-
Phytotherapy Research : PTR May 2018Anxiety and depression are prevalent among cancer patients, with significant negative impact. Many patients prefer herbs for symptom relief to conventional medications... (Review)
Review
Anxiety and depression are prevalent among cancer patients, with significant negative impact. Many patients prefer herbs for symptom relief to conventional medications which have limited efficacy/side effects. We identified single-herb medicines that may warrant further study in cancer patients. Our search included PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Embase, and Cochrane databases, selecting only single-herb randomized controlled trials between 1996 and 2016 in any population for data extraction, excluding herbs with known potential for interactions with cancer treatments. One hundred articles involving 38 botanicals met our criteria. Among herbs most studied (≥6 randomized controlled trials each), lavender, passionflower, and saffron produced benefits comparable to standard anxiolytics and antidepressants. Black cohosh, chamomile, and chasteberry are also promising. Anxiety or depressive symptoms were measured in all studies, but not always as primary endpoints. Overall, 45% of studies reported positive findings with fewer adverse effects compared with conventional medications. Based on available data, black cohosh, chamomile, chasteberry, lavender, passionflower, and saffron appear useful in mitigating anxiety or depression with favorable risk-benefit profiles compared to standard treatments. These may benefit cancer patients by minimizing medication load and accompanying side effects. However, well-designed larger clinical trials are needed before these herbs can be recommended and to further assess their psycho-oncologic relevance.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Combined Modality Therapy; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Herbal Medicine; Humans; Neoplasms; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Plants, Medicinal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29464801
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.6033 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Nov 2015Hiccups are familiar to everyone, but remain poorly understood. Acute hiccups can often be terminated by physical manoeuvres. In contrast, persistent and intractable... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hiccups are familiar to everyone, but remain poorly understood. Acute hiccups can often be terminated by physical manoeuvres. In contrast, persistent and intractable hiccups that continue for days or months are rare, but can be distressing and difficult to treat.
AIM
To review the management of hiccups, including a systematic review of reported efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments.
METHODS
Available articles were identified using three electronic databases in addition to hand searching of published articles. Inclusion criteria were any reports of pharmaceutical therapy of 'hiccup(s)', 'hiccough(s)' or 'singultus' in English or German.
RESULTS
Treatment of 341 patients with persistent or intractable hiccups was reported in 15 published studies. Management was most effective when directed at the underlying condition. An empirical trial of anti-reflux therapy may be appropriate. If the underlying cause is not known or not treatable, then a range of pharmacological agents may provide benefit; however, systematic review revealed no adequately powered, well-designed trials of treatment. The use of baclofen and metoclopramide are supported by small randomised, placebo-controlled trials. Observational data suggest that gabapentin and chlorpromazine are also effective. Baclofen and gabapentin are less likely than standard neuroleptic agents to cause side effects during long-term therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review revealed no high quality data on which to base treatment recommendations. Based on limited efficacy and safety data, baclofen and gabapentin may be considered as first line therapy for persistent and intractable hiccups, with metoclopramide and chlorpromazine in reserve.
Topics: Amines; Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Baclofen; Benzamides; Chlorpromazine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; GABA-B Receptor Agonists; Gabapentin; Hiccup; Humans; Metoclopramide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 26307025
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13374 -
Molecular Psychiatry Mar 2022The gabapentinoids, gabapentin, and pregabalin, target the αδ subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels. Initially licensed for pain and seizures, they have become... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The gabapentinoids, gabapentin, and pregabalin, target the αδ subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels. Initially licensed for pain and seizures, they have become widely prescribed drugs. Many of these uses are off-label for psychiatric indications, and there is increasing concern about their safety, so it is particularly important to have good evidence to justify this usage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for three of their common psychiatric uses: bipolar disorder, anxiety, and insomnia. Fifty-five double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 open-label studies were identified. For bipolar disorder, four double-blind RCTs investigating gabapentin, and no double-blind RCTs investigating pregabalin, were identified. A quantitative synthesis could not be performed due to heterogeneity in the study population, design and outcome measures. Across the anxiety spectrum, a consistent but not universal effect in favour of gabapentinoids compared to placebo was seen (standardised mean difference [SMD] ranging between -2.25 and -0.25). Notably, pregabalin (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.18) and gabapentin (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.52) were more effective than placebo in reducing preoperative anxiety. In insomnia, results were inconclusive. We conclude that there is moderate evidence of the efficacy of gabapentinoids in anxiety states, but minimal evidence in bipolar disorder and insomnia and they should be used for these disorders only with strong justification. This recommendation applies despite the attractive pharmacological and genetic rationale for targeting voltage-gated calcium channels.
