Dataset Information

Cannabinoids in experimental stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Cannabinoids (CBs) show promise as neuroprotectants with some agents already licensed in humans for other conditions. We systematically reviewed CBs in preclinical stroke to guide further experimental protocols. We selected controlled studies assessing acute administration of CBs for experimental stroke, identified through systematic searches. Data were extracted on lesion volume, outcome and quality, and analyzed using random effect models. Results are expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In all, 144 experiments (34 publications) assessed CBs on infarct volume in 1,473 animals. Cannabinoids reduced infarct volume in transient (SMD -1.41 (95% CI -1.71), -1.11) P<0.00001) and permanent (-1.67 (-2.08, -1.27), P<0.00001) ischemia and in all subclasses: endocannabinoids (-1.72 (-2.62, -0.82), P=0.0002), CB1/CB2 ligands (-1.75 (-2.19, -1.31), P<0.00001), CB2 ligands (-1.65 (-2.09, -1.22), P<0.00001), cannabidiol (-1.20 (-1.63, -0.77), P<0.00001), ?(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (-1.43 (-2.01, -0.86), P<0.00001), and HU-211 (-2.90 (-4.24, -1.56), P<0.0001). Early and late neuroscores significantly improved with CB use (-1.27 (-1.58, -0.95), P<0.00001; -1.63 (-2.64, -0.62), P<0.002 respectively) and there was no effect on survival. Statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was present, median study quality was 4 (range 1 to 6/8). Overall, CBs significantly reduced infarct volume and improve functional outcome in experimental stroke. Further studies in aged, female and larger animals, with other co-morbidities are required.

SUBMITTER: England TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4348386 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cannabinoids in experimental stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

England Timothy J TJ Hind William H WH Rasid Nadiah A NA O'Sullivan Saoirse E SE

Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 20141210 3

Cannabinoids (CBs) show promise as neuroprotectants with some agents already licensed in humans for other conditions. We systematically reviewed CBs in preclinical stroke to guide further experimental protocols. We selected controlled studies assessing acute administration of CBs for experimental stroke, identified through systematic searches. Data were extracted on lesion volume, outcome and quality, and analyzed using random effect models. Results are expressed as standardized mean difference ...[more]

PMID: 25492113

Similar Datasets

Project description:We provide a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids in palliative medicine. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and http://clinicaltrials.gov, and a selection of cancer journals were searched up until 15th of March 2017. Of the 108 screened studies, nine studies with a total of 1561 participants were included. Overall, the nine studies were at moderate risk of bias. The quality of evidence comparing cannabinoids with placebo was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation as low or very low because of indirectness, imprecision, and potential reporting bias. In cancer patients, there were no significant differences between cannabinoids and placebo for improving caloric intake (standardized mean differences [SMD]: 0.2 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-0.66, 1.06] P = 0.65), appetite (SMD: 0.81 95% CI: [-1.14, 2.75]; P = 0.42), nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.21 [-0.10, 0.52] P = 0.19), >30% decrease in pain (risk differences [RD]: 0.07 95% CI: [-0.01, 0.16]; P = 0.07), or sleep problems (SMD: -0.09 95% CI: [-0.62, 0.43] P = 0.72). In human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients, cannabinoids were superior to placebo for weight gain (SMD: 0.57 [0.22; 0.92]; P = 0.001) and appetite (SMD: 0.57 [0.11; 1.03]; P = 0.02) but not for nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.20 [-0.15, 0.54]; P = 0.26). Regarding side effects in cancer patients, there were no differences between cannabinoids and placebo in symptoms of dizziness (RD: 0.03 [-0.02; 0.08]; P = 0.23) or poor mental health (RD: -0.01 [-0.04; 0.03]; P = 0.69), whereas in HIV patients, there was a significant increase in mental health symptoms (RD: 0.05 [0.00; 0.11]; P = 0.05). Tolerability (measured by the number of withdrawals because of adverse events) did not differ significantly in cancer (RD: 1.15 [0.80; 1.66]; P = 0.46) and HIV patients (RD: 1.87 [0.60; 5.84]; P = 0.28). Safety did not differ in cancer (RD: 1.12 [0.86; 1.46]; P = 0.39) or HIV patients (4.51 [0.54; 37.45]; P = 0.32) although there was large uncertainty about the latter reflected in the width of the CI. In one moderate quality study of 469 cancer patients with cancer-associated anorexia, megestrol was superior to cannabinoids in improving appetite, producing >10% weight gain and tolerability. In another study comparing megestrol to dronabinol in HIV patients, megestrol treatment led to higher weight gain without any differences in tolerability and safety. We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids are of value for anorexia or cachexia in cancer or HIV patients.

