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.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids (phyto- and syntheto-) in the management of rheumatic diseases.
METHODS: Multiple databases, including Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL, were searched. Randomized controlled trials with outcomes of pain, sleep, quality of life, tolerability (dropouts due to adverse events), and safety (serious adverse events), with comparison of cannabinoids with any type of control, were included. Study methodology quality was evaluated with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS: In 4 short-term studies comprising 203 patients (58 with rheumatoid arthritis, 71 with fibromyalgia, and 74 with osteoarthritis [OA]), cannabinoids had a statistically significant effect on pain in 2, sleep in 2, and improved quality of life in 1, with the OA study prematurely terminated due to futility. The risk of bias was high for all 3 completed studies. Dizziness, cognitive problems, and drowsiness, as well as nausea, were reported for almost half of the patients. No serious adverse events were reported for cannabinoids during the study duration. No studies of herbal cannabis were identified.
CONCLUSION: Extremely small sample sizes, short study duration, heterogeneity of rheumatic conditions and products, and absence of studies of herbal cannabis allow for only limited conclusions for the effects of cannabinoids in rheumatic conditions. Pain relief and effect on sleep may have some potential therapeutic benefit, but with considerable mild to moderate adverse events. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend cannabinoid treatments for management of rheumatic diseases pending further study.
Publication Thread
Andreae et al(Systematic review: Cannabis for chronic neuropathy)
Marijuana use is legal in two states and additional states are considering legalization. Approximately 18 million Americans are current marijuana users. There is currently no consensus on whether marijuana use is associated with cancer risk. Our objective is to review the epidemiologic studies on this possible association. We identified 34 epidemiologic studies on upper aerodigestive tract cancers (n= 11), lung cancer (n= 6), testicular cancer (n=3), childhood cancers (n=6), all cancers (n=1), anal cancer (n = 1), penile cancer (n = 1), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 2), malignant primary gliomas (n = 1), bladder cancer (n = 1), and Kaposi sarcoma (n = 1). Studies on head and neck cancer reported increased and decreased risks, possibly because there is no association, or because risks differ by human papillomavirus status or geographic differences. The lung cancer studies largely appear not to support an association with marijuana use, possibly because of the smaller amounts of marijuana regularly smoked compared with tobacco. Three testicular cancer case-control studies reported increased risks with marijuana use [summary ORs, 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-2.23 for higher frequency and 1.50 (95% CI, 1.08-2.09) for (greater-than or equal to)10 years]. For other cancer sites, there is still insufficient data to make any conclusions. Considering that marijuana use may change due to legalization, well-designed studies on marijuana use and cancer are warranted.
Background and OBJECTIVES: In the United States, approximately 60 million Americans suffer from sleep disorders and about 22 million Americans report substance dependence or use disorders annually. Sleep disturbances are common consequences of substance use disorders and are likely found in primary care as well as in specialty practices. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of the most frequently used substances—nicotine, alcohol, opioids, cocaine, caffeine, and cannabis—have on sleep parameters measured by polysomnography (PSG) and related clinical manifestations. METHODS: We used electronic databases such as PubMED and PsycINFO to search for relevant articles. We only included studies that assessed sleep disturbances using polysomnography and reviewed the effects of these substances on six clinically relevant sleep parameters: Total sleep time, sleep onset latency, rapid‐eye movement, REM latency, wake after sleep onset, and slow wave sleep. RESULTS: Our review indicates that these substances have significant impact on sleep and that their effects differ during intoxication, withdrawal, and chronic use. Many of the substance‐induced sleep disturbances overlap with those encountered in sleep disorders, medical, and psychiatric conditions. Sleep difficulties also increase the likelihood of substance use disorder relapse, further emphasizing the need for optimizing treatment interventions in these patients. Conclusion and Scientific Significance: Our review highlights the importance of systematically screening for substance use in patients with sleep disturbances and highlights the need for further research to understand mechanisms underlying substances‐induced sleep disturbances and on effective interventions addressing these conditions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.
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)
Drug addiction is a chronically relapsing disorder characterized by the compulsive desire to use drugs and a loss of control over consumption. Cannabidiol (CBD), the second most abundant component of cannabis, is thought to modulate various neuronal circuits involved in drug addiction. The goal of this systematic review is to summarize the available preclinical and clinical data on the impact of CBD on addictive behaviors. MEDLINE and PubMed were searched for English and French language articles published before 2015. In all, 14 studies were found, 9 of which were conducted on ani-mals and the remaining 5 on humans. A limited number of preclinical studies suggest that CBD may have therapeutic properties on opioid, cocaine, and psychostimulant addiction, and some preliminary data suggest that it may be beneficial in cannabis and tobacco addiction in humans. Further studies are clearly necessary to fully evaluate the potential of CBD as an intervention for addictive disorders.
OBJECTIVES: The scientific literature presents conflicting data on a possible causal relationship between marijuana users and the development of head and neck cancer.
DESIGN: This study performed a systematic review with meta-analysis. Articles were selected from various electronic databases using keywords obtained from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). After reading by three reviewers and scoring of methodological quality, six articles (totaling nine case-control studies) were assessed with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis(®) software. The value of effect (odds ratio) was calculated, which represented the chance of developing head and neck cancer between individuals who had smoked marijuana in their lifetime in models controlled for age, gender, race, and tobacco consumption.
RESULTS: Approximately 12.6% of cases and 14.3% of controls were marijuana users. The meta-analysis found no association between exposure and disease (OR=1.021; IC 95%=0.912-1.14; p=0.718).
CONCLUSION: No association between lifetime marijuana use and the development of head and neck cancer was found. The different methods of collection/presentation of results in the selected articles prevented other analyzes from being conducted. Additional studies are needed to assess for long-term effects.