Topics: Amines; Anxiety; Bipolar Disorder; Calcium Channels; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Gabapentin; Humans; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 34819636
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-021-01386-6 -
Nutrition Journal Oct 2010Over the past several decades, complementary and alternative medications have increasingly become a part of everyday treatment. With the rising cost of prescription... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Over the past several decades, complementary and alternative medications have increasingly become a part of everyday treatment. With the rising cost of prescription medications and their production of unwanted side effects, patients are exploring herbal and other natural remedies for the management and treatment of psychological conditions. Psychological disorders are one of the most frequent conditions seen by clinicians, and often require a long-term regimen of prescription medications. Approximately 6.8 million Americans suffer from generalized anxiety disorder. Many also suffer from the spectrum of behavioural and physical side effects that often accompany its treatment. It is not surprising that there is universal interest in finding effective natural anxiolytic (anti-anxiety) treatments with a lower risk of adverse effects or withdrawal.
METHODS
An electronic and manual search was performed through MEDLINE/PubMed and EBSCO. Articles were not discriminated by date of publication. Available clinical studies published in English that used human participants and examined the anxiolytic potential of dietary and herbal supplements were included. Data were extracted and compiled into tables that included the study design, sample population, intervention, control, length of treatment, outcomes, direction of evidence, and reported adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 24 studies that investigated five different CAM monotherapies and eight different combination treatments and involved 2619 participants met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. There were 21 randomized controlled trials and three open-label, uncontrolled observational studies. Most studies involved patients who had been diagnosed with either an anxiety disorder or depression (n = 1786). However, eight studies used healthy volunteers (n = 877) who had normal levels of anxiety, were undergoing surgery, tested at the upper limit of the normal range of a trait anxiety scale, had adverse premenstrual symptoms or were peri-menopausal, reported anxiety and insomnia, or had one month or more of elevated generalized anxiety. Heterogeneity and the small number of studies for each supplement or combination therapy prevented a formal meta-analysis. Of the randomized controlled trials reviewed, 71% (15 out of 21) showed a positive direction of evidence. Any reported side effects were mild to moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, it appears that nutritional and herbal supplementation is an effective method for treating anxiety and anxiety-related conditions without the risk of serious side effects. There is the possibility that any positive effects seen could be due to a placebo effect, which may have a significant psychological impact on participants with mental disorders. However, based on this systematic review, strong evidence exists for the use of herbal supplements containing extracts of passionflower or kava and combinations of L-lysine and L-arginine as treatments for anxiety symptoms and disorders. Magnesium-containing supplements and other herbal combinations may hold promise, but more research is needed before these products can be recommended to patients. St. John's wort monotherapy has insufficient evidence for use as an effective anxiolytic treatment.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Arginine; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Hypericum; Kava; Lysine; Magnesium; Passiflora; Phytotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin B 6
PubMed: 20929532
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-9-42 -
Molecular Psychiatry Jan 2023A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to treat adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the maintenance phase. This study searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and included only double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with an enrichment design: patients were stabilized on the antidepressant of interest during the open-label study and then randomized to receive the same antidepressant or placebo. The outcomes were the 6-month relapse rate (primary outcome, efficacy), all-cause discontinuation (acceptability), discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), and the incidence of individual adverse events. The risk ratio with a 95% credible interval was calculated. The meta-analysis comprised 34 studies (n = 9384, mean age = 43.80 years, and %females = 68.10%) on 20 antidepressants (agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine) and a placebo. In terms of the 6-month relapse rate, amitriptyline, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, sertraline had a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Compared to placebo, venlafaxine was associated with a lower incidence of dizziness, while desvenlafaxine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were associated with a higher incidence of nausea/vomiting. In conclusion, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had reasonable efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability in the treatment of adults with stable MDD.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adult; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Sertraline; Citalopram; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine; Fluoxetine; Paroxetine; Mirtazapine; Amitriptyline; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Fluvoxamine; Reboxetine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36253442
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01824-z -
Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford,... Feb 2016The effects of propranolol in the treatment of anxiety disorders have not been systematically evaluated previously. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
The effects of propranolol in the treatment of anxiety disorders have not been systematically evaluated previously. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, addressing the efficacy of oral propranolol versus placebo or other medication as a treatment for alleviating either state or trait anxiety in patients suffering from anxiety disorders. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies concerned panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (four studies, total n = 130), specific phobia (two studies, total n = 37), social phobia (one study, n = 16), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (one study, n = 19). Three out of four panic disorder trials qualified for pooled analyses. These meta-analyses found no statistically significant differences between the efficacy of propranolol and benzodiazepines regarding the short-term treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Also, no evidence was found for effects of propranolol on PTSD symptom severity through inhibition of memory reconsolidation. In conclusion, the quality of evidence for the efficacy of propranolol at present is insufficient to support the routine use of propranolol in the treatment of any of the anxiety disorders.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Anxiety Disorders; Humans; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 26487439
DOI: 10.1177/0269881115612236 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Jul 2019Depression is the single largest contributor to non-fatal health loss worldwide. Second-generation antidepressants are the first-line option for pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Depression is the single largest contributor to non-fatal health loss worldwide. Second-generation antidepressants are the first-line option for pharmacological management of depression. Optimising their use is crucial in reducing the burden of depression; however, debate about their dose dependency and their optimal target dose is ongoing. We have aimed to summarise the currently available best evidence to inform this clinical question.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of double-blind, randomised controlled trials that examined fixed doses of five selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline), venlafaxine, or mirtazapine in the acute treatment of adults (aged 18 years or older) with major depression, identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, AMED, PSYNDEX, websites of drug licensing agencies and pharmaceutical companies, and trial registries. We imposed no language restrictions, and the search was updated until Jan 8, 2016. Doses of SSRIs were converted to fluoxetine equivalents. Trials of antidepressants for patients with depression and a serious concomitant physical illness were excluded. The main outcomes were efficacy (treatment response defined as 50% or greater reduction in depression severity), tolerability (dropouts due to adverse effects), and acceptability (dropouts for any reasons), all after a median of 8 weeks of treatment (range 4-12 weeks). We used a random-effects, dose-response meta-analysis model with flexible splines for SSRIs, venlafaxine, and mirtazapine.
