerging strategies for the management and prevention of these immediate and long-lasting side effects. The use of integrative medicine including cannabis continues to evolve in the realm of CINV and cancer-related anorexia. Although no pharmaceutical agent has been approved for the prevention of CIPN, cryotherapy, compression therapy and, more recently, cryocompression therapy have shown benefit in small trials, but there are concerns with tolerability especially related to cryotherapy. More data are necessary to determine an effective and tolerable option to prevent CIPN in large, randomized studies. Scalp cooling (SC), which has a similar mechanism to cryotherapy and compression therapy for CIPN prevention, has proven to be an effective and tolerable approach in randomized studies and has significantly limited CIA, an entity that definitively affects the QOL of patients living with cancer. Taken together, cannabis, cryotherapy, compression and cryocompression therapy, and SC all strive to improve the QOL of patients living with cancer by minimizing the side effects of chemotherapeutic agents.

Cannabinoids Reduce Melanoma Cell Viability and Do Not Interfere with Commonly Used Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Melanoma In Vivo and In Vitro

Background: Cannabinoids are mainly used for recreational purposes, but also made their way into oncology, since these substances can be taken to increase appetite in tumour cachexia. Since there are some hints in the literature that cannabinoids might have some anti-cancerous effects, the aim of this study was to study if and how cannabinoids mediate pro-apoptotic effects in metastatic melanoma in vivo and in vitro and its value besides conventional targeted therapy in vivo. Methods: Several melanoma cell lines were treated with different concentrations of cannabinoids, and anti-cancerous efficacy was assessed by proliferation and apoptosis assays. Subsequent pathway analysis was performed using apoptosis, proliferation, flow cytometry and confocal microscopy data. The efficacy of cannabinoids in combination with trametinib was studied in NSG mice in vivo. Results: Cannabinoids reduced cell viability in multiple melanoma cell lines in a dose-dependent way. The effect was mediated by CB1, TRPV1 and PPARα receptors, whereby pharmacological blockade of all three receptors protected from cannabinoid-induced apoptosis. Cannabinoids initiated apoptosis by mitochondrial cytochrome c release with consecutive activation of different caspases. Essentially, cannabinoids significantly decreased tumour growth in vivo and were as potent as the MEK inhibitor trametinib. Conclusions: We could demonstrate that cannabinoids reduce cell viability in several melanoma cell lines, initiate apoptosis via the intrinsic apoptotic pathway by cytochrome c release and caspase activation and do not interfere with commonly used targeted therapy.

Evidence-Based Treatment of Pain in Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a debilitating and often painful condition that occurs after administration of chemotherapeutic agents. The primary objective of this systematic review was to appraise the literature on conservative, pharmacological, and interventional treatment options for CIPN pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is level I evidence supporting modest to moderate improvement in CIPN pain from duloxetine treatment, as well as short-term modest improvement from physical therapy and acupuncture. Although opioid and cannabis administration may provide short-term modest improvement, administration is commonly limited by side effects. Generally, most studies reported no clinical benefit from yoga, topical neuropathic agents, gabapentinoids, and tricyclic antidepressants. Evidence is currently equivocal for scrambler therapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Finally, evidence on neuromodulation options is limited to mostly case reports/series and one observational study highlighting moderate improvement with auricular nerve stimulation. This systematic review provides an overview of conservative, pharmacologic, and interventional treatment modalities for CIPN pain. Furthermore, it provides a level of evidence and degree of recommendation based on the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for each specific treatment modality.

Oral capsules of tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) and their combination in peripheral neuropathic pain treatment

BACKGROUND

Cannabinoids are often prescribed for neuropathic pain, but the evidence-based recommendation is 'weak against'.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to examine the effect of two cannabinoids and their combination in peripheral neuropathic pain.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, trial with treatment arms for cannabidiol (CBD), tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC), CBD and THC combination (CBD/THC), and placebo in a 1:1:1:1 ratio and flexible drug doses (CBD 5-50 mg, THC 2.5-25 mg, and CBD/THC 5 mg/2.5 mg-50 mg/25 mg). Treatment periods of 8-week duration were proceeded by 1 week for baseline observations. Patients with painful polyneuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia and peripheral nerve injury (traumatic or surgical) failing at least one previous evidence-based pharmacological treatment were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the change in weekly average of daily pain measured with a numeric rating scale (NRS). Trail Making Test (TMT) was used as one of the tests of mental functioning.

