Systematic reviews including this primary study

loading
7 articles (7 References) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

A systematic review of cannabidiol dosing in clinical populations.

blocked
Journal British journal of clinical pharmacology
Year 2019
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 35 Primary studies 35 Primary studies (35 references)

Loading references information
AIMS: Cannabidiol is a cannabis-derived medicinal product with potential application in a wide-variety of contexts, however its effective dose in different disease states remains unclear. This review aimed to investigate what doses have been applied in clinical populations, in order to understand the active range of cannabidiol in a variety of medical contexts. METHODS: Publications involving administration of cannabidiol alone were collected by searching PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: A total of 1038 articles were retrieved, of which 35 studies met inclusion criteria covering 13 medical contexts. 23 studies reported a significant improvement in primary outcomes (e.g. psychotic symptoms, anxiety, seizures), with doses ranging between <1 - 50 mg/Kg/day. Plasma concentrations were not provided in any publication. Cannabidiol was reported as well tolerated and epilepsy was the most frequently studied medical condition, with all 11 studies demonstrating positive effects of cannabidiol on reducing seizure frequency or severity (average 15 mg/Kg/day within randomised controlled trials). There was no signal of positive activity of CBD in small randomised controlled trials (range n=6-62) assessing diabetes, Crohn's disease, ocular hypertension, fatty liver disease or chronic pain. However, low doses (average 2.4 mg/Kg/day) were used in these studies. CONCLUSION: This review highlights cannabidiol has a potential wide range of activity in several pathologies. Pharmacokinetic studies as well as conclusive phase III trials to elucidate effective plasma concentrations within medical contexts are severely lacking and highly encouraged.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Do cannabinoids play a role in the control of glaucoma?

blocked
Journal Medwave
Year 2018
Links LILACS

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

Loading references information
INTRODUCTION: The use of cannabinoids in diverse clinical conditions is today a subject of debate. Its use has been proposed for the control of glaucoma. However, there is controversy about its real effectiveness and safety. METHODS: 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 extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified five systematic reviews including three studies overall, all of them randomized controlled trials. We concluded that although cannabinoids could decrease intraocular pressure, the effect would be transient and associated with frequent adverse effects.

Systematic review

Unclassified

[Systematic Review of the Application of Complementary and Alternative Medicine and their Potential Therapeutic Benefits in the Treatment of Ophthalmology Patients].

blocked
Journal Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Broad synthesis 30 Broad syntheses (1 reference)

This article includes 30 Primary studies 30 Primary studies (30 references)

Loading references information
Purpose: A systematic review was carried out of the reported therapeutic effects of complementary and alternative medicine methods as supplementary or primary treatments for patients suffering from glaucoma, cataract or age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Material and Methods: For the years 1990 to 2013, the following databases were screened for reports of the application of complementary and alternative treatments: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CAMbase and AMED. Both randomised and prospective non-randomised patient trials were included in the review; results were evaluated in the following classes: "phytotherapy", "acupuncture/acupressure", "biofeedback" and "other alternative treatments". The studies were evaluated by measures of clinical effect, statistical significance (p value and/or confidence interval) and the underlying trial design. Results: 30 clinical trials were included, including 13 on glaucoma, 5 on cataract and 12 on AMD patients. These trials were based on patient numbers of 6-332, 27-157 and 6-328 patients, respectively. Phytotherapy was applied in 14 trials, including 6 on glaucoma patients (all 6 with a controlled design, and 3 of which reporting statistically significant results); 5 trials were on cataract patients (3 with a controlled design and 2 with a significant result) and 3 on AMD patients (only 1 with a controlled design, with a significant result). Acupuncture/acupressure was investigated in 9 trials, 5 on glaucoma patients (3 with a controlled design, 1 with a significant result); no acupuncture/acupressure trial was found in cataract patients, but 4 trials in AMD patients (none with a controlled design). Biofeedback was studied in 4 trials, all on AMD patients (only one with a controlled design, without statistically significant findings). Conclusion: Despite its rigorous inclusion criteria, this review identified several clinical trials on complementary and alternative medicine in ophthalmological patients. Phytotherapeutic methods gave significant results in half of the reported controlled trials, whereas there were few significant benefits with acupuncture or acupressure.

