-
JAMA Network Open Nov 2019Marijuana use is common and growing in the United States amid a trend toward legalization. Exposure to tobacco smoke is a well-described preventable cause of many... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Marijuana use is common and growing in the United States amid a trend toward legalization. Exposure to tobacco smoke is a well-described preventable cause of many cancers; the association of marijuana use with the development of cancer is not clear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the association of marijuana use with cancer development.
DATA SOURCES
A search of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted on June 11, 2018, and updated on April 30, 2019. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published from January 1, 1973, to April 30, 2019, and references of included studies were performed, with data analyzed from January 2 through October 4, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language studies involving adult marijuana users and reporting cancer development. The search strategy contained the following 2 concepts linked together with the AND operator: marijuana OR marihuana OR tetrahydrocannabinol OR cannabinoid OR cannabis; AND cancer OR malignancy OR carcinoma OR tumor OR neoplasm.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles; 3 reviewers independently assessed study characteristics and graded evidence strength by consensus.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Rates of cancer in marijuana users, with ever use defined as at least 1 joint-year exposure (equivalent to 1 joint per day for 1 year), compared with nonusers. Meta-analysis was conducted if there were at least 2 studies of the same design addressing the same cancer without high risk of bias when heterogeneity was low to moderate for the following 4 cancers: lung, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, oral squamous cell carcinoma, and testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT), with comparisons expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Twenty-five English-language studies (19 case-control, 5 cohort, and 1 cross-sectional) were included; few studies (n = 2) were at low risk of bias. In pooled analysis of case-control studies, ever use of marijuana was not associated with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma or oral cancer. In pooled analysis of 3 case-control studies, more than 10 years of marijuana use (joint-years not reported) was associated with TGCT (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81; P = .03; I2 = 0%) and nonseminoma TGCT (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.10-3.11; P = .04; I2 = 0%). Evaluations of ever use generally found no association with cancers, but exposure levels were low and poorly defined. Findings for lung cancer were mixed, confounded by few marijuana-only smokers, poor exposure assessment, and inadequate adjustment; meta-analysis was not performed for several outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Low-strength evidence suggests that smoking marijuana is associated with developing TGCT; its association with other cancers and the consequences of higher levels of use are unclear. Long-term studies in marijuana-only smokers would improve understanding of marijuana's association with lung, oral, and other cancers.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO identifier: CRD42018102457.
Topics: Humans; Marijuana Use; Neoplasms; Risk Factors
PubMed: 31774524
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16318 -
European Archives of Psychiatry and... Jun 2020We conducted a systematic review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews to evaluate the impact of cannabis use on the onset and course of psychoses. Following a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We conducted a systematic review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews to evaluate the impact of cannabis use on the onset and course of psychoses. Following a systematic literature search of five data bases (2005-2016) and consecutive structured evaluation, we were able to include 26 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the included publications were in the range of high and poor. The scientific literature indicates that psychotic illness arises more frequently in cannabis users compared to non-users, cannabis use is associated with a dose-dependent risk of developing psychotic illness, and cannabis users have an earlier onset of psychotic illness compared to non-users. Cannabis use was also associated with increased relapse rates, more hospitalizations and pronounced positive symptoms in psychotic patients. We make recommendations about the type of research that is required to better characterize the relationship between cannabis use and the development and outcomes of psychosis.
Topics: Humans; Marijuana Use; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 31563981
DOI: 10.1007/s00406-019-01068-z -
Schizophrenia Bulletin Sep 2016Cannabis use has been reported to induce long-lasting psychotic disorders and a dose-response relationship has been observed. We performed a systematic review of studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cannabis use has been reported to induce long-lasting psychotic disorders and a dose-response relationship has been observed. We performed a systematic review of studies that investigate the association between the degree of cannabis consumption and psychosis and a meta-analysis to quantify the magnitude of effect. Published studies were identified through search of electronic databases, supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies. Studies were considered if they provided data on cannabis consumption prior to the onset of psychosis using a dose criterion (frequency/amount used) and reported psychosis-related outcomes. We performed random effects meta-analysis of individual data points generated with a simulation method from the summary data of the original studies. From 571 references, 18 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria for the systematic review and 10 were inserted in the meta-analysis, enrolling a total of 66 816 individuals. Higher levels of cannabis use were associated with increased risk for psychosis in all the included studies. A logistic regression model gave an OR of 3.90 (95% CI 2.84 to 5.34) for the risk of schizophrenia and other psychosis-related outcomes among the heaviest cannabis users compared to the nonusers. Current evidence shows that high levels of cannabis use increase the risk of psychotic outcomes and confirms a dose-response relationship between the level of use and the risk for psychosis. Although a causal link cannot be unequivocally established, there is sufficient evidence to justify harm reduction prevention programs.
Topics: Cannabis; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Psychoses, Substance-Induced
PubMed: 26884547
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbw003 -
The British Journal of Oral &... Jun 2022The naturally occurring cannabis plant has played an established role in pain management throughout recorded history. However, in recent years, both natural and... (Review)
Review
The naturally occurring cannabis plant has played an established role in pain management throughout recorded history. However, in recent years, both natural and synthetic cannabis-based products for medicinal use (CBPM) have gained increasing worldwide attention due to growing evidence supporting their use in alleviating chronic inflammatory and neuropathic pain associated with an array of conditions. In view of these products' growing popularity in both the medical and commercial fields, we carried out a systematic review to ascertain the effects of cannabis and its synthetically derived products on orofacial pain and inflammation. The application of topical dermal cannabidiol formulation has shown positive findings such as reducing pain and improving muscle function in patients suffering from myofascial pain. Conversely, two orally-administered synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (AZD1940 and GW842166) failed to demonstrate significant analgesic effects following surgical third molar removal. There is a paucity of literature pertaining to the effects of cannabis-based products in the orofacial region; however, there is a wealth of high-quality evidence supporting their use for treating chronic nociceptive and neuropathic pain conditions in other areas. Further research is warranted to explore and substantiate the therapeutic role of CBPMs in the context of orofacial pain and inflammation. As evidence supporting their use expands, healthcare professionals should pay close attention to outcomes and changes to legislation that may impact and potentially benefit their patients.
Topics: Analgesics; Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists; Cannabis; Facial Pain; Humans; Inflammation; Neuralgia
PubMed: 35305839
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.06.005 -
BMC Psychiatry Jan 2020Medicinal cannabis has received increased research attention over recent years due to loosening global regulatory changes. Medicinal cannabis has been reported to have...
BACKGROUND
Medicinal cannabis has received increased research attention over recent years due to loosening global regulatory changes. Medicinal cannabis has been reported to have potential efficacy in reducing pain, muscle spasticity, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and intractable childhood epilepsy. Yet its potential application in the field of psychiatry is lesser known.
METHODS
The first clinically-focused systematic review on the emerging medical application of cannabis across all major psychiatric disorders was conducted. Current evidence regarding whole plant formulations and plant-derived cannabinoid isolates in mood, anxiety, sleep, psychotic disorders and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is discussed; while also detailing clinical prescription considerations (including pharmacogenomics), occupational and public health elements, and future research recommendations. The systematic review of the literature was conducted during 2019, assessing the data from all case studies and clinical trials involving medicinal cannabis or plant-derived isolates for all major psychiatric disorders (neurological conditions and pain were omitted).
RESULTS
The present evidence in the emerging field of cannabinoid therapeutics in psychiatry is nascent, and thereby it is currently premature to recommend cannabinoid-based interventions. Isolated positive studies have, however, revealed tentative support for cannabinoids (namely cannabidiol; CBD) for reducing social anxiety; with mixed (mainly positive) evidence for adjunctive use in schizophrenia. Case studies suggest that medicinal cannabis may be beneficial for improving sleep and post-traumatic stress disorder, however evidence is currently weak. Preliminary research findings indicate no benefit for depression from high delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) therapeutics, or for CBD in mania. One isolated study indicates some potential efficacy for an oral cannabinoid/terpene combination in ADHD. Clinical prescriptive consideration involves caution in the use of high-THC formulations (avoidance in youth, and in people with anxiety or psychotic disorders), gradual titration, regular assessment, and caution in cardiovascular and respiratory disorders, pregnancy and breast-feeding.
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently encouraging, albeit embryonic, evidence for medicinal cannabis in the treatment of a range of psychiatric disorders. Supportive findings are emerging for some key isolates, however, clinicians need to be mindful of a range of prescriptive and occupational safety considerations, especially if initiating higher dose THC formulas.
