Dataset Information

Can Medical Cannabis Therapies be Cost-Effective in the Non-Surgical Management of Chronic Knee Pain?

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Chronic knee pain is a common musculoskeletal condition, which usually leads to decreased quality of life and a substantial financial burden. Various non-surgical treatments have been developed to relieve pain, restore function and delay surgical intervention. Research on the benefits of medical cannabis (MC) is emerging supporting its use for chronic pain conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MC compared to current non-surgical therapies for chronic knee pain conditions.

Methods

We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian, single payer perspective and compared various MC therapies (oils, soft gels and dried flowers at different daily doses) to bracing, glucosamine, pharmaceutical-grade chondroitin oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids. We estimated the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with each treatment over 1 year and calculated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) using both the mean and median estimates for costs and utilities gained across the range of reported values. The final ICURs were compared to willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $66 714, $133 428 and $200 141 Canadian dollars (CAD) per QALY gained.

Results

Regardless of the estimates used (mean or median), both MC oils and soft gels at both the minimal and maximal recommended daily doses were cost-effective compared to all current knee pain therapies at the lowest WTP threshold. Dried flowers were only cost-effective up to a certain dosage (0.75 and 1 g/day based on mean and median estimates, respectively), but all dosages were cost-effective when the WTP was increased to $133 428/QALY gained.

Conclusion

Our study showed that MC may be a cost-effective strategy in the management of chronic knee pain; however, the evidence on the medical use of cannabis is limited and predominantly low-quality. Additional trials on MC are definitely needed, specifically in patients with chronic knee pain.

SUBMITTER: Vannabouathong C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7970188 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Neuropathic pain represents a broad category of pain syndromes that include a wide variety of peripheral and central disorders. The overall prevalence of neuropathic pain in the general population is reported to be between 7 and 10%. Management of neuropathic pain presents an unmet clinical need, with less than 50% of patients achieving substantial pain relief with medications currently recommended such as pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine and various tricyclic antidepressants. It has been suggested that cannabis-based medicines (CbMs) and medical cannabis (MC) may be a treatment option for those with chronic neuropathic pain. CbMs/MC are available in different forms: licensed medications or medical products (plant-derived and/or synthetic products such as tetrahydrocannabinol or cannabidiol); magistral preparations of cannabis plant derivatives with defined molecular content such as dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol); and herbal cannabis with a defined content of tetrahydrocannabinol and/or cannabidiol, together with other active ingredients (phytocannabinoids other than cannabidiol/tetrahydrocannabinol, terpenes and flavonoids). The availability of different types of CbMs/MC varies between countries worldwide. Systematic reviews of available randomised controlled trials have stated low-quality evidence for CbMs and MC for chronic neuropathic pain. Depending on the studies included in the various quantitative syntheses, authors have reached divergent conclusions on the efficacy of CbMs/MC for chronic neuropathic pain (from not effective to a clinically meaningful benefit). Clinically relevant side effects of CbMs/MC, especially for central nervous system and psychiatric disorders, have been reported by some systematic reviews. Recommendations for the use of CbMs/MC for chronic neuropathic pain by various medical associations also differ, from negative recommendations, no recommendation possible, recommended as third-line therapy, or recommended as an alternative in selected cases failing standard therapies within a multimodal concept. After reading this paper, readers are invited to formulate their own conclusions regarding the potential benefits and harms of CbMs/MC for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain.

Project description:Background and aimsResearch from cohorts of individuals with recreational cannabis use indicates that cannabis withdrawal symptoms are reported by more than 40% of those using regularly. Withdrawal symptoms are not well understood in those who use cannabis for medical purposes. Therefore, we prospectively examined the stability of withdrawal symptoms in individuals using cannabis to manage chronic pain.Design, setting, participantsUsing latent class analysis (LCA) we examined baseline cannabis withdrawal to derive symptom profiles. Then, using latent transition analysis (LTA) we examined the longitudinal course of withdrawal symptoms across the time points. Exploratory analyses examined demographic and clinical characteristics predictive of withdrawal class and transitioning to more or fewer withdrawal symptoms over time. A cohort of 527 adults with chronic pain seeking medical cannabis certification or re-certification was recruited between February 2014 and June 2015. Participants were recruited from medical cannabis clinic waiting rooms in Michigan, USA. Participants were predominantly white (82%) and 49% identified as male, with an average age of 45.6 years (standard deviation = 12.8).MeasurementsBaseline, 12-month and 24-month assessments of withdrawal symptoms using the Marijuana Withdrawal Checklist-revised.FindingsA three-class LCA model including a mild (41%), moderate (34%) and severe (25%) symptom class parsimoniously represented withdrawal symptoms experienced by people using medical cannabis. Stability of withdrawal symptoms using a three-class LTA at 12 and 24 months ranged from 0.58 to 0.87, with the most stability in the mild withdrawal class. Younger age predicted greater severity and worsening of withdrawal over time.ConclusionsAdults with chronic pain seeking medical cannabis certification or re-certification appear to experience mild to severe withdrawal symptoms. Withdrawal symptoms tend to be stable over a 2-year period, but younger age is predictive of worse symptoms and of an escalating withdrawal trajectory.

