Efficacy of tetrahydrocannabinol in patients refractory to standard antiemetic therapy

Efficacy of cannabinoids for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting-a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cannabinoids have potential efficacy as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but no recent meta-analysis has reported on their relative efficacy compared to other antiemetics. The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the relative efficacy of cannabinoids for prophylaxis of CINV.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in OVID Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception up until March 2024. Articles were included if they reported on complete response, no nausea, no vomiting or no use of rescue medications, and were randomized controlled trials with cannabinoids in one arm. Meta-analysis was conducted for each endpoint and for a composite endpoint amalgamating existing endpoints. Subgroup analyses by medication used in control arm and by study design were conducted. Cumulative and leave-one-out analysis was also conducted. Type I error was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis, of which 23 were published before the 2000s. Nearly half of the included studies had some concern for bias. Cannabinoid had superior overall CINV control compared to placebo (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.70-4.12, I2 = 0.00%). However, there was no difference between cannabinoid and active treatment alternatives (most using dated single-agent regimens) for any outcomes. A recent phase II/III trial demonstrated superior efficacy of THC:CBD for secondary prevention of CINV when used as adjunctive therapy alongside modern antiemetic regimens, albeit mostly without olanzapine.

CONCLUSIONS

There is scant evidence for efficacy of cannabinoids for CINV in the era of triple and quadruple antiemetics. Although THC:CBD showed promised in a recent trial, further trials should examine its safety and efficacy in the context of regimens containing olanzapine.

The Role of Cannabinoids and the Endocannabinoid System in the Treatment and Regulation of Nausea and Vomiting

Despite using the recommended anti-emetic treatments, control of nausea and vomiting is still an unmet need for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Few properly controlled clinical trials have evaluated the potential of exogenously administered cannabinoids or manipulations of the endogenous cannabinoid (eCB) system to treat nausea and vomiting. In this chapter, we explore the pre-clinical and human clinical trial evidence for the potential of exogenous cannabinoids and manipulations of the eCB system to reduce nausea and vomiting. Although there are limited high-quality human clinical trials, pre-clinical evidence suggests that cannabinoids and manipulations of the eCB system have anti-nausea/anti-emetic potential. The pre-clinical anti-nausea/anti-emetic evidence highlights the need for further evaluation of cannabinoids and manipulations of eCBs and other fatty acid amides in clinical trials.

Adverse events associated with the use of cannabis-based products in people living with cancer: a systematic scoping review

PURPOSE

To summarise the extent and type of evidence in relation to adverse events (AEs) associated with the use of cannabis-based products (CBP) in people living with cancer.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews was applied. A search was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collections and AMED (Ovid) from their inception to 7 May 2023. Primary studies reporting AEs associated with any form of natural or synthetic CBP use in any cancer care setting and location were included.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-two studies were included, with the most prevalent being randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 61), followed by non-randomised controlled trials (n = 26) and case reports (n = 23). CBP was mainly used in gastrointestinal, liver, or peritoneal cancer (n = 98) and haematological or lymphoid cancer (n = 92), primarily to manage nausea and vomiting (n = 78) and cancer pain (n = 37). The most common CBP ingredients were combinations of THC and CBD (n = 69), synthetic THC (n = 47), single compounds of THC (n = 42) and CBD (n = 16) with diverse forms, administration routes and doses. The primary methods of administration were oral (n = 94) and inhalation (n = 54). A broad range of AEs were reported; the most common were related to the nervous system (n = 118), psychiatric (n = 101) and gastrointestinal system (n = 81). Diverse patient characteristics, significant under-reporting and low-quality reporting were observed in many studies.

CONCLUSIONS

More rigorous research designs that prioritise comprehensive, standardised reporting of AEs and CBP use are required to fully elucidate the safety profile of CBP use in cancer care.

Medical cannabis use in oncology and associated outcomes: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Natural and synthetic cannabinoids are being used worldwide to treat various symptoms in cancer patients. This study aims to map the therapeutic benefits and adverse effects associated with the use of cannabis-based drugs in these outcomes.

