Dronabinol

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.

Author/s:

McDonah, M. S., Morasco, B. J., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Fu, R., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

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

Bethie Seay — Tue, 02 Nov 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 2, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

October 27, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

EHC036

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER250

This is a summary of the evidence available to date on cannabis and other plant-based treatments for chronic pain.

View

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.

Author/s:

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

Drug interactions with cannabinoids

John Bayhi — Mon, 02 Mar 2020 18:41:14 +0000

Date Added:

March 2, 2020

Journal/Publication:

CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne

Publisher:

Joule Inc.

Publication Date:

March 2, 2020

Issue:

Volume:

192

Pages:

E206

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

Keywords

MeSH

Cytochrome P-450 CYP1A2

cannabinoids

Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors

Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A

Tacrolimus

Trimethoprim

Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination

Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C9

Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C9 Inhibitors

CYP2C19 protein

Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19

Benzodiazepines

International Normalized Ratio

Marijuana Use

cholinergic antagonists

A nice one-page review of drug interactions with cannabinoids. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

No abstract available

Author/s:

Antoniou, T, Bodkin, J, Ho, JMW

Severe Pulmonary Disease Associated with Electronic-Cigarette–Product Use — Interim Guidance

John Bayhi — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:52:13 +0000

Date Added:

September 13, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

Publisher:

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services / Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Publication Date:

September 13, 2019

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

787-790

URL:

Severe Pulmonary Disease Associated with Electronic-Cigarette–Product Use — Interim Guidance

Type:

Public Health Announcements

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.15585/mmwr.mm6836e2

Keywords

PMID (1):

31513561

MeSH

electronic nicotine delivery systems

volatile organic compounds

Neoplasms

Lung Diseases

centers for disease control and prevention (U.S.)

The latest information from the CDC on lung disease associated with vaping. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

On September 6, 2019, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). As of August 27, 2019, 215 possible cases of severe pulmonary disease associated with the use of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) products (e.g., devices, liquids, refill pods, and cartridges) had been reported to CDC by 25 state health departments. E-cigarettes are devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid containing various chemicals, including nicotine, flavorings, and other additives (e.g., propellants, solvents, and oils). Users inhale the aerosol, including any additives, into their lungs. Aerosols produced by e-cigarettes can contain harmful or potentially harmful substances, including heavy metals such as lead, volatile organic compounds, ultrafine particles, cancer-causing chemicals, or other agents such as chemicals used for cleaning the device (1). E-cigarettes also can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component of cannabis, or other drugs; for example, "dabbing" involves superheating substances that contain high concentrations of THC and other plant compounds (e.g., cannabidiol) with the intent of inhaling the aerosol. E-cigarette users could potentially add other substances to the devices. This report summarizes available information and provides interim case definitions and guidance for reporting possible cases of severe pulmonary disease. The guidance in this report reflects data available as of September 6, 2019; guidance will be updated as additional information becomes available.

Author/s:

Schier, JG, Meiman, JG, Layden, J, Mikosz, CA, VanFrank, B, King, BA, Salvatore, PP, Weissman, DN, Thomas, J, Melstrom, PC, Baldwin, GT, Parker, EM, Courtney-Long, EA, Krishnasamy, VP, Pickens, CM, Evans, ME, Tsay, SV, Powell, KM, Kiernan, EA, Marynak, KL, Adjemian, J, Holton, K, Armour, BS, England, LJ, Briss, PA, Houry, D, Hacker, KA, Reagan-Steiner, S, Zaki, S, Meaney-Delman, D, CDC 2019 Lung Injury Response Group

Clinicians’ Guide to Cannabidiol and Hemp Oils

Brian Desmarais — Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:41:17 +0000

Date Added:

September 18, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Publisher:

Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research

Publication Date:

September 1, 2019

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

1840-1851

URL:

Clinicians’ Guide to Cannabidiol and Hemp Oils

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.01.003

Keywords

cannabidoil

cannabis

PMID (1):

31447137

MeSH

This is a review of what is known about cannabidiol and other hemp-related oils from the Mayo Clinic. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Cannabidiol (CBD) oils are low tetrahydrocannabinol products derived from Cannabis sativa that have become very popular over the past few years. Patients report relief for a variety of conditions, particularly pain, without the intoxicating adverse effects of medical marijuana. In June 2018, the first CBD-based drug, Epidiolex, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of rare, severe epilepsy, further putting the spotlight on CBD and hemp oils. There is a growing body of preclinical and clinical evidence to support use of CBD oils for many conditions, suggesting its potential role as another option for treating challenging chronic pain or opioid addiction. Care must be taken when directing patients toward CBD products because there is little regulation, and studies have found inaccurate labeling of CBD and tetrahydrocannabinol quantities. This article provides an overview of the scientific work on cannabinoids, CBD, and hemp oil and the distinction between marijuana, hemp, and the different components of CBD and hemp oil products. We summarize the current legal status of CBD and hemp oils in the United States and provide a guide to identifying higher-quality products so that clinicians can advise their patients on the safest and most evidence-based formulations. This review is based on a PubMed search using the terms CBD, cannabidiol, hemp oil, and medical marijuana. Articles were screened for relevance, and those with the most up-to-date information were selected for inclusion.

Author/s:

VanDolah H.J., Bauer, B.A., Mauck, K.F.

Pulmonary Illness Related to E-Cigarette Use in Illinois and Wisconsin - Preliminary Report

Brian Desmarais — Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:35:44 +0000

Date Added:

September 18, 2019

Journal/Publication:

New England Journal of Medicine

Publisher:

Massachusetts Medical Society

Publication Date:

September 6, 2019

URL:

Pulmonary Illness Related to E-Cigarette Use in Illinois and Wisconsin - Preliminary Report

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1056/NEJMoa1911614

Keywords

vaping

caution

PMID (1):

31491072

MeSH

sentinel surveillance

Respiration

Artificial

Dronabinol

electronic nicotine delivery systems

Vaping

Patients should be cautioned not to vape until further information is available regarding the cause of this problem.

Free full text

View

BACKGROUND:

E-cigarettes are battery-operated devices that heat a liquid and deliver an aerosolized product to the user. Pulmonary illnesses related to e-cigarette use have been reported, but no large series has been described. In July 2019, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services and the Illinois Department of Public Health received reports of pulmonary disease associated with the use of e-cigarettes (also called vaping) and launched a coordinated public health investigation.

METHODS:

We defined case patients as persons who reported use of e-cigarette devices and related products in the 90 days before symptom onset and had pulmonary infiltrates on imaging and whose illnesses were not attributed to other causes. Medical record abstraction and case patient interviews were conducted with the use of standardized tools.

RESULTS:

There were 53 case patients, 83% of whom were male; the median age of the patients was 19 years. The majority of patients presented with respiratory symptoms (98%), gastrointestinal symptoms (81%), and constitutional symptoms (100%). All case patients had bilateral infiltrates on chest imaging (which was part of the case definition). A total of 94% of the patients were hospitalized, 32% underwent intubation and mechanical ventilation, and one death was reported. A total of 84% of the patients reported having used tetrahydrocannabinol products in e-cigarette devices, although a wide variety of products and devices was reported. Syndromic surveillance data from Illinois showed that the mean monthly rate of visits related to severe respiratory illness in June through August of 2019 was twice the rate that was observed in the same months in 2018.

CONCLUSIONS:

Case patients presented with similar clinical characteristics. Although the features of e-cigarette use that were responsible for injury have not been identified, this cluster of illnesses represents an emerging clinical syndrome or syndromes. Additional work is needed to characterize the pathophysiology and to identify the definitive causes.

Author/s:

Layden, J.E., Ghinai, I, Pray, I, Kimball, A, Layer, M, Tenforde, M, Navon, L, Hoots, B, Salvatore, PP, Elderbrook, M, Haupt, T, Kanne, J, Patel, MT, Saathoff-Huber, L, King, BA, Schier, JG, Mikosz, CA, Meiman, J