Medical Cannabinoids for Cancer Cachexia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
Cancer cachexia (CCA) is an intractable and ineffective metabolic syndrome that attacks 50-80% of cancer patients. It reduces patient's life quality, affects the efficacy of treatment, and then increases their mortality; however, there are no established therapeutic strategies for CCA in the world. In this study, we assess the positive and negative effects of cannabinoid in the treatment of CCA.Methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed up to December 2017.Results
Of the 256 screened studies, three studies with a total of 592 participants were included. Compared with placebo, cannabinoid increased the appetite (MD 0.27, 95% CI -0.51 to 1.04; n= 3) but failed to improve the overall quality of life (QOL; MD -12.39, 95% CI [-24.21 to -0.57; n = 2), and a total of 441 patients had 607 adverse events (AEs; 496 in the cannabinoid group and 111 in the placebo group).Conclusions
Our analysis showed cannabinoid is effective in increasing appetite in cancer patients. However, it declines the quality of life, which may be due to the side effects of cannabinoid.
SUBMITTER: Wang J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6612387 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Medical Cannabinoids for Cancer Cachexia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Wang Jing J Wang Yanling Y Tong Mengting M Pan Hongming H Li Da D
BioMed research international 20190623
<h4>Objectives</h4>Cancer cachexia (CCA) is an intractable and ineffective metabolic syndrome that attacks 50-80% of cancer patients. It reduces patient's life quality, affects the efficacy of treatment, and then increases their mortality; however, there are no established therapeutic strategies for CCA in the world. In this study, we assess the positive and negative effects of cannabinoid in the treatment of CCA.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CEN ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMedical cannabinoids differ in their pharmacology and may have different treatment effects. We aimed to conduct a pharmacology-based systematic review (SR) and meta-analyses of medical cannabinoids for efficacy, retention and adverse events.MethodsWe systematically reviewed (registered at PROSPERO: CRD42021229932) eight databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of dronabinol, nabilone, cannabidiol and nabiximols for chronic pain, spasticity, nausea /vomiting, appetite, ALS, irritable bowel syndrome, MS, Chorea Huntington, epilepsy, dystonia, Parkinsonism, glaucoma, ADHD, anorexia nervosa, anxiety, dementia, depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, sleeping disorders, SUD and Tourette. Main outcomes and measures included patient-relevant/disease-specific outcomes, retention and adverse events. Data were calculated as standardized mean difference (SMD) and ORs with confidence intervals (CI) via random effects. Evidence quality was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias and GRADE tools.ResultsIn total, 152 RCTs (12,123 participants) were analysed according to the type of the cannabinoid, outcome and comparator used, resulting in 84 comparisons. Significant therapeutic effects of medical cannabinoids show a large variability in the grade of evidence that depends on the type of cannabinoid. CBD has a significant therapeutic effect for epilepsy (SMD - 0.5[CI - 0.62, - 0.38] high grade) and Parkinsonism (- 0.41[CI - 0.75, - 0.08] moderate grade). There is moderate evidence for dronabinol for chronic pain (- 0.31[CI - 0.46, - 0.15]), appetite (- 0.51[CI - 0.87, - 0.15]) and Tourette (- 1.01[CI - 1.58, - 0.44]) and moderate evidence for nabiximols on chronic pain (- 0.25[- 0.37, - 0.14]), spasticity (- 0.36[CI - 0.54, - 0.19]), sleep (- 0.24[CI - 0.35, - 0.14]) and SUDs (- 0.48[CI - 0.92, - 0.04]). All other significant therapeutic effects have either low, very low, or even no grade of evidence. Cannabinoids produce different adverse events, and there is low to moderate grade of evidence for this conclusion depending on the type of cannabinoid.ConclusionsCannabinoids are effective therapeutics for several medical indications if their specific pharmacological properties are considered. We suggest that future systematic studies in the cannabinoid field should be based upon their specific pharmacology.
| S-EPMC9389720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the increased use of medical cannabinoids, the efficacy and safety of the treatment among children remain uncertain. The objective was to study the efficacy and safety of medical cannabinoids in children. The search included studies through 11-May-2020. Selection criteria included studies evaluating efficacy and safety outcomes of medical cannabinoids (tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and other cannabis derivatives) versus control in children, independently assessed by two reviewers. Eight studies were included, all of which are randomized controlled trials. Cannabidiol is associated with 50% reduction in seizures rate (Relative Risk (RR) = 1.69, 95% CI [1.20-2.36]) and caregiver global impression of change (Median Estimated difference = (- 1), 95%CI [- 1.39-(- 0.60)]) in Dravet syndrome, compared to placebo. While cannabidiol was associated with a reduction in reported seizure events (RR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.36-0.97]), no association was found in products contained also tetrahydrocannabinol (RR = 1.35, 95% CI [0.46-4.03]). Higher dose of cannabidiol was associated with decreased appetite (RR = 2.40, 95% CI [1.39-4.15]). A qualitative assessment suggests that medical cannabinoids might be associated with adverse mental events. In conclusion, cannabidiol is associated with clinical improvement in Dravet syndrome. However, cannabidiol is also associated with decreased appetite. Adverse mental events were reported as well, however, more research should be performed to assess well this outcome.
