PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of an oral formulation of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (ECP002A) in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS).
METHODS: This accelerated proof-of-concept study consisted of 2 phases: a crossover challenge (dose-finding) phase and a 4-week, parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled treatment phase. Twenty-four patients with progressive MS and moderate spasticity were enrolled. During the treatment phase, biomarkers for efficacy and secondary pharmacodynamic effects were measured at baseline and after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment. Serum samples were collected to determine pharmacokinetic properties and perform population modeling. Safety and tolerability profiles were assessed based on adverse events and safety measurements.
FINDINGS: Pain was significantly reduced when measured directly after administration of ECP002A in the clinic but not when measured in a daily diary. A similar pattern was observed in subjective muscle spasticity. Other clinical outcomes were not significantly different between active treatment and placebo. Cognitive testing indicated that there was no decline in cognition after 2 or 4 weeks of treatment attributable to ECP002A compared with placebo. Implications This study specifically underlines the added value of thorough investigation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic associations in the target population. Despite the complex interplay of psychoactive effects and analgesia, the current oral formulation of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol may play a role in the treatment of spasticity and pain associated with MS because it was well tolerated and had a stable pharmacokinetic profile.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the most abundant cannabinoid from the plant Cannabis sativa. There is only equivocal evidence that THC has analgesic effects. We performed a phase 2 controlled trial to evaluate the analgesic efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of an oral tablet containing purified THC in patients with chronic abdominal pain.
METHODS: Sixty-five patients with chronic abdominal pain for 3 months or more (numeric rating scale scores of 3 or more) after surgery or because of chronic pancreatitis were randomly assigned to groups given the THC tablet or identical matching placebos for 50-52 days. Subjects in the THC group were given the tablet first in a step-up phase (3 mg 3 times daily for 5 days and then 5 mg 3 times daily for 5 days), followed by a stable dose phase (8 mg 3 times daily until days 50-52). Preceding and during the entire study period, patients were asked to continue taking their medications (including analgesics) according to prescription. Patients reported any additional pain medications in a diary. Efficacy and safety assessments were conducted preceding medication intake (day 1), after 15 days, and at 50-52 days. Plasma samples were collected on study days 1, 15, and 50-52; mean plasma concentration curves of THC and 11-OH-THC were plotted. The primary end point was pain relief, which was measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) of the mean pain (VAS mean scores) on the basis of information from patient diaries. Secondary end points included pain and quality of life (determined from patient questionnaires), pharmacokinetics, and safety.
RESULTS: At days 50-52, VAS mean scores did not differ significantly between the THC and placebo groups (F1,46 = 0.016; P = .901). Between the start and end of the study, VAS mean scores decreased by 1.6 points (40%) in the THC group compared with 1.9 points (37%) in the placebo group. No differences were observed in secondary outcomes. Oral THC was generally well-absorbed. Seven patients in the THC group stopped taking the tablets because of adverse events, compared with 2 patients in the placebo group. All (possibly) related adverse events were mild or moderate.
CONCLUSIONS: In a phase 2 study, we found no difference between a THC tablet and a placebo tablet in reducing pain measures in patients with chronic abdominal pain. THC, administered 3 times daily, was safe and well-tolerated during a 50-day to 52-day treatment period. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01562483 and NCT01551511.
Background: Opioids are critical for managing cancer pain, but may provide inadequate relief and/or unacceptable side effects in some cases. Objective: To assess the analgesic efficacy of adjunctive Sativex (Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (27 mg/mL): cannabidiol (25 mg/mL)) in advanced cancer patients with chronic pain unalleviated by optimized opioid therapy. Methods: This report describes two phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Eligible patients had advanced cancer and average pain numerical rating scale (NRS) scores ≥4 and ≤8 at baseline, despite optimized opioid therapy. In Study-1, patients were randomized to Sativex or placebo, and then self-titrated study medications over a 2-week period per effect and tolerability, followed by a 3-week treatment period. In Study-2, all patients self-titrated Sativex over a 2-week period. Patients with a ≥15% improvement from baseline in pain score were then randomized 1:1 to Sativex or placebo, followed by 5-week treatment period (randomized withdrawal design). Results: The primary efficacy endpoint (percent improvement (Study-1) and mean change (Study-2) in average daily pain NRS scores) was not met in either study. Post hoc analyses of the primary endpoints identified statistically favourable treatment effect for Sativex in US patients <65 years (median treatment difference: 8.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.00–17.95; p = 0.040) that was not observed in patients <65 years from the rest of the world (median treatment difference: 0.2; 95% CI: −5.00 to 7.74; p = 0.794). Treatment effect in favour of Sativex was observed on quality-of-life questionnaires, despite the fact that similar effects were not observed on NRS score. The safety profile of Sativex was consistent with earlier studies, and no evidence of abuse or misuse was identified. Conclusions: Sativex did not demonstrate superiority to placebo in reducing self-reported pain NRS scores in advanced cancer patients with chronic pain unalleviated by optimized opioid therapy, although further exploration of differences between United States and patients from the rest of the world is warranted.