RESULTS

In all, 145 patients were included in the study of which 118 were randomized and 115 included in the intention-to-treat analysis. None of the treatments reduced pain compared to placebo (p = 0.04-0.60). Effect sizes as estimated in week 8 (positive values worse and negative better than placebo) were CBD mean 1.14 NRS points (95% CI 0.11-2.19), THC 0.38 (CI -0.65 to 1.4) and CBD/THC -0.12 (-1.13 to 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

CBD, THC and their combination did not relieve peripheral neuropathic pain in patients failing at least one previous evidence-based treatment for neuropathic pain.

Potential, Limitations and Risks of Cannabis-Derived Products in Cancer Treatment

The application of cannabis products in oncology receives interest, especially from patients. Despite the plethora of research data available, the added value in curative or palliative cancer care and the possible risks involved are insufficiently proven and therefore a matter of debate. We aim to give a recommendation on the position of cannabis products in clinical oncology by assessing recent literature. Various types of cannabis products, characteristics, quality and pharmacology are discussed. Standardisation is essential for reliable and reproducible quality. The oromucosal/sublingual route of administration is preferred over inhalation and drinking tea. Cannabinoids may inhibit efflux transporters and drug-metabolising enzymes, possibly inducing pharmacokinetic interactions with anticancer drugs being substrates for these proteins. This may enhance the cytostatic effect and/or drug-related adverse effects. Reversely, it may enable dose reduction. Similar interactions are likely with drugs used for symptom management treating pain, nausea, vomiting and anorexia. Cannabis products are usually well tolerated and may improve the quality of life of patients with cancer (although not unambiguously proven). The combination with immunotherapy seems undesirable because of the immunosuppressive action of cannabinoids. Further clinical research is warranted to scientifically support (refraining from) using cannabis products in patients with cancer.

MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events

BACKGROUND

Approximately 18% of patients with cancer use cannabis at one time as palliation or treatment for their cancer. We performed a systematic review of randomized cannabis cancer trials to establish a guideline for its use in pain and to summarize the risk of harm and adverse events when used for any indication in cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized trials with or without meta-analysis was carried out from MEDLINE, CCTR, Embase, and PsychINFO. The search involved randomized trials of cannabis in cancer patients. The search ended on November 12, 2021. The Jadad grading system was used for grading quality. Inclusion criteria for articles were randomized trials or systematic reviews of randomized trials of cannabinoids versus either placebo or active comparator explicitly in adult patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Thirty-four systematic reviews and randomized trials met the eligibility criteria for cancer pain. Seven were randomized trials involving patients with cancer pain. Two trials had positive primary endpoints, which could not be reproduced in similarly designed trials. High-quality systematic reviews with meta-analyses found little evidence that cannabinoids are an effective adjuvant or analgesic to cancer pain. Seven systematic reviews and randomized trials related to harms and adverse events were included. There was inconsistent evidence about the types and levels of harm patients may experience when using cannabinoids.

CONCLUSION

The MASCC panel recommends against the use of cannabinoids as an adjuvant analgesic for cancer pain and suggests that the potential risk of harm and adverse events be carefully considered for all cancer patients, particularly with treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) guidelines: cannabis for psychological symptoms including insomnia, anxiety, and depression

PURPOSE

During the treatment of cancer, 18% of patients use cannabis for symptom management. Anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances are common symptoms in cancer. A systematic review of the evidence for cannabis use for psychological symptoms in cancer patients was undertaken to develop a guideline.

METHODS

A literature search of randomized trials and systematic reviews was undertaken up to November 12, 2021. Studies were independently assessed for evidence by two authors and then evaluated by all authors for approval. The literature search involved MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, and PsychINFO databases. Inclusion criteria included randomized control trials and systematic reviews on cannabis versus placebo or active comparator in patients with cancer and psychological symptom management (anxiety, depression, and insomnia).

RESULTS

The search yielded 829 articles; 145 from Medline, 419 from Embase, 62 from PsychINFO, and 203 from CCTR. Two systematic reviews and 15 randomized trials (4 on sleep, 5 on mood, 6 on both) met eligibility criteria. However, no studies specifically assessed the efficacy of cannabis on psychological symptoms as primary outcomes in cancer patients. The studies varied widely in terms of interventions, control, duration, and outcome measures. Six of 15 RCTs suggested benefits (five for sleep, one for mood).

CONCLUSION

There is no high-quality evidence to recommend the use of cannabis as an intervention for psychological symptoms in patients with cancer until more high-quality research demonstrates benefit.

