1. Home
  2. cannabinoids

cannabinoids

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain

Author/s: 
McDonagh, M. S., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Morasco, B., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

Objectives. To evaluate the evidence on benefits and harms of cannabinoids and similar plant-based compounds to treat chronic pain.

Data sources. Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Embase®, the Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS® databases, reference lists of included studies, submissions received after Federal Register request were searched to July 2021.

Review methods. Using dual review, we screened search results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with chronic pain evaluating cannabis, kratom, and similar compounds with any comparison group and at least 1 month of treatment or followup. Dual review was used to abstract study data, assess study-level risk of bias, and rate the strength of evidence. Prioritized outcomes included pain, overall function, and adverse events. We grouped studies that assessed tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD) based on their THC to CBD ratio and categorized them as high-THC to CBD ratio, comparable THC to CBD ratio, and low-THC to CBD ratio. We also grouped studies by whether the product was a whole-plant product (cannabis), cannabinoids extracted or purified from a whole plant, or synthetic. We conducted meta-analyses using the profile likelihood random effects model and assessed between-study heterogeneity using Cochran’s Q statistic chi square and the I2 test for inconsistency. Magnitude of benefit was categorized into no effect or small, moderate, and large effects.

Results. From 2,850 abstracts, 20 RCTs (N=1,776) and 7 observational studies (N=13,095) assessing different cannabinoids were included; none of kratom. Studies were primarily short term, and 75 percent enrolled patients with a variety of neuropathic pain. Comparators were primarily placebo or usual care. The strength of evidence (SOE) was low, unless otherwise noted. Compared with placebo, comparable THC to CBD ratio oral spray was associated with a small benefit in change in pain severity (7 RCTs, N=632, 0 to10 scale, mean difference [MD] −0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.95 to −0.19, I2=28%; SOE: moderate) and overall function (6 RCTs, N=616, 0 to 10 scale, MD −0.42, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.16, I2=24%). There was no effect on study withdrawals due to adverse events. There was a large increased risk of dizziness and sedation and a moderate increased risk of nausea (dizziness: 6 RCTs, N=866, 30% vs. 8%, relative risk [RR] 3.57, 95% CI 2.42 to 5.60, I2=0%; sedation: 6 RCTs, N=866, 22% vs. 16%, RR 5.04, 95% CI 2.10 to 11.89, I2=0%; and nausea: 6 RCTs, N=866, 13% vs. 7.5%, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.78, I2=0%). Synthetic products with high-THC to CBD ratios were associated with a moderate improvement in pain severity, a moderate increase in sedation, and a large increase in nausea (pain: 6 RCTs, N=390 to 10 scale, MD −1.15, 95% CI −1.99 to −0.54, I2=39%; sedation: 3 RCTs, N=335, 19% vs. 10%, RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.63, I2=0%; nausea: 2 RCTs, N=302, 12% vs. 6%, RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.77 to 5.39; I²=0%). We found moderate SOE for a large increased risk of dizziness (2 RCTs, 32% vs. 11%, RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.47 to 6.86, I2=0%). Extracted whole-plant products with high-THC to CBD ratios (oral) were associated with a large increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events (1 RCT, 13.9% vs. 5.7%, RR 3.12, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.33) and dizziness (1 RCT, 62.2% vs. 7.5%, RR 8.34, 95% CI 4.53 to 15.34). We observed a moderate improvement in pain severity when combining all studies of high-THC to CBD ratio (8 RCTs, N=684, MD −1.25, 95% CI −2.09 to −0.71, I2=50%; SOE: moderate). Evidence on whole-plant cannabis, topical CBD, low-THC to CBD, other cannabinoids, comparisons with active products, and impact on use of opioids was insufficient to draw conclusions. Other important harms (psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive effects) were not reported.

Conclusions. Low to moderate strength evidence suggests small to moderate improvements in pain (mostly neuropathic), and moderate to large increases in common adverse events (dizziness, sedation, nausea) and study withdrawal due to adverse events with high- and comparable THC to CBD ratio extracted cannabinoids and synthetic products in short-term treatment (1 to 6 months). Evidence for whole-plant cannabis, and other comparisons, outcomes, and PBCs were unavailable or insufficient to draw conclusions. Small sample sizes, lack of evidence for moderate and long-term use and other key outcomes, such as other adverse events and impact on use of opioids during treatment, indicate that more research is needed.

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain - Quarterly Progress Report: May 2021

Author/s: 
M. S., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Morasco, B., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

This is the third quarterly progress report for an ongoing living systematic review on
cannabis and other plant-based treatments for chronic pain. The first progress report was
published in January 2021 and the second in March 2021. The draft systematic review was
available for public comment from May 19 through June 15, 2021, on the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care website. The systematic review synthesizes
evidence on the benefits and harms of plant-based compounds (PBCs), such as cannabinoids and
kratom, used to treat chronic pain, addressing concerns about severe adverse effects, abuse,
misuse, dependence, and addiction.
The purpose of this progress report is to describe the cumulative literature identified thus far.
This report will be periodically updated with new studies as they are published and identified,
culminating in an annual systematic review that provides a synthesis of the accumulated
evidence.