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

Systematic review of cannabis for medical use

blocked
Report Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd
Year 2014

This article is included in 10 Broad syntheses 120 Broad syntheses (10 references)

This article includes 184 Primary studies 120 Primary studies (184 references)

Loading references information

Systematic review

Unclassified

Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009

blocked
Authors Hazekamp A , Grotenhermen F
Journal Cannabinoids
Year 2010

This article is included in 7 Broad syntheses 35 Broad syntheses (7 references)

This article includes 37 Primary studies 35 Primary studies (37 references)

Loading references information
To date, a large number of controlled clinical trials have been done evaluating the therapeutic applications of cannabis and cannabis-based preparations. In 2006, an excellent review was published, discussing the clinical trials performed in the period 1975 to June 2005 [Ben Amar 2006]. The current review reports on the more recent clinical data available. A systematic search was performed in the scientific database of PubMed, focused on clinical studies that were randomized, (double) blinded, and placebo-controlled. The period screened was from July 1, 2005 up to August 1, 2009. The key words used were: cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hashish, cannabinoid(s), tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, CBD, dronabinol, Marinol, nabilone, Cannador and Sativex. For the final selection, only properly controlled clinical trials were retained. Open-label studies were excluded, except if they were a direct continuation of a study discussed here. Thirty-seven controlled studies evaluating the therapeutic effects of cannabinoids were identified. For each clinical trial, the country where the project was held, the number of patients assessed, the type of study and comparisons done, the products and the dosages used, their efficacy and their adverse effects are described. Based on the clinical results, cannabinoids present an interesting therapeutic potential mainly as analgesics in chronic neuropathic pain, appetite stimulants in debilitating diseases (cancer and AIDS), as well as in the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Adverse effects of medical cannabinoids: a systematic review

blocked
Authors Wang T , Collet JP , Shapiro S , Ware MA
Journal CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne
Year 2008
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central www.cochranelibrary.com

This article is included in 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 29 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference) 6 Broad syntheses 29 Broad syntheses (6 references)

This article includes 32 Primary studies 29 Primary studies (32 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: The therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabis-based medicines raises safety concerns for patients, clinicians, policy-makers, insurers, researchers and regulators. Although the efficacy of cannabinoids is being increasingly demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, most safety information comes from studies of recreational use. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of safety studies of medical cannabinoids published over the past 40 years to create an evidence base for cannabis-related adverse events and to facilitate future cannabis research initiatives. We critically evaluated the quality of published studies with a view to identifying ways to improve future studies. RESULTS: A total of 321 articles were eligible for evaluation. After excluding those that focused on recreational cannabis use, we included 31 studies (23 randomized controlled trials and 8 observational studies) of medical cannabis use in our analysis. In the 23 randomized controlled trials, the median duration of cannabinoid exposure was 2 weeks (range 8 hours to 12 months). A total of 4779 adverse events were reported among participants assigned to the intervention. Most (4615 [96.6%]) were not serious. Of the 164 serious adverse events, the most common was relapse of multiple sclerosis (21 events [12.8%]), vomiting (16 events [9.8%]) and urinary tract infection (15 events [9.1%]). The rate of nonserious adverse events was higher among participants assigned to medical cannabinoids than among controls (rate ratio [RR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-2.21); the rates of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between these 2 groups (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.39). Dizziness was the most commonly reported nonserious adverse event (714 events [15.5%]) among people exposed to cannabinoids. INTERPRETATION: Short-term use of existing medical cannabinoids appeared to increase the risk of nonserious adverse events. The risks associated with long-term use were poorly characterized in published clinical trials and observational studies. High-quality trials of long-term exposure are required to further characterize safety issues related to the use of medical cannabinoids.