Cannabinoids to Improve Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Neurological or Oncological Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Cannabinoids have been suggested to alleviate frequently experienced symptoms of reduced mental well-being such as anxiety and depression. Mental well-being is an important subdomain of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Reducing symptoms and maintaining HRQoL are particularly important in malignant primary brain tumor patients, as treatment options are often noncurative and prognosis remains poor. These patients frequently report unprescribed cannabinoid use, presumably for symptom relieve. As studies on brain tumor patients specifically are lacking, we performed a meta-analysis of the current evidence on cannabinoid efficacy on HRQoL and mental well-being in oncological and neurological patients. Methods: We performed a systematic PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase, and Web of Science search according to PRISMA guidelines on August 2 and 3, 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol (CBD) on general HRQoL and mental well-being. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using Hedges g. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Results: We included 17 studies: 4 in oncology and 13 in central nervous system (CNS) disease. Meta-analysis showed no effect of cannabinoids on general HRQoL (g=-0.02 confidence interval [95% CI -0.11 to 0.06]; p=0.57) or mental well-being (g=-0.02 [95% CI -0.16 to 0.13]; p=0.81). Conclusions: RCTs in patients with cancer or CNS disease showed no effect of cannabinoids on HRQoL or mental well-being. However, studies were clinically heterogeneous and since many glioma patients currently frequently use cannabinoids, future studies are necessary to evaluate its value in this specific population.

Cannabinoids versus placebo for pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of cannabinoids in participants with pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing cannabinoids versus placebo in participants with any type of pain.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All-cause mortality, pain, adverse events, quality of life, cannabinoid dependence, psychosis, and quality of sleep.

RESULTS

We included 65 randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials enrolling 7017 participants. Fifty-nine of the trials and all outcome results were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 1.20; 98% CI 0.85 to 1.67; P = 0.22). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids neither reduced acute pain (mean difference numerical rating scale (NRS) 0.52; 98% CI -0.40 to 1.43; P = 0.19) or cancer pain (mean difference NRS -0.13; 98% CI -0.33 to 0.06; P = 0.1) nor improved quality of life (mean difference -1.38; 98% CI -11.81 to 9.04; P = 0.33). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids reduced chronic pain (mean difference NRS -0.43; 98% CI -0.72 to -0.15; P = 0.0004) and improved quality of sleep (mean difference -0.42; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.20; P = 0.0003). However, both effect sizes were below our predefined minimal important differences. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis indicated that cannabinoids increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.25; P < 0.001) but not serious adverse events (RR 1.18; 98% CI 0.95 to 1.45; P = 0.07). None of the included trials reported on cannabinoid dependence or psychosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabinoids reduced chronic pain and improved quality of sleep, but the effect sizes are of questionable importance. Cannabinoids had no effects on acute pain or cancer pain and increased the risks of non-serious adverse events. The harmful effects of cannabinoids for pain seem to outweigh the potential benefits.

Cannabinoids as Prospective Anti-Cancer Drugs: Mechanism of Action in Healthy and Cancer Cells

Endogenous and exogenous cannabinoids modulate many physiological and pathological processes by binding classical cannabinoid receptors 1 (CB1) or 2 (CB2) or non-cannabinoid receptors. Cannabinoids are known to exert antiproliferative, apoptotic, anti-migratory and anti-invasive effect on cancer cells by inducing or inhibiting various signaling cascades. In this chapter, we specifically emphasize the latest research works about the alterations in endocannabinoid system (ECS) components in malignancies and cancer cell proliferation, migration, invasion, angiogenesis, autophagy, and death by cannabinoid administration, emphasizing their mechanism of action, and give a future perspective for clinical use.

Therapeutic and Supportive Effects of Cannabinoids in Patients with Brain Tumors (CBD Oil and Cannabis)

OPINION STATEMENT

The potential medicinal properties of Cannabis continue to garner attention, especially in the brain tumor domain. This attention is centered on quality of life and symptom management; however, it is amplified by a significant lack of therapeutic choices for this specific patient population. While the literature on this matter is young, published and anecdotal evidence imply that cannabis could be useful in treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, stimulating appetite, reducing pain, and managing seizures. It may also decrease inflammation and cancer cell proliferation and survival, resulting in a benefit in overall patient survival. Current literature poses the challenge that it does not provide standardized guidance on dosing for the above potential indications and cannabis use is dominated by recreational purposes. Furthermore, integrated and longitudinal studies are needed but these are a challenge due to arcane laws surrounding the legality of such substances. The increasing need for evidence-based arguments about potential harms and benefits of cannabis, not only in cancer patients but for other medical use and recreational purposes, is desperately needed.