IMPORTANCE: With rising rates of marijuana use in the general population and an increasing number of states legalizing recreational marijuana use and authorizing medical marijuana programs, there are renewed clinical and policy concerns regarding the mental health effects of cannabis use.
OBJECTIVE: To examine prospective associations between cannabis use and risk of mental health and substance use disorders in the general adult population.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative sample of US adults aged 18 years or older was interviewed 3 years apart in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (wave 1, 2001-2002; wave 2, 2004-2005). The primary analyses were limited to 34 653 respondents who were interviewed in both waves. Data analysis was conducted from March 15 to November 30, 2015.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We used multiple regression and propensity score matching to estimate the strength of independent associations between cannabis use at wave 1 and incident and prevalent psychiatric disorders at wave 2. Psychiatric disorders were measured with a structured interview (Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-DSM-IV). In both analyses, the same set of wave 1 confounders was used, including sociodemographic characteristics, family history of substance use disorder, disturbed family environment, childhood parental loss, low self-esteem, social deviance, education, recent trauma, past and present psychiatric disorders, and respondent's history of divorce.
RESULTS: In the multiple regression analysis of 34 653 respondents (14 564 male [47.9% weighted]; mean [SD] age, 45.1 [17.3] years), cannabis use in wave 1 (2001-2002), which was reported by 1279 respondents, was significantly associated with substance use disorders in wave 2 (2004-2005) (any substance use disorder: odds ratio [OR], 6.2; 95% CI, 4.1-9.4; any alcohol use disorder: OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.9-3.8; any cannabis use disorder: OR, 9.5; 95% CI, 6.4-14.1; any other drug use disorder: OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.4; and nicotine dependence: OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4), but not any mood disorder (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4) or anxiety disorder (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.1). The same general pattern of results was observed in the multiple regression analyses of wave 2 prevalent psychiatric disorders and in the propensity score-matched analysis of incident and prevalent psychiatric disorders.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Within the general population, cannabis use is associated with an increased risk for several substance use disorders. Physicians and policy makers should take these associations of cannabis use under careful consideration.
Cannabinoid hyperemesis is a relatively rare but significant adverse effect of chronic marijuana use characterized by severe, cyclic nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain and marked by compulsive hot-water bathing for temporary symptom relief. A 37-year-old African American male with no significant medical history other than the habitual abuse of marijuana was admitted for intractable nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. With the exception of abdominal skin hyperpigmentation and scarring secondary to the direct application of heat through a heating pad, physical examination of the abdomen was unremarkable. Laboratory studies revealed a mild leukocytosis and acute renal dysfunction. All diagnostic examinations were found to be unremarkable or noncontributory to the patient's presenting state. Consistent with previous admissions, the patient's urine toxicology screening was found to be positive for marijuana. After several days of aggressive IV fluid hydration and as needed antiemetics and pain management, all laboratory studies and vital signs returned to baseline and the patient was subsequently discharged. Symptoms of cannabinoid hyperemesis resolve with cannabis cessation and recur when cannabis use is reinitiated, supporting an association between chronic use and cyclic vomiting. A Naranjo algorithm score of 5 revealed a probable incidence of cyclic vomiting associated with chronic cannabis abuse in our patient. Marijuana use, both legal and illegal, is becoming more prevalent in the United States. Given the nationwide increase in marijuana use for recreational and medical reasons, pharmacists and other health care providers should be aware of this interesting drug-induced phenomenon.
UNLABELLED: Using 8-hour human laboratory experiments, we evaluated the analgesic efficacy of vaporized cannabis in patients with neuropathic pain related to injury or disease of the spinal cord, most of whom were experiencing pain despite traditional treatment. After obtaining baseline data, 42 participants underwent a standardized procedure for inhaling 4 puffs of vaporized cannabis containing either placebo, 2.9%, or 6.7% delta 9-THC on 3 separate occasions. A second dosing occurred 3 hours later; participants chose to inhale 4 to 8 puffs. This flexible dosing was used to attempt to reduce the placebo effect. Using an 11-point numerical pain intensity rating scale as the primary outcome, a mixed effects linear regression model showed a significant analgesic response for vaporized cannabis. When subjective and psychoactive side effects (eg, good drug effect, feeling high, etc) were added as covariates to the model, the reduction in pain intensity remained significant above and beyond any effect of these measures (all P < .0004). Psychoactive and subjective effects were dose-dependent. Measurement of neuropsychological performance proved challenging because of various disabilities in the population studied. Because the 2 active doses did not significantly differ from each other in terms of analgesic potency, the lower dose appears to offer the best risk-benefit ratio in patients with neuropathic pain associated with injury or disease of the spinal cord.
PERSPECTIVE: A crossover, randomized, placebo-controlled human laboratory experiment involving administration of vaporized cannabis was performed in patients with neuropathic pain related to spinal cord injury and disease. This study supports consideration of future research that would include longer duration studies over weeks to months to evaluate the efficacy of medicinal cannabis in patients with central neuropathic pain.
BACKGROUND: Cannabis extracts have a wide therapeutic potential but in many countries they have not been approved for treatment in children so far.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted an open, uncontrolled, retrospective study on the administration of dronabinol to determine the value, efficacy, and safety of cannabis-based medicines in the treatment of refractory spasticity in pediatric palliative care.
DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen children, adolescents and young adults having complex neurological conditions with spasticity (aged 1.3-26.6 years, median 12.7 years) were treated with dronabinol by our specialized pediatric palliative care team between 01.12.2010 and 30.04.2015 in a home-care setting. Therapeutic efficacy and side effects were closely monitored.
RESULTS: Drops of the 2.5% oily tetrahydrocannabinol solution (dronabinol) were administered. A promising therapeutic effect was seen, mostly due to abolishment or marked improvement of severe, treatment resistant spasticity (n = 12). In two cases the effect could not be determined, two patients did not benefit. The median duration of treatment was 181 days (range 23-1429 days). Dosages to obtain a therapeutic effect varied from 0.08 to 1.0 mg/kg/d with a median of 0.33 mg/kg/d in patients with a documented therapeutic effect. When administered as an escalating dosage scheme, side effects were rare and only consisted in vomiting and restlessness (one patient each). No serious and enduring side effects occurred even in young children and/or over a longer period of time.
CONCLUSIONS: In the majority of pediatric palliative patients the treatment with dronabinol showed promising effects in treatment resistant spasticity.
Un estudio aleatorizado, doble ciego, controlado con placebo estudio cruzado se llevó a cabo en 16 pacientes con neuropatía periférica diabética dolorosa para evaluar la eficacia y la tolerabilidad de cannabis inhalado a corto plazo. En un diseño cruzado, cada participante fue expuesta a 4 sesiones de dosificación individuales de placebo o baja (1% tetrahidrocannabinol [THC]), medio (4% THC), o alto (7% de THC) dosis de cannabis. Dolor espontáneo de línea de base, evocó el dolor y las pruebas cognitivas se realizaron. Los sujetos fueron administrados cannabis en forma de aerosol o placebo y la intensidad del dolor y "alteza" subjetiva puntaje se midió a los 5, 15, 30, 45 y 60 minutos y luego cada 30 minutos durante 3 horas. Las pruebas cognitivas se realizó a los 5 y 30 minutos y luego cada 30 minutos durante 3 horas. El análisis primario comparó las diferencias en el dolor espontáneo en el tiempo entre las dosis utilizando modelos de efectos mixtos lineales. Hubo una diferencia significativa en las puntuaciones de dolor espontáneo entre las dosis (P <0,001). Comparaciones específicas significativos fueron placebo frente baja, media, y las dosis altas (P = 0,031, 0,04 y <0,001, respectivamente) y alta frente a dosis bajas y medias (ambos p <0,001). No hubo un efecto significativo de la dosis alta en el cepillo de espuma y von Frey evocó el dolor (ambos p <0,001). Hubo un efecto significativo negativo (rendimiento deteriorado) de la alta dosis en 2 de las 3 pruebas neuropsicológicas (a ritmo auditiva Prueba Adición de serie, Trail Making Test Parte B.
PERSPECTIVA: Este pequeño y de corta duración, controlado con placebo de cannabis inhalado demostró una reducción dependiente de la dosis en el dolor neuropatía periférica diabética en pacientes con dolor refractario al tratamiento. Esto agrega evidencia preliminar para apoyar nuevas investigaciones sobre la eficacia de los cannabinoides en el dolor neuropático.