Project description:Background:For patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, traditional pain-relieving medications include opioids, which have shown benefits but are associated with increased risks of addiction and adverse effects. Medical cannabis has emerged as a treatment alternative for managing these patients and there has been a rise in the number of randomized clinical trials in recent years; therefore, a systematic review of the evidence was warranted. Objective:To analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Design:Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources:Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases. Eligibility criteria:English language randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Data extraction and synthesis:Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All stages were conducted independently by a team of 6 reviewers. Data were pooled through meta-analysis with different durations of treatment (2?weeks, 2?months, 6?months) and stratified by route of administration (smoked, oromucosal, oral), conditions, and type of cannabinoids. Main outcomes and measures:Patient-reported pain and adverse events (AEs). Results:Thirty-six trials (4006 participants) were included, examining smoked cannabis (4 trials), oromucosal cannabis sprays (14 trials), and oral cannabinoids (18 trials). Compared with placebo, cannabinoids showed a significant reduction in pain which was greatest with treatment duration of 2 to 8?weeks (weighted mean difference on a 0-10 pain visual analogue scale -0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.96 to -0.40, I 2?=?8%, P?<?.00001; n?=?16 trials). When stratified by route of administration, pain condition, and type of cannabinoids, oral cannabinoids had a larger reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to oromucosal and smoked formulations but the difference was not significant (P[interaction]?>?.05 in all the 3 durations of treatment); cannabinoids had a smaller reduction in pain due to multiple sclerosis compared with placebo relative to other neuropathic pain (P[interaction]?=?.05) within 2?weeks and the difference was not significant relative to pain due to rheumatic arthritis; nabilone had a greater reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to other types of cannabinoids longer than 2?weeks of treatment but the difference was not significant (P[interaction]?>?.05). Serious AEs were rare, and similar across the cannabinoid (74 out of 2176, 3.4%) and placebo groups (53 out of 1640, 3.2%). There was an increased risk of non-serious AEs with cannabinoids compared with placebo. Conclusions:There was moderate evidence to support cannabinoids in treating chronic, non-cancer pain at 2?weeks. Similar results were observed at later time points, but the confidence in effect is low. There is little evidence that cannabinoids increase the risk of experiencing serious AEs, although non-serious AEs may be common in the short-term period following use.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In 2016, the global number of individuals living with dementia was 43.8 million, representing a 117% increase from 1990-mainly due to increases in aging and population growth. Up to 90% of individuals with dementia experience neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS). However, the limitations of current treatments for NPS have drivent he search for safer pharmacotherapies-including cannabinoids. AIM:To assess the efficacy and acceptability of cannabinoids for the treatment of NPS in individuals with dementia. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Of 6,902 papers, 9 were eligible (n = 205, 44% female, 78 ± 7 years, 85% Alzheimer disease). Trials were in North America and Europe and explored tetrahydrocannabinol (n = 3), dronabinol (n = 5), or nabilone (n = 1). MEASUREMENT:Titles/abstracts were independently screened by one reviewer and reviewed by a second. Full-text screening was by two reviewers with discrepancies resolved via a third reviewer. We extracted data on the standardized mean difference (SMD) for several NPS instruments, trial completion, and adverse events. Data were pooled using random-effects models. FINDINGS:Cannabinoids led to significant improvements across NPS instruments, including the Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory (SMD = -0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.45 to -0.16), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (SMD = -0.61; CI, -1.07 to -0.15), and nocturnal actigraphy (SMD = -1.05; CI, -1.56 to -0.54h). Cannabinoids were well-tolerated, with an overall trial completion rate of 93% (193/205) and no serious treatment-related adverse events. Treatment efficacy was associated with baseline dementia severity and dose, but not dementia subtype, age, or sex. The overall study quality was rated as low. CONCLUSIONS:There is preliminary evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of cannabinoids as treatments for NPS. Population-based studies are needed to characterize their real-world effectiveness and acceptability.

Dataset Information

Cannabinoids in experimental stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Cannabinoids in experimental stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets