Importance Cannabis and cannabinoid drugs are widely used to treat disease or alleviate symptoms, but their efficacy for specific indications is not clear. Objective To conduct a systematic review of the benefits and adverse events (AEs) of cannabinoids. Data Sources Twenty-eight databases from inception to April 2015. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications: nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome. Data Extraction and Synthesis Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All review stages were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures Patient-relevant/disease-specific outcomes, activities of daily living, quality of life, global impression of change, and AEs. Results A total of 79 trials (6462 participants) were included; 4 were judged at low risk of bias. Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials. Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response (47% vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95% CI, 1.55-9.42]; 3 trials), reduction in pain (37% vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted mean difference [WMD], −0.46 [95% CI, −0.80 to −0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, −0.12 [95% CI, −0.24 to 0.01]; 5 trials). There was an increased risk of short-term AEs with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination. Conclusions and Relevance There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.

/pdf/cannabinoids-for-medical-use-a-systematic-review-and-meta-2sf620jl57.pdf

Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background and objectives:  This second European Federation of Neurological Societies Task Force aimed at updating the existing evidence about the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain since 2005.

Methods:  Studies were identified using the Cochrane Database and Medline. Trials were classified according to the aetiological condition. All class I and II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed; lower class studies were considered only in conditions that had no top-level studies. Treatments administered using repeated or single administrations were considered, provided they are feasible in an outpatient setting.

Results:  Most large RCTs included patients with diabetic polyneuropathies and post-herpetic neuralgia, while an increasing number of smaller studies explored other conditions. Drugs generally have similar efficacy in various conditions, except in trigeminal neuralgia, chronic radiculopathy and HIV neuropathy, with level A evidence in support of tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), pregabalin, gabapentin, tramadol and opioids (in various conditions), duloxetine, venlafaxine, topical lidocaine and capsaicin patches (in restricted conditions). Combination therapy appears useful for TCA-gabapentin and gabapentin-opioids (level A).

Conclusions:  There are still too few large-scale comparative studies. For future trials, we recommend to assess comorbidities, quality of life, symptoms and signs with standardized tools and attempt to better define responder profiles to specific drug treatments.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.02999.x

EFNS guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2010 revision

Background and objectives: This second European Federation of Neurological Societies Task Force aimed at updating the existing evidence about the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain since 2005. Methods: Studies were identified using the Cochrane Database and Medline. Trials were classified according to the aetiological condition. All class I and II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed; lower class studies were considered only in conditions that had no top-level studies. Treatments administered using repeated or single administrations were considered, provided they are feasible in an outpatient setting. Results: Most large RCTs included patients with diabetic polyneuropathies and postherpetic neuralgia, while an increasing number of smaller studies explored other conditions. Drugs generally have similar e!cacy in various conditions, except in trigeminal neuralgia, chronic radiculopathy and HIV neuropathy, with level A evidence in support of tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), pregabalin, gabapentin, tramadol and opioids (in various conditions), duloxetine, venlafaxine, topical lidocaine and capsaicin patches (in restricted conditions). Combination therapy appears useful for TCAgabapentin and gabapentin-opioids (level A). Conclusions: There are still too few large-scale comparative studies. For future trials, we recommend to assess comorbidities, quality of life, symptoms and signs with standardized tools and attempt to better define responder profiles to specific drug treatments.

EFNS guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2009 revision

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on neuropathic pain treatment are accumulating, so an updated review of the available evidence is needed. Studies were identified using MEDLINE and EMBASE searches. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) and numbers needed to harm (NNH) values were used to compare the efficacy and safety of different treatments for a number of neuropathic pain conditions. One hundred and seventy-four studies were included, representing a 66% increase in published randomized, placebo-controlled trials in the last 5 years. Painful poly-neuropathy (most often due to diabetes) was examined in 69 studies, postherpetic neuralgia in 23, while peripheral nerve injury, central pain, HIV neuropathy, and trigeminal neuralgia were less often studied. Tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, the anticonvulsants gabapentin and pregabalin, and opioids are the drug classes for which there is the best evidence for a clinical relevant effect. Despite a 66% increase in published trials only a limited improvement of neuropathic pain treatment has been obtained. A large proportion of neuropathic pain patients are left with insufficient pain relief. This fact calls for other treatment options to target chronic neuropathic pain. Large-scale drug trials that aim to identify possible subgroups of patients who are likely to respond to specific drugs are needed to test the hypothesis that a mechanism-based classification may help improve treatment of the individual patients.

The evidence for pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain

Natural products: an evolving role in future drug discovery.

Cannabinoids are known to have analgesic properties. We evaluated the effect of oro-mucosal sativex, (THC: CBD), an endocannabinoid system modulator, on pain and allodynia, in 125 patients with neuropathic pain of peripheral origin in a five-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel design trial. Patients remained on their existing stable analgesia. A self-titrating regimen was used to optimise drug administration. Sixty-three patients were randomised to receive sativex and 62 placebo. The mean reduction in pain intensity scores (primary outcome measure) was greater in patients receiving sativex than placebo (mean adjusted scores -1.48 points vs. -0.52 points on a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale (p=0.004; 95% CI: -1.59, -0.32). Improvements in Neuropathic Pain Scale composite score (p=0.007), sleep NRS (p=0.001), dynamic allodynia (p=0.042), punctate allodynia (p=0.021), Pain Disability Index (p=0.003) and Patient's Global Impression of Change (p<0.001) were similarly greater on sativex vs. placebo. Sedative and gastrointestinal side effects were reported more commonly by patients on active medication. Of all participants, 18% on sativex and 3% on placebo withdrew during the study. An open-label extension study showed that the initial pain relief was maintained without dose escalation or toxicity for 52 weeks.

Peter J. Toomey

Papers

Sativex successfully treats neuropathic pain characterised by allodynia: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial