Systematic reviews included in this broad synthesis

loading
7 articles (7 References) Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Benefits and Harms of Plant-Based Cannabis for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review.

blocked
Journal Annals of internal medicine
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Broad synthesis 3 Broad syntheses (1 reference)

This article includes 3 Primary studies 3 Primary studies (3 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Cannabis is available from medical dispensaries for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in many states of the union, yet its efficacy in treating PTSD symptoms remains uncertain. PURPOSE: To identify ongoing studies and review existing evidence regarding the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis preparations in treating PTSD in adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and other sources from database inception to March 2017. STUDY SELECTION: English-language systematic reviews, trials, and observational studies with a control group that reported PTSD symptoms and adverse effects of plant-based cannabis use in adults with PTSD. DATA EXTRACTION: Study data extracted by 1 investigator was checked by a second reviewer; 2 reviewers independently assessed study quality, and the investigator group graded the overall strength of evidence by using standard criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two systematic reviews, 3 observational studies, and no randomized trials were found. The systematic reviews reported insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about benefits and harms. The observational studies found that compared with nonuse, cannabis did not reduce PTSD symptoms. Studies had medium and high risk of bias, and overall evidence was judged insufficient. Two randomized trials and 6 other studies examining outcomes of cannabis use in patients with PTSD are ongoing and are expected to be completed within 3 years. LIMITATION: Very scant evidence with medium to high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis preparations in patients with PTSD, but several ongoing studies may soon provide important results. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO: CRD42016033623).

Systematic review

Unclassified

Antiemetic medication for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2016
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 34 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference) 5 Broad syntheses 34 Broad syntheses (5 references)

This article includes 33 Primary studies 34 Primary studies (33 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting remain a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve quality of life by reducing nausea, vomiting, and associated clinical problems. This is an update of the original systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and adverse events of pharmacological interventions in controlling anticipatory, acute, and delayed nausea and vomiting in children and young people (aged less than 18 years) about to receive or receiving chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: Searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society of Paediatric Oncology, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, and ISI Science and Technology Proceedings Index from incept to December 16, 2014, and trial registries from their earliest records to December 2014. We examined references of systematic reviews and contacted trialists for information on further studies. We also screened the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened abstracts in order to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a pharmacological antiemetic, cannabinoid, or benzodiazepine with placebo or any alternative active intervention in children and young people (less than 18 years) with a diagnosis of cancer who were to receive chemotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted outcome and quality data from each RCT. When appropriate, we undertook meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies that examined a range of different antiemetics, used different doses and comparators, and reported a variety of outcomes. The quality and quantity of included studies limited the exploration of heterogeneity to narrative approaches only.The majority of quantitative data related to the complete control of acute vomiting (27 studies). Adverse events were reported in 29 studies and nausea outcomes in 16 studies.Two studies assessed the addition of dexamethasone to 5-HT3 antagonists for complete control of vomiting (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 3.04). Three studies compared granisetron 20 mcg/kg with 40 mcg/kg for complete control of vomiting (pooled RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). Three studies compared granisetron with ondansetron for complete control of acute nausea (pooled RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17; 2 studies), acute vomiting (pooled RR 2.26; 95% CI 2.04 to 2.51; 3 studies), delayed nausea (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; 2 studies), and delayed vomiting (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; 2 studies). No other pooled analyses were possible.Narrative synthesis suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are more effective than older antiemetic agents, even when these agents are combined with a steroid. Cannabinoids are probably effective but produce frequent side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people, and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are effective in patients who are to receive emetogenic chemotherapy, with granisetron or palonosetron possibly better than ondansetron. Adding dexamethasone improves control of vomiting, although the risk-benefit profile of adjunctive steroid remains uncertain.

Publication Thread

Andreae et al (Systematic review: Cannabis for chronic neuropathy)

This thread includes 2 references

Systematic review

Unclassified

Cannabinoids for medical use: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Journal JAMA
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 23 Broad syntheses 81 Broad syntheses (23 references) 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 81 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference)

This article includes 148 Primary studies 81 Primary studies (148 references)

Loading references information
Importance: Cannabis and cannabinoid drugs are widely used to treat disease or alleviate symptoms, but their efficacy for specific indications is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the benefits and adverse events (AEs) of cannabinoids. Data sources: Twenty-eight databases from inception to April 2015. Study selection: Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications: nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome. Data extraction and systemsis: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All review stages were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Main outcomes and measures: Patient-relevant/disease-specific outcomes, activities of daily living, quality of life, global impression of change, and AEs. RESULTS: A total of 79 trials (6462 participants) were included; 4 were judged at low risk of bias. Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials. Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response (47%vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95%CI, 1.55-9.42]; 3 trials), reduction in pain (37%vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95%CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted mean difference [WMD], −0.46 [95%CI, −0.80 to −0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, −0.36 [95%CI, −0.69 to −0.05]; 7 trials). There was an increased risk of short-term AEs with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination. Conclusions and relevance: There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Systematic review

Unclassified

Cannabinoids for epilepsy

blocked
Authors Gloss D , Vickrey B
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 7 Broad syntheses 4 Broad syntheses (7 references)

This article includes 4 Primary studies 4 Primary studies (4 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Marijuana appears to have anti-epileptic effects in animals. It is not currently known if it is effective in patients with epilepsy. Some states in the United States of America have explicitly approved its use for epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids when used as monotherapy or add-on treatment for people with epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 September 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (Ovid) (9 September 2013), ISI Web of Knowledge (9 September 2013), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (9 September 2013), and ClinicalTrials.gov (9 September 2013). In addition, we included studies we personally knew about that were not found by the searches, as well as searched the references in the identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) whether blinded or not. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the data. The primary outcome investigated was seizure freedom at one year or more, or three times the longest interseizure interval. Secondary outcomes included responder rate at six months or more, objective quality of life data, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We found four randomized trial reports that included a total of 48 patients, each of which used cannabidiol as the treatment agent. One report was an abstract and another was a letter to the editor. Anti-epileptic drugs were continued in all studies. Details of randomisation were not included in any study report. There was no investigation of whether the control and treatment participant groups were the same or different. All the reports were low quality. The four reports only answered the secondary outcome about adverse effects. None of the patients in the treatment groups suffered adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No reliable conclusions can be drawn at present regarding the efficacy of cannabinoids as a treatment for epilepsy. The dose of 200 to 300 mg daily of cannabidiol was safely administered to small numbers of patients generally for short periods of time, and so the safety of long term cannabidiol treatment cannot be reliably assessed.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Systematic review: Efficacy and safety of medical marijuana in selected neurologic disorders: Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

Journal Neurology
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 13 Broad syntheses 28 Broad syntheses (13 references)

This article includes 32 Primary studies 28 Primary studies (32 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of medical marijuana in several neurologic conditions. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of medical marijuana (1948-November 2013) to address treatment of symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), epilepsy, and movement disorders. We graded the studies according to the American Academy of Neurology classification scheme for therapeutic articles. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria; 8 were rated as Class I. CONCLUSIONS: The following were studied in patients with MS: (1) Spasticity: oral cannabis extract (OCE) is effective, and nabiximols and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are probably effective, for reducing patient-centered measures; it is possible both OCE and THC are effective for reducing both patient-centered and objective measures at 1 year. (2) Central pain or painful spasms (including spasticity-related pain, excluding neuropathic pain): OCE is effective; THC and nabiximols are probably effective. (3) Urinary dysfunction: nabiximols is probably effective for reducing bladder voids/day; THC and OCE are probably ineffective for reducing bladder complaints. (4) Tremor: THC and OCE are probably ineffective; nabiximols is possibly ineffective. (5) Other neurologic conditions: OCE is probably ineffective for treating levodopa-induced dyskinesias in patients with Parkinson disease. Oral cannabinoids are of unknown efficacy in non-chorea-related symptoms of Huntington disease, Tourette syndrome, cervical dystonia, and epilepsy. The risks and benefits of medical marijuana should be weighed carefully. Risk of serious adverse psychopathologic effects was nearly 1%. Comparative effectiveness of medical marijuana vs other therapies is unknown for these indications.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Systematic review of the literature on clinical and experimental trials on the antitumor effects of cannabinoids in gliomas.

Journal Journal of neuro-oncology
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 2 Broad syntheses 1 Broad syntheses (2 references)

This article includes 1 Primary study 1 Primary studies (1 reference)

Loading references information
To evaluate, through a systematic review of the literature, the antitumoral effects of cannabinoids on gliomas. Research included the following electronic databases: PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS and The Cochrane Collaboration Controlled Trials Register. All published studies involving the antitumoral effects (cellular and molecular mechanisms) of cannabinoids were considered for this review. The bibliography search strategy included all publications of each of these databases until December 31, 2012. From 2,260 initially identified articles, 35 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. All the studies included in this systematic review were experimental (in vivo and/or in vitro), except for one pilot clinical trial phase I/II involving humans. In all experimental studies included, cannabinoids exerted antitumoral activity in vitro and/or antitumoral evidence in vivo in several models of tumor cells and tumors. The antitumor activity included: antiproliferative effects (cell cycle arrest), decreased viability and cell death by toxicity, apoptosis, necrosis, autophagy, as well as antiangiogenic and antimigratory effects. Antitumoral evidence included: reduction in tumor size, antiangiogenic, and antimetastatic effects. Additionally, most of the studies described that the canabinnoids exercised selective antitumoral action in several distinct tumor models. Thereby, normal cells used as controls were not affected. The safety factor in the cannabinoids' administration has also been demonstrated in vivo. The various cannabinoids tested in multiple tumor models showed antitumoral effects both in vitro and in vivo. These findings indicate that cannabinoids are promising compounds for the treatment of gliomas.