Topics: Adolescent; Anxiety; Cannabidiol; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Child; Humans; Medical Marijuana
PubMed: 31948424
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-019-2409-8 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Jan 2015Whilst cannabis use appears to be a causal risk factor for the development of schizophrenia-related psychosis, associations with mania remain relatively unknown. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Whilst cannabis use appears to be a causal risk factor for the development of schizophrenia-related psychosis, associations with mania remain relatively unknown. This review aimed to examine the impact of cannabis use on the incidence of manic symptoms and on their occurrence in those with pre-existing bipolar disorder.
METHODS
A systematic review of the scientific literature using the PRISMA guidelines. PsychINFO, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched for prospective studies.
RESULTS
Six articles met inclusion criteria. These sampled 2391 individuals who had experienced mania symptoms. The mean length of follow up was 3.9 years. Studies support an association between cannabis use and the exacerbation of manic symptoms in those with previously diagnosed bipolar disorder. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of two studies suggests that cannabis use is associated with an approximately 3-fold (Odds Ratio: 2.97; 95% CI: 1.80-4.90) increased risk for the new onset of manic symptoms.
LIMITATIONS
We were only able to identify a small number of studies of variable quality, thus our conclusions remain preliminary.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings whilst tentative, suggest that cannabis use may worsen the occurrence of manic symptoms in those diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and may also act as a causal risk factor in the incidence of manic symptoms. This underscores the importance of discouraging cannabis use among youth and those with bipolar disorder to help prevent chronic psychiatric morbidity. More high quality prospective studies are required to fully elucidate how cannabis use may contribute to the development of mania over time.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Bipolar Disorder; Cannabis; Humans; Marijuana Smoking; Middle Aged; Risk Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 25285897
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.09.016 -
Biological Psychiatry Apr 2016Cannabis use has been associated with impaired cognition during acute intoxication as well as in the unintoxicated state in long-term users. However, the evidence has... (Review)
Review
Cannabis use has been associated with impaired cognition during acute intoxication as well as in the unintoxicated state in long-term users. However, the evidence has been mixed and contested, and no systematic reviews of the literature on neuropsychological task-based measures of cognition have been conducted in an attempt to synthesize the findings. We systematically review the empirical research published in the past decade (from January 2004 to February 2015) on acute and chronic effects of cannabis and cannabinoids and on persistence or recovery after abstinence. We summarize the findings into the major categories of the cognitive domains investigated, considering sample characteristics and associations with various cannabis use parameters. Verbal learning and memory and attention are most consistently impaired by acute and chronic exposure to cannabis. Psychomotor function is most affected during acute intoxication, with some evidence for persistence in chronic users and after cessation of use. Impaired verbal memory, attention, and some executive functions may persist after prolonged abstinence, but persistence or recovery across all cognitive domains remains underresearched. Associations between poorer performance and a range of cannabis use parameters, including a younger age of onset, are frequently reported. Little further evidence has emerged for the development of tolerance to the acutely impairing effects of cannabis. Evidence for potential protection from harmful effects by cannabidiol continues to increase but is not definitive. In light of increasing trends toward legalization of cannabis, the knowledge gained from this body of research needs to be incorporated into strategies to minimize harm.
Topics: Attention; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Executive Function; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Marijuana Smoking; Memory; Neuropsychological Tests; Psychomotor Performance; Verbal Learning
PubMed: 26858214
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.12.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead to worsening disability, impaired activities of daily living and quality of life. Anti-spasticity medications and analgesics are of limited benefit or poorly tolerated. Cannabinoids may reduce spasticity and pain in people with MS. Demand for symptomatic treatment with cannabinoids is high. A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and harms of these drugs is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess benefit and harms of cannabinoids, including synthetic, or herbal and plant-derived cannabinoids, for reducing symptoms for adults with MS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases from inception to December 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCO host), LILACS, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial register, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines databank. We hand searched citation lists of included studies and relevant reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised parallel or cross-over trials (RCTs) evaluating any cannabinoid (including herbal Cannabis, Cannabis flowers, plant-based cannabinoids, or synthetic cannabinoids) irrespective of dose, route, frequency, or duration of use for adults with MS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool for parallel RCTs and crossover trials. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: reduction of 30% in the spasticity Numeric Rating Scale, pain relief of 50% or greater in the Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, much or very much improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (tolerability), serious adverse events (SAEs), nervous system disorders, psychiatric disorders, physical dependence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs with 3763 participants of whom 2290 received cannabinoids. Age ranged from 18 to 60 years, and between 50% and 88% participants across the studies were female. The included studies were 3 to 48 weeks long and compared nabiximols, an oromucosal spray with a plant derived equal (1:1) combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (13 studies), synthetic cannabinoids mimicking THC (7 studies), an oral THC extract of Cannabis sativa (2 studies), inhaled herbal Cannabis (1 study) against placebo. One study compared dronabinol, THC extract of Cannabis sativa and placebo, one compared inhaled herbal Cannabis, dronabinol and placebo. We identified eight ongoing studies. Critical outcomes • Spasticity: nabiximols probably increases the number of people who report an important reduction of perceived severity of spasticity compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 4.04; 5 RCTs, 1143 participants; I = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect was 216 more people (95% CI 99 more to 332 more) per 1000 reporting benefit with cannabinoids than with placebo. • Chronic neuropathic pain: we found only one small trial that measured the number of participants reporting substantial pain relief with a synthetic cannabinoid compared with placebo (OR 4.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 16.17; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cannabinoids reduce chronic neuropathic pain intensity. • Treatment discontinuation due to AEs: cannabinoids may increase slightly the number of participants who discontinue treatment compared with placebo (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.84; 21 studies, 3110 participants; I² = 17%; low-certainty evidence); the absolute effect is 39 more people (95% CI 15 more to 76 more) per 1000 people. Important outcomes • PGIC: cannabinoids probably increase the number of people who report 'very much' or 'much' improvement in health status compared with placebo (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.36; 8 studies, 1215 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect is 113 more people (95% CI 57 more to 175 more) per 1000 people reporting improvement. • HRQoL: cannabinoids may have little to no effect on HRQoL (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.02; 8 studies, 1942 participants; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • SAEs: cannabinoids may result in little to no difference in the number of participants who have SAEs compared with placebo (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.99; 20 studies, 3124 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • AEs of the nervous system: cannabinoids may increase nervous system disorders compared with placebo (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.44; 7 studies, 1154 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence); • Psychiatric disorders: cannabinoids may increase psychiatric disorders compared with placebo (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.88; 6 studies, 1122 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • Drug tolerance: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cannabinoids on drug tolerance (OR 3.07, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.95; 2 studies, 458 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with placebo, nabiximols probably reduces the severity of spasticity in the short-term in people with MS. We are uncertain about the effect on chronic neurological pain and health-related quality of life. Cannabinoids may increase slightly treatment discontinuation due to AEs, nervous system and psychiatric disorders compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on drug tolerance. The overall certainty of evidence is limited by short-term duration of the included studies.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Chronic Pain; Dronabinol; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Multiple Sclerosis; Neuralgia; Plant Extracts; Quality of Life; Young Adult
PubMed: 35510826
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013444.pub2 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Nov 2022Palliative care aims to improve the quality of life in patients with incurable illness. Medicinal cannabis (MC) has been used in the palliative care setting to address... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Palliative care aims to improve the quality of life in patients with incurable illness. Medicinal cannabis (MC) has been used in the palliative care setting to address multiple symptoms in patients.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the full scope of available literature investigating the effects and potential harms of MC on symptom management and quality of life in palliative care.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for eligible articles, published between 1960 and September 9, 2021. Quality of the evidence was assessed in accordance with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool for randomised controlled trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized trials.
RESULTS
Fifty-two studies (20 randomised; 32 non-randomised) with 4786 participants diagnosed with cancer (n = 4491), dementia (n = 43), AIDS (n = 235), spasticity (n = 16), NORSE syndrome (n = 1) were included. The quality of evidence was 'very low' or 'low' for all studies, and low for only two randomised controlled trials. Positive treatment effects (statistical significance with P < 0.05) were seen for some MC products in pain, nausea and vomiting, appetite, sleep, fatigue, chemosensory perception and paraneoplastic night sweats in patients with cancer, appetite and agitation in patients with dementia and appetite, nausea and vomiting in patients with AIDS. Meta-analysis was unable to be performed due to the wide range of cannabis products used and the heterogeneity of the study outcomes.
CONCLUSION
While positive treatment effects have been reported for some MC products in the palliative care setting, further high quality evidence is needed to support recommendations for its use in clinical practice.
Topics: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome; Analgesics; Cannabis; Dementia; Humans; Medical Marijuana; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Quality of Life; Vomiting
PubMed: 35705116
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2022.06.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Pain 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Cannabis; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Codeine; Lung Neoplasms; Medical Marijuana; Morphine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37283486
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014915.pub2