METHODS

Following Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines a scoping review was conducted. The study protocol was available in the Open Science Framework public repository. An extensive search strategy involving databases like Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Medline/PubMed, Lilacs, Google Scholar, and Open Gray for gray literature analysis was executed by a skilled librarian. The inclusion criteria were primary studies (observational and randomized) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids in cancer patients. The review encompassed studies of diverse designs, publication years, and types, as long as they addressed cannabinoids' impact in oncology.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine (82.86%) out of total of 35 were randomized and 6 (14.14%) were non-randomized. About 57.1% of studies utilized registered products as interventions, with THC being the most natural cannabinoid cited in variable doses and administration routes. Moreover, 62.85% of studies specified the cancer types (breast, lung, sarcomas, hematological and reproductive system), while only one study detailed cancer staging. The evaluated outcomes encompassed nausea and vomiting (77.14%), appetite (11.43%), pain (8.57%), and tumor regression (2.86%) across different proportions of studies.

CONCLUSION

Cannabinoids show promise in managing pain, emesis, and anorexia/cachexia linked to cancer progression. New randomized clinical trials with a larger number of participants and observational studies on long-term safety are crucial to affirm their medicinal utility for cancer patients unresponsive to conventional drugs.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) expert opinion/consensus guidance on the use of cannabinoids for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in patients with cancer, whether related to treatment or a direct effect of the disease itself. Patients may choose to access cannabinoids outside of their formal medical prescriptions to palliate such symptoms. However, clinical guidelines are lacking in relation to the use of such medicines for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the evidence for the use of cannabinoids for symptom control in patients with cancer was undertaken. Search strategies were developed for Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, including all publications from 1975 up to 12 November 2021. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo or active comparator in adult patients with cancer, regardless of type, stage, or treatment status. Articles for inclusion were agreed by all authors, and data extracted and summarized by two authors. Each study was scored according to the Jadad scale. This review was specifically for the purpose of developing guidelines for the use of cannabis for gastrointestinal symptoms, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), chronic nausea, anorexia-cachexia syndrome, and taste disturbance.

RESULTS

Thirty-six randomized controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria for this review of gastrointestinal symptoms: 31 relating to CINV, one to radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and the remaining four to anorexia-cachexia and altered chemosensory disturbance. The populations for the randomized controlled trials were heterogeneous, and many studies were of poor quality, lacking clarity regarding method of randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. For CINV, eleven RCTs showed improvement with cannabis compared to placebo, but out of 21 trials where cannabis was compared to other antiemetics for CINV, only 11 favoured cannabis.

CONCLUSION

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and nabilone were more effective in preventing CINV when compared to placebo but are not more effective than other antiemetics. For refractory CINV, one study of THC:CBD demonstrated reduced nausea as an add-on treatment to guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy without olanzapine. The MASCC Guideline Committee found insufficient evidence to recommend cannabinoids for the management of CINV, nausea from advanced cancer, cancer-associated anorexia-cachexia, and taste disturbance. High-quality studies are needed to inform practice.

Medical cannabinoids: a pharmacology-based systematic review and meta-analysis for all relevant medical indications

BACKGROUND

Medical 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

In 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabinoids 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.

Cannabis, a Miracle Drug with Polyvalent Therapeutic Utility: Preclinical and Clinical-Based Evidence

Cannabis sativa L. is an annual herbaceous dioecious plant which was first cultivated by agricultural human societies in Asia. Over the period of time, various parts of the plant like leaf, flower, and seed were used for recreational as well as therapeutic purposes. The main chemical components of Cannabis sativa are termed as cannabinoids, among them the key psychoactive constituent is Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol (CBD) as active nonpsychotic constituent. Upon doing extensive literature review, it was found that cannabis has been widely studied for a number of disorders. Very recently, a pure CBD formulation, named Epidiolex, got a green flag from both United States Food and Drug Administration and Drug Enforcement Administration for 2 rare types of epilepsies. This laid a milestone in medical cannabis research. This review intends to give a basic and extensive assessment, from past till present, of the ethnological, plant, chemical, pharmacological, and legal aspects of C. sativa. Further, this review contemplates the evidence the studies obtained of cannabis components on Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, emesis, epilepsy, chronic pain, and cancer as a cytotoxic agent as well as a palliative therapy. The assessment in this study was done by reviewing in extensive details from studies on historical importance, ethnopharmacological aspects, and legal grounds of C. sativa from extensive literature available on the scientific databases, with a vision for elevating further pharmaceutical research to investigate its total potential as a therapeutic agent.

Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Patients With Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To review pharmacology, available dosage forms, efficacy, and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids in cancer patients.