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain - Quarterly Progress Report: December 2020

Author/s: 
McDonagh, M. S., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Morasco, B., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

This is the first progress report for an ongoing living systematic review on plant-based
treatments for chronic pain. The systematic review will synthesize evidence on the benefits and
harms of plant-based compounds (PBCs) such as cannabinoids and kratom used to treat chronic
pain, addressing concerns about severe adverse effects, abuse, misuse, dependence, and
addiction.
The purpose of this progress report is to describe the body of literature identified thus far.
This report will be periodically updated with new studies as they are published and identified,
culminating in a systematic review that provides a synthesis of the accumulated evidence.

Safety and tolerability of natural and synthetic cannabinoids in adults aged over 50 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author/s: 
Velayudhan, Latha, McGoohan, Katie, Bhattacharyya, Sagnik

Background: Cannabinoid-based medicines (CBMs) are being used widely in the elderly. However, their safety and tolerability in older adults remains unclear. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and tolerability of CBMs in adults of age ≥50 years.

Methods and findings: A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL PsychInfo, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 January 1990 to 3 October 2020). Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of CBMs in those with mean age of ≥50 years for all indications, evaluating the safety/tolerability of CBMs where adverse events have been quantified, were included. Study quality was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Two reviewers conducted all review stages independently. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Effect sizes were calculated as incident rate ratio (IRR) for outcome data such as adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and death and risk ratio (RR) for withdrawal from study and reported separately for studies using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), THC:cannabidiol (CBD) combination, and CBD. A total of 46 RCTs were identified as suitable for inclusion of which 31 (67%) were conducted in the United Kingdom and Europe. There were 6,216 patients (mean age 58.6 ± 7.5 years; 51% male) included in the analysis, with 3,469 receiving CBMs. Compared with controls, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing CBMs significantly increased the incidence of all-cause and treatment-related AEs: THC alone (IRR: 1.42 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.78]) and (IRR: 1.60 [95% CI, 1.26 to 2.04]); THC:CBD combination (IRR: 1.58 [95% CI,1.26 to 1.98]) and (IRR: 1.70 [95% CI,1.24 to 2.33]), respectively. IRRs of SAEs and deaths were not significantly greater under CBMs containing THC with or without CBD. THC:CBD combination (RR: 1.40 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.80]) but not THC alone (RR: 1.18 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.57]) significantly increased risk of AE-related withdrawals. CBD alone did not increase the incidence of all-cause AEs (IRR: 1.02 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.16]) or other outcomes as per qualitative synthesis. AE-related withdrawals were significantly associated with THC dose in THC only [QM (df = 1) = 4.696, p = 0.03] and THC:CBD combination treatment ([QM (df = 1) = 4.554, p = 0.033]. THC-containing CBMs significantly increased incidence of dry mouth, dizziness/light-headedness, and somnolence/drowsiness. Study limitations include inability to fully exclude data from those <50 years of age in our primary analyses as well as limitations related to weaknesses in the included trials particularly incomplete reporting of outcomes and heterogeneity in included studies.

Conclusions: This pooled analysis, using data from RCTs with mean participant age ≥50 years, suggests that although THC-containing CBMs are associated with side effects, CBMs in general are safe and acceptable in older adults. However, THC:CBD combinations may be less acceptable in the dose ranges used and their tolerability may be different in adults over 65 or 75 years of age.

Keywords 
RISEOK aged opioids opioid abuse cannabinoids cannabidiol

Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Author/s: 
Page 2nd, R.L., Allen, L.A., Kloner, K.A., Rana, J.S., Piano, R.S., Morris, A.A., Martel, C.

Cannabis, or marijuana, has potential therapeutic and medicinal properties related to multiple compounds, particularly Δ-9- tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Over the past 25 years, attitudes toward cannabis have evolved rapidly, with expanding legalization of medical and recreational use at the state level in the United States and recreational use nationally in Canada and Uruguay. As a result, the consumption of cannabis products is increasing considerably, particularly among youth. Our understanding of the safety and ef cacy of cannabis has been limited by decades of worldwide illegality and continues to be limited in the United States by the ongoing classi cation of cannabis as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. These shifts in cannabis use require clinicians to understand conflicting laws, health implications, and therapeutic possibilities. Cannabis may have therapeutic bene ts, but few are cardiovascular in nature. Conversely, many of the concerning health implications of cannabis include cardiovascular diseases, although they may be mediated by mechanisms of delivery. This statement critically reviews the use of medicinal and recreational cannabis from a clinical but also a policy and public health perspective by evaluating its safety and ef cacy pro le, particularly in relationship to cardiovascular health.

