The use of cannabinoids has been proposed as an analgesic for different painful conditions, especially for chronic pain refractory to usual treatment. However, its real efficacy and safety remains controversial. We sought to determine whether cannabinoids are an effective treatment for chronic non-cancer pain. To answer this question, we used Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We identified 37 systematic reviews including 41 studies overall, of which 32 were randomized trials relevant for the question of interest. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. We concluded it is not clear whether cannabinoids decrease pain in patients with chronic non-cancer pain because the certainty of available evidence is very low. On the other hand, they are associated with significant adverse effects.
This document reflects the evidence supporting the use of medicinal cannabis in treating chronic pain and the recommendations of the Chronic Pain Working Group
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Medical properties of Cannabis sativa have been reported for centuries for the treatment of diff ent disorders and, more recently, to manage pain. Th study aimed at reviewing major pharmacological advances of the endocannabinoid system and the potential therapeutic use of some cannabinoid compounds to manage diff ent types of pain. CONTENTS: A search was carried out in Pubmed, Scielo and Lilacs databases to identify studies and literature reviews on the pharmacology and therapeutic use of cannabinoids for pain. The following keywords were used: Cannabis sativa, tetra-hydrocannabinol, cannabidiol, sativex®, cannador®, cannabinoids, endocannabinoid, pain and neuropathic pain. Synthetic cannabinoids and Cannabis sativa extracts have shown analgesic effects in several clinical trials, suggesting their potential role for pain management, especially neuropathic pain. Synthetic cannabinoids and CS extracts have also induced anxiolytic effects when used as adjuvants to treat cancer pain, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis. However, significant adverse effects, such as euphoria, depression and sedation limit the clinical use of such cannabinoids. CONCLUSION: Further understanding of endocannabinoid system pharmacology, together with study results involving pain management with cannabinoid substances may be very useful for the development of drugs allowing a significant advance in the treatment of patients with painful syndromes, especially difficult to control. However, further studies are needed to confirm such findings and to determine the safety of such compounds.
OBJECTIVE: To offer preliminary guidance on prescribing smoked cannabis for chronic pain before the release of formal guidelines.
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: We reviewed the literature on the analgesic effectiveness of smoked cannabis and the harms of medical and recreational cannabis use. We developed recommendations on indications, contraindications, precautions, and dosing of smoked cannabis, and categorized the recommendations based on levels of evidence. Evidence is mostly level II (well conducted observational studies) and III (expert opinion).
MAIN MESSAGE: Smoked cannabis might be indicated for patients with severe neuropathic pain conditions who have not responded to adequate trials of pharmaceutical cannabinoids and standard analgesics (level II evidence). Smoked cannabis is contraindicated in patients who are 25 years of age or younger (level II evidence); who have a current, past, or strong family history of psychosis (level II evidence); who have a current or past cannabis use disorder (level III evidence); who have a current substance use disorder (level III evidence); who have cardiovascular or respiratory disease (level III evidence); or who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant (level II evidence). It should be used with caution in patients who smoke tobacco (level II evidence), who are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (level III evidence), who have anxiety or mood disorders (level II evidence), or who are taking higher doses of opioids or benzodiazepines (level III evidence). Cannabis users should be advised not to drive for at least 3 to 4 hours after smoking, for at least 6 hours after oral ingestion, and for at least 8 hours if they experience a subjective "high" (level II evidence). The maximum recommended dose is 1 inhalation 4 times per day (approximately 400 mg per day) of dried cannabis containing 9% delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (level III evidence). Physicians should avoid referring patients to "cannabinoid" clinics (level III evidence).
CONCLUSION: Future guidelines should be based on systematic review of the literature on the safety and effectiveness of smoked cannabis. Further research is needed on the effectiveness and long-term safety of smoked cannabis compared with pharmaceutical cannabinoids, opioids, and other standard analgesics.
INTRODUCTION: Osteoarthritis of the knee affects about 10% of adults aged over 60 years, with risk increased in those with obesity, and joint damage or abnormalities. Progression of disease on x rays is commonplace, but x ray changes don't correlate well with clinical symptoms.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-surgical treatments for osteoarthritis of the knee? What are the effects of surgical treatments for osteoarthritis of the knee? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to October 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS: We found 74 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, capsaicin, chondroitin, education to aid self-management, exercise and physiotherapy, glucosamine, insoles, intra-articular corticosteroids, intra-articular hyaluronan, joint bracing, knee replacement, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), opioid analgesics, osteotomy, simple analgesics, and taping.
BACKGROUND: Medications are the most frequently prescribed therapy for low back pain. A challenge in choosing pharmacologic therapy is that each class of medication is associated with a unique balance of risks and benefits. PURPOSE: To assess benefits and harms of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antidepressants, benzodiazepines, antiepileptic drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, opioid analgesics, tramadol, and systemic corticosteroids for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain). DATA SOURCES: English-language studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE (through November 2006) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2006, Issue 4). These electronic searches were supplemented by hand searching reference lists and additional citations suggested by experts. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews and randomized trials of dual therapy or monotherapy with 1 or more of the preceding medications for acute or chronic low back pain that reported pain outcomes, back-specific function, general health status, work disability, or patient satisfaction. DATA EXTRACTION: We abstracted information about study design, population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and adverse events. To grade methodological quality, we used the Oxman criteria for systematic reviews and the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for individual trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found good evidence that NSAIDs, acetaminophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain) are effective for pain relief. The magnitude of benefit was moderate (effect size of 0.5 to 0.8, improvement of 10 to 20 points on a 100-point visual analogue pain scale, or relative risk of 1.25 to 2.00 for the proportion of patients experiencing clinically significant pain relief), except in the case of tricyclic antidepressants (for which the benefit was small to moderate). We also found fair evidence that opioids, tramadol, benzodiazepines, and gabapentin (for radiculopathy) are effective for pain relief. We found good evidence that systemic corticosteroids are ineffective. Adverse events, such as sedation, varied by medication, although reliable data on serious and long-term harms are sparse. Most trials were short term (< or =4 weeks). Few data address efficacy of dual-medication therapy compared with monotherapy, or beneficial effects on functional outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Our primary source of data was systematic reviews. We included non-English-language trials only if they were included in English-language systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Medications with good evidence of short-term effectiveness for low back pain are NSAIDs, acetaminophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain). Evidence is insufficient to identify one medication as offering a clear overall net advantage because of complex tradeoffs between benefits and harms. Individual patients are likely to differ in how they weigh potential benefits, harms, and costs of various medications.