DATA SOURCES

In PubMed (1965 to June 2020) the search was conducted using the search terms cannabidiol, cannabis, CBD, dronabinol, endocannabinoids, medical marijuana, nabiximols, nabilone, THC, and cancer. Abstracts from article bibliographies were reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant English-language studies conducted in humans evaluating cannabis and cannabinoids for cancer treatment or related symptoms were considered. Reference lists in relevant articles, package inserts, guidance documents, and addditional articles evaluating cannabis and cannabinoids were identified.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Cannabis and cannabinoid effectiveness can be attributed to active components delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Multiple dosage forms exist, each with different properties contributing to efficacy and safety differences. No data supports use as anticancer agents, and mixed efficacy results have been reported when used in cancer patients with nausea, pain, and anorexia. Inclusion of medicinal and synthetic products, small sample sizes, varying patient populations, and different dosage forms, doses, and drug combinations. These products are well tolerated, and adverse effects depend on the main active component.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Healthcare professionals need to identify appropriateness, monitor, and document use of cannabis and cannabinoids similar to other drug therapies as well as educate the patients/ caregivers about potential benefits and risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence for use of medical cannabis and cannabinoids in cancer patients is weak. However, healthcare professionals are in an ideal role to monitor and educate patients using medical cannabis and cannabinoids.

Clinical Data for the Use of Cannabis-Based Treatments: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Objective:

To compile and synthesize the available literature describing medical cannabis use across various disease states.

Data Sources:

PubMed, EBSCO, and Google Scholar searches were conducted using MeSH and/or keywords.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Studies were included if they described the use of cannabis-based products and medications in the treatment of a predefined list of disease states in humans and were published in English. The extraction period had no historical limit and spanned through April 2019.

Data Synthesis:

Evidence was compiled and summarized for the following medical conditions: Alzheimer disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism, cancer and cancer-associated adverse effects, seizure disorders, human immunodeficiency virus, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), nausea, pain, posttraumatic stress disorder, and hospice care.

Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice:

Based on identified data, the most robust evidence suggests that medical cannabis may be effective in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, seizure disorders, MS-related spasticity, and pain (excluding diabetic neuropathy). Overall, the evidence is inconsistent and generally limited by poor quality. The large variation in cannabis-based products evaluated in studies limits the ability to make direct comparisons. Regardless of the product, a gradual dose titration was utilized in most studies. Cannabis-based therapies were typically well tolerated, with the most common adverse effects being dizziness, somnolence, dry mouth, nausea, and euphoria.

Conclusions:

As more states authorize medical cannabis use, there is an increasing need for high-quality clinical evidence describing its efficacy and safety. This review is intended to serve as a reference for clinicians, so that the risks and realistic benefits of medical cannabis are better understood.

Medicinal Properties of Cannabinoids, Terpenes, and Flavonoids in Cannabis, and Benefits in Migraine, Headache, and Pain: An Update on Current Evidence and Cannabis Science

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive literature reviews of historical perspectives and evidence supporting cannabis/cannabinoids in the treatment of pain, including migraine and headache, with associated neurobiological mechanisms of pain modulation have been well described. Most of the existing literature reports on the cannabinoids Δ⁹ -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), or cannabis in general. There are many cannabis strains that vary widely in the composition of cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids, and other compounds. These components work synergistically to produce wide variations in benefits, side effects, and strain characteristics. Knowledge of the individual medicinal properties of the cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids is necessary to cross-breed strains to obtain optimal standardized synergistic compositions. This will enable targeting individual symptoms and/or diseases, including migraine, headache, and pain.

OBJECTIVE

Review the medical literature for the use of cannabis/cannabinoids in the treatment of migraine, headache, facial pain, and other chronic pain syndromes, and for supporting evidence of a potential role in combatting the opioid epidemic. Review the medical literature involving major and minor cannabinoids, primary and secondary terpenes, and flavonoids that underlie the synergistic entourage effects of cannabis. Summarize the individual medicinal benefits of these substances, including analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties.

CONCLUSION

There is accumulating evidence for various therapeutic benefits of cannabis/cannabinoids, especially in the treatment of pain, which may also apply to the treatment of migraine and headache. There is also supporting evidence that cannabis may assist in opioid detoxification and weaning, thus making it a potential weapon in battling the opioid epidemic. Cannabis science is a rapidly evolving medical sector and industry with increasingly regulated production standards. Further research is anticipated to optimize breeding of strain-specific synergistic ratios of cannabinoids, terpenes, and other phytochemicals for predictable user effects, characteristics, and improved symptom and disease-targeted therapies.