Clinical Research Evidence Supporting Administration and Dosing Recommendations of Medicinal Cannabis as Analgesic in Cancer Patients

The analgesic potential of Cannabis sativa L.-based medicinal cannabis products for treatment of cancer associated chronic pains has gained increased interest in recent years. To ensure a controlled distribution of these products and investigate their therapeutic potential, several countries have established so-called pilot trials. Many doctors, however, are hesitant to prescribe medicinal cannabis primarily due to lack of research evidence regarding the products' efficacy, safety and thus questionable dosing guidelines. This review aims to elucidate clinical research supporting administration of medicinal cannabis in cancer patients for analgesic purposes. The cannabinoids' effects on the endocannabinoid system (ECS) and its implication in pain regulation is included to illustrate the complexity related to this research field. Published clinical studies on medicinal cannabis primarily consist of observational studies and only one pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT), where more RCTs exist on the cannabis-based product, Sativex^® (GW Pharma Ltd., Cambridge, UK). The studies indicate analgesic potential, however non-significantly, for most patients and with acceptable safety profile. Summarizing, high-quality RCTs are scarce in this research field, and the limitations of the observational studies complicates interpretation of clinical outcomes. Despite discrepancy among the studies, they do show indications for administration and dosing regimens providing analgesic effects for some cancer patients.

Dysmenorrhoea: Can Medicinal Cannabis Bring New Hope for a Collective Group of Women Suffering in Pain, Globally?

Dysmenorrhoea effects up to 90% of women of reproductive age, with medical management options including over-the-counter analgesia or hormonal contraception. There has been a recent surge in medicinal cannabis research and its analgesic properties. This paper aims to critically investigate the current research of medicinal cannabis for pain relief and to discuss its potential application to treat dysmenorrhoea. Relevant keywords, including medicinal cannabis, pain, cannabinoids, tetrahydrocannabinol, dysmenorrhoea, and clinical trial, have been searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library (Wiley) databases and a clinical trial website (clinicaltrials.gov). To identify the relevant studies for this paper, 84 papers were reviewed and 20 were discarded as irrelevant. This review critically evaluated cannabis-based medicines and their mechanism and properties in relation to pain relief. It also tabulated all clinical trials carried out investigating medicinal cannabis for pain relief and highlighted the side effects. In addition, the safety and toxicology of medicinal cannabis and barriers to use are highlighted. Two-thirds of the clinical trials summarised confirmed positive analgesic outcomes, with major side effects reported as nausea, drowsiness, and dry mouth. In conclusion, medicinal cannabis has promising applications in the management of dysmenorrhoea. The global medical cannabis market size was valued at USD 11.0 billion in 2021 and is expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21.06% from 2022 to 2030. This will encourage academic as well as the pharmaceutical and medical device industries to study the application of medical cannabis in unmet clinical disorders.

Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids for Treatment of Cancer

The endocannabinoid system (ECS) is an ancient homeostasis mechanism operating from embryonic stages to adulthood. It controls the growth and development of many cells and cell lineages. Dysregulation of the components of the ECS may result in uncontrolled proliferation, adhesion, invasion, inhibition of apoptosis and increased vascularization, leading to the development of various malignancies. Cancer is the disease of uncontrolled cell division. In this review, we will discuss whether the changes to the ECS are a cause or a consequence of malignization and whether different tissues react differently to changes in the ECS. We will discuss the potential use of cannabinoids for treatment of cancer, focusing on primary outcome/care-tumor shrinkage and eradication, as well as secondary outcome/palliative care-improvement of life quality, including pain, appetite, sleep, and many more factors. Finally, we will complete this review with the chapter on sex- and gender-specific differences in ECS and response to cannabinoids, and equality of the access to treatments with cannabinoids.

The Therapeutic Potential of the Endocannabinoid System in Age-Related Diseases

The endocannabinoid system (ECS) dynamically regulates many aspects of mammalian physiology. ECS has gained substantial interest since growing evidence suggests that it also plays a major role in several pathophysiological conditions due to its ability to modulate various underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, cannabinoids, as components of the cannabinoid system (CS), have proven beneficial effects such as anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, neuromodulatory, antioxidative, and cardioprotective effects. In this comprehensive review, we aimed to describe the complex interaction between CS and most common age-related diseases such as neuro-degenerative, oncological, skeletal, and cardiovascular disorders, together with the potential of various cannabinoids to ameliorate the progression of these disorders. Since chronic inflammation is postulated as the pillar of all the above-mentioned medical conditions, we also discuss in this paper the potential of CS to ameliorate aging-associated immune system dysregulation.

In the weeds: a retrospective study of patient interest in and experience with cannabis at a cancer center

BACKGROUND

Cannabis products, including the cannabinoids CBD and THC, are rising in popularity and increasingly used for medical purposes. While there is some evidence that cannabinoids improve cancer-associated symptoms, understanding regarding appropriate use remains incomplete.

PURPOSE

To describe patient experiences with medical cannabis with focus on use contexts and patients' reported benefits and harms.