UNLABELLED: Cannabis is widely used as a self-management strategy by patients with a wide range of symptoms and diseases including chronic non-cancer pain. The safety of cannabis use for medical purposes has not been systematically evaluated. We conducted a prospective cohort study to describe safety issues among individuals with chronic non-cancer pain. A standardized herbal cannabis product (12.5% tetrahydrocannabinol) was dispensed to eligible individuals for a 1-year period; controls were individuals with chronic pain from the same clinics who were not cannabis users. The primary outcome consisted of serious adverse events and non-serious adverse events. Secondary safety outcomes included pulmonary and neurocognitive function and standard hematology, biochemistry, renal, liver, and endocrine function. Secondary efficacy parameters included pain and other symptoms, mood, and quality of life. Two hundred and fifteen individuals with chronic pain were recruited to the cannabis group (141 current users and 58 ex-users) and 216 controls (chronic pain but no current cannabis use) from 7 clinics across Canada. The median daily cannabis dose was 2.5 g/d. There was no difference in risk of serious adverse events (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 1.08, 95% confidence interval = .57-2.04) between groups. Medical cannabis users were at increased risk of non-serious adverse events (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 1.73, 95% confidence interval = 1.41-2.13); most were mild to moderate. There were no differences in secondary safety assessments. Quality-controlled herbal cannabis, when used by patients with experience of cannabis use as part of a monitored treatment program over 1 year, appears to have a reasonable safety profile. Longer-term monitoring for functional outcomes is needed.
STUDY REGISTRATION: The study was registered with www.controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN19449752).
PERSPECTIVE: This study evaluated the safety of cannabis use by patients with chronic pain over 1 year. The study found that there was a higher rate of adverse events among cannabis users compared with controls but not for serious adverse events at an average dose of 2.5 g herbal cannabis per day.
BACKGROUND: Cannabinoids are used by patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to alleviate their symptoms. Little is known on patient motivation, benefit, or risks of this practice. Our aim was to assess the extent and motives for Cannabis use in patients with IBD and the beneficial and adverse effects associated with self-administration of Cannabis.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with IBD (n = 313) seen in the University of Calgary from July 2008 to March 2009 completed a structured anonymous questionnaire covering motives, pattern of use, and subjective beneficial and adverse effects associated with self-administration of Cannabis. Subjects who had used Cannabis specifically for the treatment of IBD or its symptoms were compared with those who had not. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables predictive of poor IBD outcomes, specifically surgery or hospitalization for IBD.
RESULTS: Cannabis had been used by 17.6% of respondents specifically to relieve symptoms associated with their IBD, the majority by inhalational route (96.4%). Patients with IBD reported that Cannabis improved abdominal pain (83.9%), abdominal cramping (76.8%), joint pain (48.2%), and diarrhea (28.6%), although side effects were frequent. The use of Cannabis for more than 6 months at any time for IBD symptoms was a strong predictor of requiring surgery in patients with Crohn's disease (odds ratio = 5.03, 95% confidence interval = 1.45-17.46) after correcting for demographic factors, tobacco smoking status, time since IBD diagnosis, and biological use. Cannabis was not a predictor for hospitalization for IBD in the previous year.
CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use is common in patients with IBD and subjectively improved pain and diarrheal symptoms. However, Cannabis use was associated with higher risk of surgery in patients with Crohn's disease. Patients using Cannabis should be cautioned about potential harm, until clinical trials evaluate efficacy and safety.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of an oral formulation of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (ECP002A) in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS).
METHODS:
This accelerated proof-of-concept study consisted of 2 phases: a crossover challenge (dose-finding) phase and a 4-week, parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled treatment phase. Twenty-four patients with progressive MS and moderate spasticity were enrolled. During the treatment phase, biomarkers for efficacy and secondary pharmacodynamic effects were measured at baseline and after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment. Serum samples were collected to determine pharmacokinetic properties and perform population modeling. Safety and tolerability profiles were assessed based on adverse events and safety measurements.
FINDINGS:
Pain was significantly reduced when measured directly after administration of ECP002A in the clinic but not when measured in a daily diary. A similar pattern was observed in subjective muscle spasticity. Other clinical outcomes were not significantly different between active treatment and placebo. Cognitive testing indicated that there was no decline in cognition after 2 or 4 weeks of treatment attributable to ECP002A compared with placebo. Implications This study specifically underlines the added value of thorough investigation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic associations in the target population. Despite the complex interplay of psychoactive effects and analgesia, the current oral formulation of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol may play a role in the treatment of spasticity and pain associated with MS because it was well tolerated and had a stable pharmacokinetic profile.