Project description:Cannabis is widely used for chronic pain. However, there is some evidence of an inverse dose-response relationship between cannabis effects and pain relief that may negatively affect analgesic outcomes. In this cross-sectional survey, we examined whether daily cannabis use frequency was associated with pain severity and interference, quality of life measures relevant to pain (eg, anxiety and depressive symptoms), and cannabis use preferences (administration routes and cannabinoid ratio). Our analysis included 989 adults who used cannabis every day for chronic pain. Participant use was designated as light, moderate, and heavy (1-2, 3-4, and 5 or more cannabis uses per day, respectively). The sample was also subgrouped by self-reported medical-only use (designated MED, n = 531, 54%) versus medical use concomitant with a past-year history of recreational use (designated MEDREC, n = 458, 46%). In the whole sample, increased frequency of use was significantly associated with worse pain intensity and interference, and worse negative affect, although high-frequency users also reported improved positive affect. Subgroup analyses showed that these effects were driven by MED participants. Heavy MED participant consumption patterns showed greater preference for smoking, vaporizing, and high tetrahydrocannabinol products. In contrast, light MED participants had greater preference for tinctures and high cannabidiol products. Selection bias, our focus on chronic pain, and our cross-sectional design likely limit the generalizability of our results. Our findings suggest that lower daily cannabis use frequency is associated with better clinical profile as well as lower risk cannabis use behaviors among MED participants. Future longitudinal studies are needed to examine how high frequency of cannabis use interacts with potential therapeutic benefits. PERSPECTIVE: Our findings suggest that lower daily cannabis use frequency is associated with better clinical profile as well as safer use behaviors (eg, preference for cannabidiol and noninhalation administration routes). These trends highlight the need for developing cannabis use guidelines for clinicians to better protect patients using cannabis.

Project description:BackgroundThe wide heterogeneity of available cannabis products makes it difficult for physicians to appropriately guide patients. In the current study, our objective was to characterize naturalistic cannabis use routines and explore associations between routines and reported benefits from consuming cannabis.MethodsWe performed a mixed methods analysis of n=1087 cross-sectional survey responses from adults with self-reported chronic pain using cannabis for symptom management in the USA and Canada. First, we qualitatively analyzed responses to an open-ended question that assessed typical cannabis use routines, including administration routes, cannabinoid content, and timing. We then sub-grouped responses into categories based on inhalation (smoking, vaporizing) vs. non-inhalation (e.g., edibles). Finally, we investigated subgroups perceptions of how cannabis affected pain, overall health, and use of medications (e.g., substituting for opioids, benzodiazepines). Substitutions were treated as a count of medication classes, while responses for both pain and health were analyzed continuously, with - 2 indicating health declining a lot or pain increasing a lot and 2 indicating that health improved a lot or pain decreased a lot.ResultsRoutines varied widely in terms of administration routes, cannabinoid content, and use timing. Overall, 18.8%, 36.2%, and 45% used non-inhalation, inhalation, and non-inhalation + inhalation routes, respectively. Those who used inhalation routes were younger (mean age 46.5 [inhalation] and 49.2 [non-inhalation + inhalation] vs. 56.3 [inhalation], F=36.1, p<0.001), while a higher proportion of those who used non-inhalation routes were female (72.5% non-inhalation vs. 48.3% inhalation and 65.3% non-inhalation + inhalation, X2=59.6, p<0.001). THC-rich products were typically used at night, while CBD-rich products were more often used during the day. While all participants reported similarly decreased pain, participants using non-inhalation + inhalation administration routes reported larger improvements in health than the non-inhalation (mean difference = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.07-0.37, p<0.001) and inhalation subgroups (mean difference = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.07-0.37, p=0.001). Similarly, the non-inhalation + inhalation group had significantly more medication substitutions than those using non-inhalation (mean difference = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.33-0.90, p<0.001) and inhalation administration routes (mean difference = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.69, p<0.001), respectively.ConclusionsSubgrouping medical cannabis patients based on administration route profile may provide useful categories for future studies examining the risks and benefits of medical cannabis.

Project description:BackgroundNeuropathic pain is thought to arise from damage to the somatosensory nervous system. Its prevalence is increasing in line with many chronic disorders such as diabetes. All treatments have limited effectiveness. Given the evidence regarding psychological treatment for distress and disability in people with various chronic pain conditions, we were interested to investigate whether psychological treatments have any effects for those with chronic neuropathic pain.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of psychological treatments on pain experience, disability, mood, and health-care use in adults with chronic neuropathic pain.Search methodsWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, from database inception to March 2015.Selection criteriaFull publications of RCTs on psychological interventions for neuropathic pain. Trials had to have lasted at least three months, had at least 20 participants in each arm at the end of treatment, and compared a psychological intervention with any active or inactive intervention.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.Main resultsTwo small studies (enrolling a total of 105 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One was a standard cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) programme for 61 people with pain from spinal cord injury, followed up for three months, and compared with a waiting list. The other was weekly group psychotherapy for 44 people with burning mouth syndrome, compared with a daily placebo tablet. The overall risk of bias was high in both trials.The CBT study assessed participants for pain, disability, mood, and quality of life, with improvement in treatment and control groups. However, there was no more improvement in the treatment group than in the control for any outcome, either post-treatment or at follow-up. The group psychotherapy study only assessed pain, classifying participants by pain severity. There is a lack of evidence on the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for people with neuropathic pain.Authors' conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence of the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic neuropathic pain. The two available studies show no benefit of treatment over either waiting list or placebo control groups.