METHODS

A standardized intake form was implemented in a dedicated medical cannabis clinic at an NCI-designated cancer center; data from this form was abstracted for all initial visits from October 2019 to October 2020. We report descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 163 unique new patients, cannabis therapy was commonly sought for sleep, pain, anxiety, and appetite. Twenty-nine percent expressed interest for cancer treatment; 40% and 46% reported past use of CBD and THC, respectively, for medical purposes. Among past CBD users, the most commonly reported benefits were less pain (21%) or anxiety (17%) and improvement in sleep (15%); 92% reported no side effects. Among those with past THC use, reported benefits included improvement in appetite (40%), sleep (32%), nausea (28%), and pain (17%); side effects included feeling "high." Seeking cannabis for anti-neoplastic effects was associated with receipt of active cancer treatment in both univariate and multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients seek medical cannabis to address a wide variety of concerns despite insufficient evidence of benefits and harms. As more states move to legalize medical and recreational cannabis, cancer care providers must remain aware of emerging data and develop knowledge and skills to counsel their patients about its use.

Practical Considerations for the Use of Cannabis in Cancer Pain Management—What a Medical Oncologist Should Know

Pain is a highly debilitating emotional and sensory experience that significantly affects quality of life (QoL). Numerous chronic conditions, including cancer, are associated with chronic pain. In the setting of malignancy, pain can be a consequence of the tumor itself or of life-saving interventions, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Despite significant pharmacological advances and awareness campaigns, pain remains undertreated in one-third of patients. To date, opioids have been the mainstay of cancer pain management. The problematic side effects and unsatisfactory pain relief of opioids have revived patients’ and physicians’ interest in finding new solutions, including cannabis and cannabinoids. The medical use of cannabis has been prohibited for decades, and it remains in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations. Currently, the legal context for its usage has become more permissive. Various preclinical and observational studies have aimed to prove that cannabinoids could be effective in cancer pain management. However, their clinical utility must be further supported by high-quality clinical trials.

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.

Cannabis-Based Products for Chronic Pain : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Contemporary data are needed about the utility of cannabinoids in chronic pain.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabinoids for chronic pain.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus to January 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language, randomized, placebo-controlled trials and cohort studies (≥1 month duration) of cannabinoids for chronic pain.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data abstraction, risk of bias, and strength of evidence assessments were dually reviewed. Cannabinoids were categorized by THC-to-CBD ratio (high, comparable, or low) and source (synthetic, extract or purified, or whole plant).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eighteen randomized, placebo-controlled trials (n = 1740) and 7 cohort studies (n = 13 095) assessed cannabinoids. Studies were primarily short term (1 to 6 months); 56% enrolled patients with neuropathic pain, with 3% to 89% female patients. Synthetic products with high THC-to-CBD ratios (>98% THC) may be associated with moderate improvement in pain severity and response (≥30% improvement) and an increased risk for sedation and are probably associated with a large increased risk for dizziness. Extracted products with high THC-to-CBD ratios (range, 3:1 to 47:1) may be associated with large increased risk for study withdrawal due to adverse events and dizziness. Sublingual spray with comparable THC-to-CBD ratio (1.1:1) probably is associated with small improvement in pain severity and overall function and may be associated with large increased risk for dizziness and sedation and moderate increased risk for nausea. Evidence for other products and outcomes, including longer-term harms, were not reported or were insufficient.

LIMITATION

Variation in interventions; lack of study details, including unclear availability in the United States; and inadequate evidence for some products.

CONCLUSION

Oral, synthetic cannabis products with high THC-to-CBD ratios and sublingual, extracted cannabis products with comparable THC-to-CBD ratios may be associated with short-term improvements in chronic pain and increased risk for dizziness and sedation. Studies are needed on long-term outcomes and further evaluation of product formulation effects.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (PROSPERO: CRD42021229579).

A bibliometric analysis of the cannabis and cannabinoid research literature

Background

Cannabis refers to a plant in the family Cannabaceae, which has been used medically, recreationally, and industrially. The last two decades, in particular, have seen a large increase in the volume of literature on this topic. The present bibliometric analysis aims to capture the characteristics of scholarly journal publications on the topic of cannabis and cannabinoid research.

Methods

Searches were run on the Scopus database on April 02, 2021, as follows “(TITLE (cannabi* OR hashish OR marijuana OR marihuana)) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE,"ar" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE,"re" ) )”. Results were exported on the same day to prevent discrepancies between daily database updates. Only “article” and “review” publication types were included; no further search limits were applied. The “article” publication type includes publications featuring original research, whereas “review” includes reviews and conference papers. The following data were collected: number of publications (in total and per year), authors, and journals; open access status; publications per journal; journals publishing the highest volume of literature and their impact factors, language of publication; document type; publication country; author affiliations; funding sponsors; most highly cited publications; and most highly published authors. Trends in this subset of publications were identified and presented. Bibliometric networks were constructed using the software tool VOSviewer.

