Double-blind multiple-dose crossover study of the antiemetic effect of intramuscular levonantradol compared to prochlorperazine

The Spicy Story of Cannabimimetic Indoles

The Sterling Research Group identified pravadoline as an aminoalkylindole (AAI) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory pain reliever. As drug design progressed, the ability of AAI analogs to block prostaglandin synthesis diminished, and antinociceptive activity was found to result from action at the CB1 cannabinoid receptor, a G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) abundant in the brain. Several laboratories applied computational chemistry methods to ultimately conclude that AAI and cannabinoid ligands could overlap within a common binding pocket but that WIN55212-2 primarily utilized steric interactions via aromatic stacking, whereas cannabinoid ligands required some electrostatic interactions, particularly involving the CB1 helix-3 lysine. The Huffman laboratory identified strategies to establish CB2 receptor selectivity among cannabimimetic indoles to avoid their CB1-related adverse effects, thereby stimulating preclinical studies to explore their use as anti-hyperalgesic and anti-allodynic pharmacotherapies. Some AAI analogs activate novel GPCRs referred to as "Alkyl Indole" receptors, and some AAI analogs act at the colchicine-binding site on microtubules. The AAI compounds having the greatest potency to interact with the CB1 receptor have found their way into the market as "Spice" or "K2". The sale of these alleged "herbal products" evades FDA consumer protections for proper labeling and safety as a medicine, as well as DEA scheduling as compounds having no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. The distribution to the public of potent alkyl indole synthetic cannabimimetic chemicals without regard for consumer safety contrasts with the adherence to regulatory requirements for demonstration of safety that are routinely observed by ethical pharmaceutical companies that market medicines.

Cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.

Gone to Pot - A Review of the Association between Cannabis and Psychosis

Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug worldwide, with ~5 million daily users worldwide. Emerging evidence supports a number of associations between cannabis and psychosis/psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. These associations-based on case-studies, surveys, epidemiological studies, and experimental studies indicate that cannabinoids can produce acute, transient effects; acute, persistent effects; and delayed, persistent effects that recapitulate the psychopathology and psychophysiology seen in schizophrenia. Acute exposure to both cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids (Spice/K2) can produce a full range of transient psychotomimetic symptoms, cognitive deficits, and psychophysiological abnormalities that bear a striking resemblance to symptoms of schizophrenia. In individuals with an established psychotic disorder, cannabinoids can exacerbate symptoms, trigger relapse, and have negative consequences on the course of the illness. Several factors appear to moderate these associations, including family history, genetic factors, history of childhood abuse, and the age at onset of cannabis use. Exposure to cannabinoids in adolescence confers a higher risk for psychosis outcomes in later life and the risk is dose-related. Individuals with polymorphisms of COMT and AKT1 genes may be at increased risk for psychotic disorders in association with cannabinoids, as are individuals with a family history of psychotic disorders or a history of childhood trauma. The relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia fulfills many but not all of the standard criteria for causality, including temporality, biological gradient, biological plausibility, experimental evidence, consistency, and coherence. At the present time, the evidence indicates that cannabis may be a component cause in the emergence of psychosis, and this warrants serious consideration from the point of view of public health policy.

Efeitos comportamentais, cognitivos e psicofisiológicos dos canabinoides: relevância para a psicose e a esquizofrenia

Avanços recentes no conhecimento sobre a função do receptor de canabinoide renovaram o interesse na associação entre cannabis e psicose. Linhas convergentes de evidências sugerem que os canabinoides podem produzir uma ampla gama de sintomas transitórios positivos, negativos e cognitivos assemelhados aos de esquizofrenia. Os canabinoides também produzem alguns déficits psicofisiológicos sabidamente presentes na esquizofrenia. É igualmente claro que em indivíduos com um transtorno psicótico estabelecido, os canabinoides podem exacerbar sintomas, desencadear recaídas e ter consequências negativas no curso da doença. Evidências crescentes sugerem que a exposição precoce e pesada à cannabis pode aumentar o risco de se desenvolver um transtorno psicótico como a esquizofrenia. A relação entre exposição à cannabis e esquizofrenia preenche alguns, mas não todos os critérios usuais de causalidade. Porém, a maioria das pessoas que utilizam cannabis não desenvolve esquizofrenia e muitas pessoas diagnosticadas com esquizofrenia nunca utilizaram cannabis. Portanto, é provável que a exposição à cannabis seja uma "causa componente" que interage com outros fatores para "causar" esquizofrenia ou outro transtorno psicótico, mas não é nem necessária nem suficiente para fazê-lo sozinha. No entanto, na ausência de causas conhecidas da esquizofrenia e com as implicações de políticas de saúde pública, se tal vínculo for estabelecido, as causas componentes, tais como a exposição a canabinoide, devem continuar sendo um foco de estudos futuros. Finalmente, são necessárias mais pesquisas para identificar os fatores subjacentes à vulnerabilidade à psicose relacionada a canabinoide e para elucidar os mecanismos biológicos subjacentes a esse risco.

Cannabinoids and Psychosis

Recent epidemiological studies and advances in understanding of brain cannabinoid function have renewed interest in the long-recognized association between cannabinoids and psychosis. This chapter presents evidence supporting and refuting the association between cannabinoids and psychosis. Cannabinoids can induce acute transient psychotic symptoms or an acute psychosis in some individuals. What makes some individuals vulnerable to cannabinoid-related psychosis is unclear. Also clear is that cannabinoids can also exacerbate psychosis in individuals with an established psychotic disorder, and these exacerbations may last beyond the period of intoxication. Less clear is whether cannabis causes a persistent de novo psychosis. The available evidence meets many but not all the criteria for causality, including dose-response, temporality, direction, specificity, and biological plausibility. On the other hand, the large majority of individuals exposed to cannabinoids do not experience psychosis or develop schizophrenia and the rates of schizophrenia have not increased commensurate with the increase in rates of cannabis use. Similar to smoking and lung cancer, it is more likely that cannabis exposure is a component cause that interacts with other factors, for example, genetic risk, to "cause" schizophrenia. Nevertheless, in the absence of known causes of schizophrenia, the role of component causes such as cannabis exposure (exogenous hypothesis) is important and warrants further study. There is also tantalizing evidence from postmortem, neurochemical, and genetic studies suggesting CB1 receptor dysfunction (endogenous hypothesis) in schizophrenia that warrants further investigation. Further work is necessary to identify those factors that place individuals at higher risk for cannabinoid-related psychosis, to identify the biological mechanisms underlying the risks and to further study whether CB1 receptor dysfunction contributes to the pathophysiology of psychotic disorders.

Biomedical benefits of cannabinoids?

Cannabinoids appear to be of therapeutic value as antiemetics, antispasmodics, analgesics and appetite stimulants and may have potential uses in epilepsy, glaucoma and asthma. Scientific evidence for any of these indications, except for antiemetic effects, is extremely sparse and claims for clinical utility are largely based on anecdotal reports. Furthermore, the mechanisms of action of any of the therapeutic effects are unknown. This paper reviews the clinical trials which have been carried out with cannabinoids including Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and synthetic cannabinoids such as nabilone and levonantradol, and discusses the advantages and adverse effects of cannabinoids in clinical use. The place of cannabinoids in modern medicine remains to be properly evaluated, but present evidence suggests that they could be valuable, particularly as adjuvants, for symptom control in a range of conditions for which standard drugs are not fully satisfactory.