FINDINGS
28 554 records were identified through our search (24 524 published and 4030 unpublished records). 561 published and 121 unpublished full-text records were assessed for eligibility, and 77 studies were included (19 364 participants; mean age 42·5 years, SD 11·0; 7156 [60·9%] of 11 749 reported were women). For SSRIs (99 treatment groups), the dose-efficacy curve showed a gradual increase up to doses between 20 mg and 40 mg fluoxetine equivalents, and a flat to decreasing trend through the higher licensed doses up to 80 mg fluoxetine equivalents. Dropouts due to adverse effects increased steeply through the examined range. The relationship between the dose and dropouts for any reason indicated optimal acceptability for the SSRIs in the lower licensed range between 20 mg and 40 mg fluoxetine equivalents. Venlafaxine (16 treatment groups) had an initially increasing dose-efficacy relationship up to around 75-150 mg, followed by a more modest increase, whereas for mirtazapine (11 treatment groups) efficacy increased up to a dose of about 30 mg and then decreased. Both venlafaxine and mirtazapine showed optimal acceptability in the lower range of their licensed dose. These results were robust to several sensitivity analyses.
INTERPRETATION
For the most commonly used second-generation antidepressants, the lower range of the licensed dose achieves the optimal balance between efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability in the acute treatment of major depression.
FUNDING
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Swiss National Science Foundation, and National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Depressive Disorder, Major; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Mirtazapine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Agents; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 31178367
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30217-2 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2022There is a growing interest in the psychiatric properties of the dissociative anaesthetic ketamine, as single doses have been shown to have fast-acting mood-enhancing... (Review)
Review
There is a growing interest in the psychiatric properties of the dissociative anaesthetic ketamine, as single doses have been shown to have fast-acting mood-enhancing and anxiolytic effects, which persist for up to a week after the main psychoactive symptoms have diminished. Therefore, ketamine poses potential beneficial effects in patients with refractory anxiety disorders, where other conventional anxiolytics have been ineffective. Ketamine is a noncompetitive antagonist of the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptor, which underlies its induction of pain relief and anaesthesia. However, the role of NMDA receptors in anxiety reduction is still relatively unknown. To fill this paucity in the literature, this systematic review assesses the evidence that ketamine significantly reduces refractory anxiety and discusses to what extent this may be mediated by NMDA receptor antagonism and other receptors. We highlight the temporary nature of the anxiolytic effects and discuss the high discrepancy among the study designs regarding many fundamental factors such as administration routes, complementary treatments and other treatments.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Humans; Ketamine; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 35510346
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15374 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Dec 2022Preemptive analgesia may improve postoperative pain management, but the optimal regimen is unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects and adverse events of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Preemptive analgesia may improve postoperative pain management, but the optimal regimen is unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects and adverse events of preemptive analgesia on postoperative pain and opioid consumption.
METHODS
In this network meta-analysis, 19 preemptive analgesia regimens were compared. Two authors independently searched databases, selected studies, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were the intensity of postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included the time to first analgesia rescue and incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting (PONV).
