TY - GEN
T1 - Cannabinoids in the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain
AU - Zubcevic, Kanita
PY - 2024/2/7
Y1 - 2024/2/7
N2 - Current first line treatments of neuropathic pain are antidepressants of tricyclic (TCA) and serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake inhibition (SNRI) category and α2δ ligands, gabapentin and pregabalin (Baron et al. 2010, Finnerup et al. 2015, Forsnari et al. 2017). During the last decades, cannabis and cannabis-based medicine have been suggested as treatment of neuropathic pain. A couple of trials have examined the pain-relieving effect of cannabis and cannabinoids for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain (Mücke et al. 2018, Finnerup et al. 2015). In general, negative outcome of several unpublished, randomized, controlled industry trials on cannabinoids together with the published data from other studies, has resulted in the recommendation “weak against” for the use of cannabinoids for peripheral neuropathic pain (Finnerup et al. 2015). We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with the aim to examine the effect of the cannabinoids, THC and CBD, and their combination in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain. To be included, participants should have failed at least one first line treatment of neuropathic pain either due to lack of effect or in-tolerable side effects. The participants were randomized to one of the treatments, CBD, THC, CBD/THC or placebo. They were treated with flexible drug doses CBD 5–50 mg, THC 2.5–25 mg, and CBD/THC 5 mg/2.5 mg–50 mg/25 mg, with dosage in each patient determined by effect and side effects. The treatment period was 8 weeks preceded by 1 week for baseline observations. The primary outcome was change in weekly average of daily pain measured by a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcomes compromised among others neuropathic pain symptom inventory, patient global impression of change, pain impact on daily activities, mood and sleep, trail making test, general quality of life and daily use of escape medication. We randomized 118 patients, but only included 115 in the intention-to-treat analysis, because 3 patients never started the treatment. Effect sizes (difference in change in pain score between placebo and each of the treatments) as estimated from week 8 data were CBD mean 1.14 NRS points (95% CI 0.11–2.19), THC 0.38 (CI −0.65 to 1.4) and CBD/THC −0.12 (−1.13 to 0.89), i.e. only the combination treatment caused numerically more pain reduction than placebo. None of the treatments reduced pain significantly more than placebo. In the PP population, CBD had significantly less pain reduction than placebo. None of the secondary outcomes favored any of the active treatments as compared to placebo. A substantial number of patients had a large response on treatment with the combination of THC and CBD, and this could indicate that a subgroup of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain may actually benefit from the treatment. However, it was not possible to characterize the subgroup by means of symptoms, signs or disease entity.A secondary analysis was performed on the trial data including measurements of serum concentration of active compounds. The serum concentrations were extremely variable with a factor 20 variation between lowest and highest values of CBD and even higher variability with THC due to patients with non-detectable THC serum concentrations. Some patients had rather low serum concentrations of cannabinoids. In line with the variable and low bioavailability on per oral cannabinoids, there was only a weak relation between doses and serum concentrations. We found no statistically significant concentration-effect relationship for any of the compounds. There was no indication of synergistic effect between THC or THC plus its active metabolite and CBD. The absent concentration-effect relationship indicate that the lack of effect of the cannabinoid in the trial was not caused by too low doses. In our trial, there was a large placebo effect, which is probably due to the high expectations and interest among the participants during the time the study took place. We were aware of this and tried to prevent that at an early stage by lowering the expectations among the participants and reducing the visits but we did not succeed to the full extent. It is concluded that in the present setting, the cannabinoids THC and CBD, and their combination did not relieve peripheral neuropathic pain. This lends further evidence of no effect of cannabinoids in peripheral neuropathic pain. Dosing of cannabinoids is an issue and although we found no concentration-effect relationship, the low and variable bioavailability may still impact on trial results. It is suggested that larger studies could define a group of patients that would benefit especially well from treatment with cannabinoids. No effect of one or a few cannabinoids does not exclude that there could potentially be an effect of full-scale products containing a number of cannabinoids and many other substances each of which could contribute to a pain-relieving effect.