Results

A total of 29 802 publications (10 214 open access), published by 65 109 authors, were published in 5474 journals from 1829 to 2021. The greatest number of publications was published over the last 20 years. The journal that published the largest number of publications was Drug and Alcohol Dependence (n = 705). The most productive countries included the USA (n = 12 420), the UK (n = 2236), and Canada (n = 2062); many of the most common institutional affiliations and funding sponsors originated from these countries.

Conclusions

The number of publications published on the topic of cannabis follows an upward trend. Over the past 20 years, the volume of cannabis research has grown steeply, which can be attributed to a large amount of funding dedicated to researching this topic. Future research should continue to investigate changes in the publication characteristics of emerging research, as the volume of publications on this topic is expected to rapidly grow.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42238-022-00133-0.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Medical Cannabis for Treating Cancer Related Symptoms in Oncology Patients

The use of medical cannabis (MC) to treat cancer-related symptoms is rising. However, there is a lack of long-term trials to assess the benefits and safety of MC treatment in this population. In this work, we followed up prospectively and longitudinally on the effectiveness and safety of MC treatment. Oncology patients reported on multiple symptoms before and after MC treatment initiation at one-, three-, and 6-month follow-ups. Oncologists reported on the patients' disease characteristics. Intention-to-treat models were used to assess changes in outcomes from baseline. MC treatment was initiated by 324 patients and 212, 158 and 126 reported at follow-ups. Most outcome measures improved significantly during MC treatment for most patients (p < 0.005). Specifically, at 6 months, total cancer symptoms burden declined from baseline by a median of 18%, from 122 (82-157) at baseline to 89 (45-138) at endpoint (-18.98; 95%CI= -26.95 to -11.00; p < 0.001). Reported adverse effects were common but mostly non-serious and remained stable during MC treatment. The results of this study suggest that MC treatment is generally safe for oncology patients and can potentially reduce the burden of associated symptoms with no serious MC-related adverse effects.

Current and Emerging Pharmacotherapeutic Interventions for the Treatment of Peripheral Nerve Disorders

Peripheral nerve disorders are caused by a range of different aetiologies. The range of causes include metabolic conditions such as diabetes, obesity and chronic kidney disease. Diabetic neuropathy may be associated with severe weakness and the loss of sensation, leading to gangrene and amputation in advanced cases. Recent studies have indicated a high prevalence of neuropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease, also known as uraemic neuropathy. Immune-mediated neuropathies including Guillain-Barré syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy may cause significant physical disability. As survival rates continue to improve in cancer, the prevalence of treatment complications, such as chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, has also increased in treated patients and survivors. Notably, peripheral neuropathy associated with these conditions may be chronic and long-lasting, drastically affecting the quality of life of affected individuals, and leading to a large socioeconomic burden. This review article explores some of the major emerging clinical and experimental therapeutic agents that have been investigated for the treatment of peripheral neuropathy due to metabolic, toxic and immune aetiologies.

Cannabinoid Receptor 1 Expression in Human Dorsal Root Ganglia and CB13-Induced Bidirectional Modulation of Sensory Neuron Activity

Cannabinoid receptors have been identified as potential targets for analgesia from studies on animal physiology and behavior, and from human clinical trials. Here, we sought to improve translational understanding of the mechanisms of cannabinoid-mediated peripheral analgesia. Human lumbar dorsal root ganglia were rapidly recovered from organ donors to perform physiological and anatomical investigations into the potential for cannabinoids to mediate analgesia at the level of the peripheral nervous system. Anatomical characterization of in situ gene expression and immunoreactivity showed that 61 and 53% of human sensory neurons express the CB1 gene and receptor, respectively. Calcium influx evoked by the algogen capsaicin was measured by Fura-2AM in dissociated human sensory neurons pre-exposed to the inflammatory mediator prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) alone or together with CB13 (1 μM), a cannabinoid agonist with limited blood–brain barrier permeability. Both a higher proportion of neurons and a greater magnitude of response to capsaicin were observed after exposure to CB13, indicating cannabinoid-mediated sensitization. In contrast, membrane properties measured by patch-clamp electrophysiology demonstrated that CB13 suppressed excitability and reduced action potential discharge in PGE2-pre-incubated sensory neurons, suggesting the suppression of sensitization. This bidirectional modulation of sensory neuron activity suggests that cannabinoids may suppress overall membrane excitability while simultaneously enhancing responsivity to TRPV1-mediated stimuli. We conclude that peripherally restricted cannabinoids may have both pro- and anti-nociceptive effects in human sensory neurons.

Treatment and diagnosis of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: An update

When peripheral neuropathy occurs due to chemotherapy treatment, it is referred to as chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Typically, symptoms are sensory rather than motor and include reduced feeling and heightened sensitivity to pressure, pain, temperature, and touch. The pathophysiology of CIPN is very complex, and it involves multiple mechanisms leading to its development which will be described specifically for each chemotherapeutic class. There are currently no approved or effective agents for CIPN prevention, and Duloxetine is the only medication that is an effective treatment against CIPN. There is an unavoidable necessity to develop preventative and treatment approaches for CIPN due to its detrimental impact on patients' lives. The purpose of this review is to examine CIPN, innovative pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapy and preventive strategies for this illness, and future perspectives for this condition and its therapies.

Cannabis, Cannabinoids and Cannabis-Based Medicines in Cancer Care

As medical cannabis becomes legal in more states, cancer patients are increasingly interested in the potential utility of the ancient botanical in their treatment regimen. Although eager to discuss cannabis use with their oncologist, patients often find that their provider reports that they do not have adequate information to be helpful. Oncologists, so dependent on evidence-based data to guide their treatment plans, are dismayed by the lack of published literature on the benefits of medical cannabis. This results largely from the significant barriers that have existed to effectively thwart the ability to conduct trials investigating the potential therapeutic efficacy of the plant. This is a narrative review aimed at clinicians, summarizing cannabis phytochemistry, trials in the areas of nausea and vomiting, appetite, pain and anticancer activity, including assessment of case reports of antitumor use, with reflective assessments of the quality and quantity of evidence. Despite preclinical evidence and social media claims, the utility of cannabis, cannabinoids or cannabis-based medicines in the treatment of cancer remains to be convincingly demonstrated. With an acceptable safety profile, cannabis and its congeners may be useful in managing symptoms related to cancer or its treatment. Further clinical trials should be conducted to evaluate whether the preclinical antitumor effects translate into benefit for cancer patients. Oncologists should familiarize themselves with the available database to be able to better advise their patients on the potential uses of this complementary botanical therapy.

Pharmacologic Management of Persistent Pain in Cancer Survivors

Improvements in screening, diagnosis and treatment of cancer has seen cancer mortality substantially diminish in the past three decades. It is estimated there are almost 20 million cancer survivors in the USA alone, but some 40% live with chronic pain after completing treatment. While a broad definition of survivorship that includes all people living with, through and beyond a cancer diagnosis—including those with active cancer—is often used, this narrative review primarily focuses on the management of pain in people who are disease-free after completing primary cancer treatment as adults. Chronic pain in this population needs a different approach to that used for people with a limited prognosis. After describing the common chronic pain syndromes caused by cancer treatment, and the pathophysiologic mechanisms involved, the pharmacologic management of entities such as post-surgical pain, chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, aromatase inhibitor musculoskeletal syndrome and checkpoint inhibitor-related pain are described. The challenges  associated with opioid prescribing in this population are given special attention. Expert guidelines on pain management in cancer survivors now recommend a combination of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic modalities, and these are also briefly covered.

Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Scoping Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and debilitating side effect of cancer treatment with no effective preventative strategy or definitive treatment. Purpose: To synthesize empiric literature from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological and nonpharmacological management of CIPN. Data Sources: Articles published between January 1, 2010, and February 28, 2021, were identified using keywords searching Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Study Selection: RCTs that recruited individuals who were post-chemotherapy and experienced persistent CIPN symptoms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Three independent reviewers screened a total of 2023 abstracts. After screening, full-text review, and quality appraisal, 22 articles were included in this review. Data related to study design, participant characteristics, interventions, controls, outcome measures, and relevant findings were extracted from full texts. Descriptive quantitative summaries were calculated and narrative analysis was performed. Results: Of the 22 studies, 4 investigated pharmacologic treatments, 2 compared acupuncture to pharmacologic treatments, and 16 studies examined nonpharmacologic treatments. Pharmacologic studies reported mixed results with evidence of participant response varying by history of chemotherapeutic agent. Acupuncture, exercise/physical therapy, and neurofeedback appear to be effective treatments for CIPN. Evidence regarding biophysical agents and cognitive-behavioral therapy is equivocal. Scrambler therapy is not supported. Limitations: Studies included in this review share several limitations, including widely variable outcome measures, small and demographically homogenous samples, and nonstandardized treatment protocols. Conclusion: This scoping review summarized the current body of high-quality RCTs investigating treatment for CIPN. The majority of studies in this review reports benefits of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, although management may require a multipronged approach and should be tailored to the individual. Clinical implications are proposed and suggestions made for future research include implementation of standardized intervention protocols, use of outcome measures representative of the spectrum of CIPN symptoms, and stratification by the chemotherapeutic agent.

Dorsal Column Stimulation and Cannabinoids in the Treatment of Chronic Nociceptive and Neuropathic Pain: a Review of the Clinical and Pre-clinical Data

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The main objective of this review is to appraise the literature on the role of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), cannabinoid therapy, as well as SCS and cannabinoid combination therapy for the management of chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain. Current research suggests that SCS reduces pain and increases functional status in carefully selected patients with minimal side effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

As cannabinoid-based medications become a topic of increasing interest in pain management, data remains limited regarding the clinical efficacy of cannabinoids for pain relief. Furthermore, from a mechanistic perspective, although various pain treatment modalities utilize overlapping pain-signaling pathways, clarifying whether cannabinoids work synergistically with SCS via shared mechanisms remains to be determined. In considering secondary outcomes, the current literature suggests cannabinoids improve quality of life, specifically sleep quality, and that SCS decreases opioid consumption, increases functional capacity, and decreases long-term healthcare costs. These findings, along with the high safety profiles of SCS and cannabinoids overall, incentivize further exploration of cannabinoids as an adjunctive therapy to SCS in the treatment of neuropathic and nociceptive pain.

Cannabis with breast cancer treatment: propitious or pernicious?

Cannabis has been used for various medicinal applications including, but not limited to, cancer: most commonly to treat chemotherapy-associated side effects. Cannabis is often used for its palliative effects in the form of purified cannabinoids, or as extracts. This study was conducted using two breast cancer cell lines and aimed to evaluate potential anti-proliferative "intra-entourage effects" between purified phytocannabinoids resembling the THC and CBD ratios of medicinal and recreational cannabis strains, as well as to investigate potential "inter-entourage effects" between the different ratios and the phytochemicals found in a Cannabis sativa extract. This study also aimed to evaluate the potential interaction between cannabinoids and chemotherapeutic agents. The data identified an intra-entourage effect present in the MCF-7 cells when treated with a recreational, but not a medicinal, cannabis formulation. This effect may be due to THC partially exerting its anti-proliferative effects through the estrogen receptor (ER), present in the MCF-7 cell line. Little to no intra-entourage effects were observed in the MDA-MB-231 cell line and no inter-entourage effects were observed in either cell line. The simultaneous treatment of the MCF-7 cell line with various cannabinoid formulations and the common breast cancer treatment, tamoxifen, resulted in the diminished anti-proliferative activity of tamoxifen, an effect that was more evident when combined with recreational cannabis formulations. Since cannabis is commonly used in palliative care to treat chemotherapy-associated side effects, further research is required to investigate the potential interference of various cannabis formulations to ensure that the efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents is not compromised.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13205-021-03102-1.

The Cannabidiol Analog PECS-101 Prevents Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathic Pain via PPARγ Receptors

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is the main dose-limiting adverse effect of chemotherapy drugs such as paclitaxel (PTX). PTX causes marked molecular and cellular damage, mainly in the peripheral nervous system, including sensory neurons in the dorsal root ganglia (DRG). Several studies have shown the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids, including cannabidiol (CBD), the major non-psychotomimetic compound found in the Cannabis plant, to treat peripheral neuropathies. Here, we investigated the efficacy of PECS-101 (former HUF-101), a CBD fluorinated analog, on PTX-induced neuropathic pain in mice. PECS-101, administered after the end of treatment with PTX, did not reverse mechanical allodynia. However, PECS-101 (1 mg/kg) administered along with PTX treatment caused a long-lasting relief of the mechanical and cold allodynia. These effects were blocked by a PPARγ, but not CB1 and CB2 receptor antagonists. Notably, the effects of PECS-101 on the relief of PTX-induced mechanical and cold allodynia were not found in macrophage-specific PPARγ-deficient mice. PECS-101 also decreased PTX-induced increase in Tnf, Il6, and Aif1 (Iba-1) gene expression in the DRGs and the loss of intra-epidermal nerve fibers. PECS-101 did not alter motor coordination, produce tolerance, or show abuse potential. In addition, PECS-101 did not interfere with the chemotherapeutic effects of PTX. Thus, PECS-101, a new fluorinated CBD analog, could represent a novel therapeutic alternative to prevent mechanical and cold allodynia induced by PTX potentially through the activation of PPARγ in macrophages.