Prevalence of Cannabis Withdrawal Symptoms Among People With Regular or Dependent Use of Cannabinoids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author/s: 
Bahji, A., Stephenson, C., Tyo, R., Hawken, E.R., Seitz, D.P.

IMPORTANCE: 

Cannabis withdrawal syndrome (CWS)-a diagnostic indicator of cannabis use disorder-commonly occurs on cessation of heavy and prolonged cannabis use. To date, the prevalence of CWS syndrome has not been well described, nor have the factors potentially associated with CWS.

OBJECTIVES: 

To estimate the prevalence of CWS among individuals with regular or dependent use of cannabinoids and identify factors associated with CWS.

DATA SOURCES: 

A search of literature from database inception to June 19, 2019, was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest, Allied and Complementary Medicine, and Psychiatry online, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists of included articles.

STUDY SELECTION: 

Articles were included if they (1) were published in English, (2) reported on individuals with regular use of cannabinoids or cannabis use disorder as a primary study group, (3) reported on the prevalence of CWS or CWS symptoms using a validated instrument, (4) reported the prevalence of CWS, and (5) used an observational study design (eg, cohort or cross-sectional).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 

All abstracts, full-text articles, and other sources were reviewed, with data extracted in duplicate. Cannabis withdrawal syndrome prevalence was estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis model, alongside stratification and meta-regression to characterize heterogeneity.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: 

Cannabis withdrawal syndrome prevalence was reported as a percentage with 95% CIs.

RESULTS: 

Of 3848 unique abstracts, 86 were selected for full-text review, and 47 studies, representing 23 518 participants, met all inclusion criteria. Of 23 518 participants included in the analysis, 16 839 were white (72%) and 14 387 were men (69%); median (SD) age was 29.9 (9.0) years. The overall pooled prevalence of CWS was 47% (6469 of 23 518) (95% CI, 41%-52%), with significant heterogeneity between estimates (I2 = 99.2%). When stratified by source, the prevalence of CWS was 17% (95% CI, 13%-21%) in population-based samples, 54% in outpatient samples (95% CI, 48%-59%), and 87% in inpatient samples (95% CI, 79%-94%), which were significantly different (P < .001). Concurrent cannabis (β = 0.005, P < .001), tobacco (β = 0.002, P = .02), and other substance use disorders (β = 0.003, P = .05) were associated with a higher CWS prevalence, as was daily cannabis use (β = 0.004, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: 

These findings suggest that cannabis withdrawal syndrome appears to be prevalent among regularusers of cannabis. Clinicians should be aware of the prevalence of CWS in order to counsel patients and support individuals who are reducing their use of cannabis.

Keywords 
cannabis cannabis use withdrawl predictors

Pharmacotherapy for the Treatment of Cannabis Use Disorder: A Systematic Review

Author/s: 
Kondo, K.K., Morasco, B.J., Nugent S.M., O'Neil, ME, Ayers, C.K., Freeman, M., Kansagara, D.

BACKGROUND:

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a growing concern, and evidence-based data are needed to inform treatment options.

PURPOSE:

To review the benefits and risks of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of CUD.

DATA SOURCES:

MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and clinical trial registries from inception through September 2019.

STUDY SELECTION:

Pharmacotherapy trials of adults or adolescents with CUD that targeted cannabis abstinence or reduction, treatment retention, withdrawal symptoms, and other outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION:

Data were abstracted by 1 investigator and confirmed by a second. Study quality was dually assessed, and strength of evidence (SOE) was determined by consensus according to standard criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

Across 26 trials, the evidence was largely insufficient. Low-strength evidence was found that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) do not reduce cannabis use or improve treatment retention. Low- to moderate-strength evidence was found that buspirone does not improve outcomes and that cannabinoids do not increase abstinence rates (moderate SOE), reduce cannabis use (low SOE), or increase treatment retention (low SOE). Across all drug studies, no consistent evidence of increased harm was found.

LIMITATIONS:

Few methodologically rigorous trials have been done. Existing trials are hampered by small sample sizes, high attrition rates, and heterogeneity of concurrent interventions and outcomes assessment.

CONCLUSION:

Although data on pharmacologic interventions for CUD are scarce, evidence exists that several drug classes, including cannabinoids and SSRIs, are ineffective. Because of increasing access to and use of cannabis in the general population, along with a high prevalence of CUD among current cannabis users, an urgent need exists for more research to identify effective pharmacologic treatments.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42018108064).

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

Author/s: 
Montero-Oleas, N, Arevalo-Rodriguez, I, Nunez-Gonzalez, S, Viteri-Garcia, A, Simancas-Racines, D

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Keywords 
cannabis cannabinoids therapeutic use evidence mapping medical marijuana
Subscribe to cannabinoids