AB - Current first line treatments of neuropathic pain are antidepressants of tricyclic (TCA) and serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake inhibition (SNRI) category and α2δ ligands, gabapentin and pregabalin (Baron et al. 2010, Finnerup et al. 2015, Forsnari et al. 2017). During the last decades, cannabis and cannabis-based medicine have been suggested as treatment of neuropathic pain. A couple of trials have examined the pain-relieving effect of cannabis and cannabinoids for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain (Mücke et al. 2018, Finnerup et al. 2015). In general, negative outcome of several unpublished, randomized, controlled industry trials on cannabinoids together with the published data from other studies, has resulted in the recommendation “weak against” for the use of cannabinoids for peripheral neuropathic pain (Finnerup et al. 2015). We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with the aim to examine the effect of the cannabinoids, THC and CBD, and their combination in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain. To be included, participants should have failed at least one first line treatment of neuropathic pain either due to lack of effect or in-tolerable side effects. The participants were randomized to one of the treatments, CBD, THC, CBD/THC or placebo. They were treated with flexible drug doses CBD 5–50 mg, THC 2.5–25 mg, and CBD/THC 5 mg/2.5 mg–50 mg/25 mg, with dosage in each patient determined by effect and side effects. The treatment period was 8 weeks preceded by 1 week for baseline observations. The primary outcome was change in weekly average of daily pain measured by a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcomes compromised among others neuropathic pain symptom inventory, patient global impression of change, pain impact on daily activities, mood and sleep, trail making test, general quality of life and daily use of escape medication. We randomized 118 patients, but only included 115 in the intention-to-treat analysis, because 3 patients never started the treatment. Effect sizes (difference in change in pain score between placebo and each of the treatments) as estimated from week 8 data were CBD mean 1.14 NRS points (95% CI 0.11–2.19), THC 0.38 (CI −0.65 to 1.4) and CBD/THC −0.12 (−1.13 to 0.89), i.e. only the combination treatment caused numerically more pain reduction than placebo. None of the treatments reduced pain significantly more than placebo. In the PP population, CBD had significantly less pain reduction than placebo. None of the secondary outcomes favored any of the active treatments as compared to placebo. A substantial number of patients had a large response on treatment with the combination of THC and CBD, and this could indicate that a subgroup of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain may actually benefit from the treatment. However, it was not possible to characterize the subgroup by means of symptoms, signs or disease entity.A secondary analysis was performed on the trial data including measurements of serum concentration of active compounds. The serum concentrations were extremely variable with a factor 20 variation between lowest and highest values of CBD and even higher variability with THC due to patients with non-detectable THC serum concentrations. Some patients had rather low serum concentrations of cannabinoids. In line with the variable and low bioavailability on per oral cannabinoids, there was only a weak relation between doses and serum concentrations. We found no statistically significant concentration-effect relationship for any of the compounds. There was no indication of synergistic effect between THC or THC plus its active metabolite and CBD. The absent concentration-effect relationship indicate that the lack of effect of the cannabinoid in the trial was not caused by too low doses. In our trial, there was a large placebo effect, which is probably due to the high expectations and interest among the participants during the time the study took place. We were aware of this and tried to prevent that at an early stage by lowering the expectations among the participants and reducing the visits but we did not succeed to the full extent. It is concluded that in the present setting, the cannabinoids THC and CBD, and their combination did not relieve peripheral neuropathic pain. This lends further evidence of no effect of cannabinoids in peripheral neuropathic pain. Dosing of cannabinoids is an issue and although we found no concentration-effect relationship, the low and variable bioavailability may still impact on trial results. It is suggested that larger studies could define a group of patients that would benefit especially well from treatment with cannabinoids. No effect of one or a few cannabinoids does not exclude that there could potentially be an effect of full-scale products containing a number of cannabinoids and many other substances each of which could contribute to a pain-relieving effect.
U2 - 10.21996/35kd-rr62
DO - 10.21996/35kd-rr62
M3 - Ph.D. thesis
PB - Syddansk Universitet. Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet
ER -