RESULTS
In total, 188 studies were included (13 769 subjects). Ten of 19 regimens reduced postoperative pain intensity compared with placebo, with mean differences 100-point scale ranging from -4.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.61 to -0.96.) for gabapentin at 48 h to -21.99 (95% CI: -36.97 to -7.02) for lornoxicam at 6 h. Eight regimens reduced opioid consumption compared with placebo, with mean differences ranging from -0.48 mg (95% CI: -0.89 to -0.08) i.v. milligrams of morphine equivalents (IMME) for acetaminophen at 12 h to -2.27 IMME (95% CI: -3.07 to -1.46) for ibuprofen at 24 h. Five regimens delayed rescue analgesia from 1.75 (95% CI: 0.59-2.91) h for gabapentin to 7.35 (95% CI: 3.66-11.04) h for epidural analgesia. Five regimens had a lower incidence of PONV compared with placebo, ranging from an odds ratio of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.42) for ibuprofen to 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40-0.87) for pregabalin.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of preemptive analgesia reduces postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea or vomiting, and delays rescue analgesia.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO CRD42021232593.
Topics: Humans; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Gabapentin; Ibuprofen; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 36404458
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.08.038 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Estimates of the population prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic components range... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Estimates of the population prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic components range between 6% and 10%. Current pharmacological treatment options for neuropathic pain afford substantial benefit for only a few people, often with adverse effects that outweigh the benefits. There is a need to explore other treatment options, with different mechanisms of action for treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain. Herbal cannabis is currently strongly promoted by some patients and their advocates to treat any type of chronic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabis-based medicines (herbal, plant-derived, synthetic) compared to placebo or conventional drugs for conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries for published and ongoing trials, and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised, double-blind controlled trials of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults, with a treatment duration of at least two weeks and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data of study characteristics and outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for pain relief of 30% and 50% or greater, patient's global impression to be much or very much improved, dropout rates due to lack of efficacy, and the standardised mean differences for pain intensity, sleep problems, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and psychological distress. For tolerability, we calculated number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for withdrawal due to adverse events and specific adverse events, nervous system disorders and psychiatric disorders. For safety, we calculated NNTH for serious adverse events. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies with 1750 participants. The studies were 2 to 26 weeks long and compared an oromucosal spray with a plant-derived combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (10 studies), a synthetic cannabinoid mimicking THC (nabilone) (two studies), inhaled herbal cannabis (two studies) and plant-derived THC (dronabinol) (two studies) against placebo (15 studies) and an analgesic (dihydrocodeine) (one study). We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study quality. We defined studies with zero to two unclear or high risks of bias judgements to be high-quality studies, with three to five unclear or high risks of bias to be moderate-quality studies, and with six to eight unclear or high risks of bias to be low-quality studies. Study quality was low in two studies, moderate in 12 studies and high in two studies. Nine studies were at high risk of bias for study size. We rated the quality of the evidence according to GRADE as very low to moderate.Primary outcomesCannabis-based medicines may increase the number of people achieving 50% or greater pain relief compared with placebo (21% versus 17%; risk difference (RD) 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.09); NNTB 20 (95% CI 11 to 100); 1001 participants, eight studies, low-quality evidence). We rated the evidence for improvement in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with cannabis to be of very low quality (26% versus 21%;RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.17); NNTB 11 (95% CI 6 to 100); 1092 participants, six studies). More participants withdrew from the studies due to adverse events with cannabis-based medicines (10% of participants) than with placebo (5% of participants) (RD 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.07); NNTH 25 (95% CI 16 to 50); 1848 participants, 13 studies, moderate-quality evidence). We did not have enough evidence to determine if cannabis-based medicines increase the frequency of serious adverse events compared with placebo (RD 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.03); 1876 participants, 13 studies, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesCannabis-based medicines probably increase the number of people achieving pain relief of 30% or greater compared with placebo (39% versus 33%; RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.15); NNTB 11 (95% CI 7 to 33); 1586 participants, 10 studies, moderate quality evidence). Cannabis-based medicines may increase nervous system adverse events compared with placebo (61% versus 29%; RD 0.38 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.58); NNTH 3 (95% CI 2 to 6); 1304 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence). Psychiatric disorders occurred in 17% of participants using cannabis-based medicines and in 5% using placebo (RD 0.10 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.15); NNTH 10 (95% CI 7 to 16); 1314 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence).We found no information about long-term risks in the studies analysed.Subgroup analysesWe are uncertain whether herbal cannabis reduces mean pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Herbal cannabis and placebo did not differ in tolerability (very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The potential benefits of cannabis-based medicine (herbal cannabis, plant-derived or synthetic THC, THC/CBD oromucosal spray) in chronic neuropathic pain might be outweighed by their potential harms. The quality of evidence for pain relief outcomes reflects the exclusion of participants with a history of substance abuse and other significant comorbidities from the studies, together with their small sample sizes.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Cannabidiol; Chronic Pain; Codeine; Dronabinol; Humans; Medical Marijuana; Neuralgia; Numbers Needed To Treat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29513392
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012182.pub2