| S-EPMC8648720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFor 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.ObjectiveTo analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases.Eligibility criteriaEnglish language randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain.Data extraction and synthesisStudy 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 measuresPatient-reported pain and adverse events (AEs).ResultsThirty-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.ConclusionsThere 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.
| S-EPMC7031792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Cancer-cachexia is associated with chronic inflammation, impaired muscle metabolism and body mass loss, all of which are classical targets of physical exercise. OBJECTIVES:This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of exercise on body and muscle mass in cachectic cancer hosts. DATA SOURCES:PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, CINHAL, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched until July 2019. STUDY SELECTION:Trials had to be randomized controlled trials or controlled trials including cancer patients or animal models with cachexia-inducing tumors. Only sole exercise interventions over at least 7 days performed in a controlled environment were included. DATA EXTRACTION:Risk of bias was assessed and a random-effects model was used to pool effect sizes by standardized mean differences (SMD). RESULTS:All eligible 20 studies were performed in rodents. Studies prescribed aerobic (n = 15), strength (n = 3) or combined training (n = 2). No statistical differences were observed for body mass and muscle weight of the gastrocnemius, soleus, and tibialis muscles between the exercise and control conditions (SMD = ?0.05, 95%CI-0.64-0.55, P = 0.87). Exercise duration prior to tumor inoculation was a statistical moderator for changes in body mass under tumor presence (P = 0.04). LIMITATIONS:No human trials were identified. A large study heterogeneity was present, probably due to different exercise modalities and outcome reporting. CONCLUSION:Exercise does not seem to affect cancer-cachexia in rodents. However, the linear regression revealed that exercise duration prior to tumor inoculation led to reduced cachexia-severity, possibly strengthening the rationale for the use of exercise in cancer patients at cachexia risk.
| S-EPMC7503012 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5879974 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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), Δ(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.
| S-EPMC4348386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.InterpretationShort-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.
| S-EPMC2413308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cannabinoids, when co-administered with opioids, may enable reduced opioid doses without loss of analgesic efficacy (ie, an opioid-sparing effect). The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine the opioid-sparing potential of cannabinoids. Eligible studies included pre-clinical and clinical studies for which the outcome was either analgesia or opioid dose requirements. Clinical studies included controlled studies and case series. We searched Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, and Embase. Nineteen pre-clinical and nine clinical studies met the search criteria. Seventeen of the 19 pre-clinical studies provided evidence of synergistic effects from opioid and cannabinoid co-administration. Our meta-analysis of pre-clinical studies indicated that the median effective dose (ED50) of morphine administered in combination with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) is 3.6 times lower (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95, 6.76; n=6) than the ED50 of morphine alone. In addition, the ED50 for codeine administered in combination with delta-9-THC was 9.5 times lower (95% CI 1.6, 57.5, n=2) than the ED50 of codeine alone. One case series (n=3) provided very-low-quality evidence of a reduction in opioid requirements with cannabinoid co-administration. Larger controlled clinical studies showed some clinical benefits of cannabinoids; however, opioid dose changes were rarely reported and mixed findings were observed for analgesia. In summary, pre-clinical studies provide robust evidence of the opioid-sparing effect of cannabinoids, whereas one of the nine clinical studies identified provided very-low-quality evidence of such an effect. Prospective high-quality-controlled clinical trials are required to determine the opioid-sparing effect of cannabinoids.
| S-EPMC5520783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCancer cachexia affects more than half of all cancer patients, reducing survival rates. Evidence-based approaches are urgently needed to optimize treatment.MethodsA systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacotherapies for cancer cachexia. Three databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched for the period from January 1, 2000, to March 20, 2024. The netmeta package in R software was used to calculate the pooled effect, employing a random effects model.ResultsSeven placebo-controlled randomized trials involving 1421 patients were analyzed. Pairwise analysis showed that body weight increases were 4.6 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-8.37 kg) for olanzapine, 3.82 kg (95% CI 0.73-6.91 kg) for espindolol (20 mg), 2.36 kg (95% CI 1.84-2.89 kg) for anamorelin (100 mg), and 1.31 kg (95% CI 0.42-2.19 kg) for anamorelin (50 mg). In terms of safety profiles, olanzapine demonstrated the lowest odds ratio when compared to placebo, at 0.26 (95% CI 0.07-0.94), followed by anamorelin (50 mg) at 0.86 (95% CI 0.30-2.48), and anamorelin (100 mg) at 0.89 (95% CI 0.42-1.88). However, network meta-analysis could not confirm the superiority of olanzapine over anamorelin in terms of efficacy and safety.ConclusionBoth olanzapine and anamorelin are useful in improving body weight in patients with cancer cachexia. Personalization may be helpful for different patients.
| S-EPMC11369987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary outcome(s): Colorectal cancer incidence, Colorectal tumor incidence
| 79216 | ecrin-mdr-crc