Patterns of medicinal cannabis use, strain analysis, and substitution effect among patients with migraine, headache, arthritis, and chronic pain in a medicinal cannabis cohort

BACKGROUND

Medicinal cannabis registries typically report pain as the most common reason for use. It would be clinically useful to identify patterns of cannabis treatment in migraine and headache, as compared to arthritis and chronic pain, and to analyze preferred cannabis strains, biochemical profiles, and prescription medication substitutions with cannabis.

METHODS

Via electronic survey in medicinal cannabis patients with headache, arthritis, and chronic pain, demographics and patterns of cannabis use including methods, frequency, quantity, preferred strains, cannabinoid and terpene profiles, and prescription substitutions were recorded. Cannabis use for migraine among headache patients was assessed via the ID Migraine™ questionnaire, a validated screen used to predict the probability of migraine.

RESULTS

Of 2032 patients, 21 illnesses were treated with cannabis. Pain syndromes accounted for 42.4% (n = 861) overall; chronic pain 29.4% (n = 598;), arthritis 9.3% (n = 188), and headache 3.7% (n = 75;). Across all 21 illnesses, headache was a symptom treated with cannabis in 24.9% (n = 505). These patients were given the ID Migraine™ questionnaire, with 68% (n = 343) giving 3 "Yes" responses, 20% (n = 102) giving 2 "Yes" responses (97% and 93% probability of migraine, respectively). Therefore, 88% (n = 445) of headache patients were treating probable migraine with cannabis. Hybrid strains were most preferred across all pain subtypes, with "OG Shark" the most preferred strain in the ID Migraine™ and headache groups. Many pain patients substituted prescription medications with cannabis (41.2-59.5%), most commonly opiates/opioids (40.5-72.8%). Prescription substitution in headache patients included opiates/opioids (43.4%), anti-depressant/anti-anxiety (39%), NSAIDs (21%), triptans (8.1%), anti-convulsants (7.7%), muscle relaxers (7%), ergots (0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic pain was the most common reason for cannabis use, consistent with most registries. The majority of headache patients treating with cannabis were positive for migraine. Hybrid strains were preferred in ID Migraine™, headache, and most pain groups, with "OG Shark", a high THC (Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol)/THCA (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid), low CBD (cannabidiol)/CBDA (cannabidiolic acid), strain with predominant terpenes β-caryophyllene and β-myrcene, most preferred in the headache and ID Migraine™ groups. This could reflect the potent analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-emetic properties of THC, with anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties of β-caryophyllene and β-myrcene. Opiates/opioids were most commonly substituted with cannabis. Prospective studies are needed, but results may provide early insight into optimizing crossbred cannabis strains, synergistic biochemical profiles, dosing, and patterns of use in the treatment of headache, migraine, and chronic pain syndromes.

Cannabinoids As Potential Treatment for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Despite the advent of classic anti-emetics, chemotherapy-induced nausea is still problematic, with vomiting being somewhat better managed in the clinic. If post-treatment nausea and vomiting are not properly controlled, anticipatory nausea—a conditioned response to the contextual cues associated with illness-inducing chemotherapy—can develop. Once it develops, anticipatory nausea is refractive to current anti-emetics, highlighting the need for alternative treatment options. One of the first documented medicinal uses of Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ⁹-THC) was for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and recent evidence is accumulating to suggest a role for the endocannabinoid system in modulating CINV. Here, we review studies assessing the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids and manipulations of the endocannabinoid system in human patients and pre-clinical animal models of nausea and vomiting.

Cannabinoid Regulation of Acute and Anticipatory Nausea

Chemotherapy-induced nausea is one of the most distressing symptoms reported by patients undergoing treatment, and even with the introduction of newer antiemetics such as ondansetron and aprepitant, nausea remains problematic in the clinic. Indeed, when acute nausea is not properly managed, the cues of the clinic can become associated with this distressing symptom resulting in anticipatory nausea for which no effective treatments are available. Clinical trials exploring the potential of exogenous or endogenous cannabinoids to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea are sparse; therefore, we must rely on the data from pre-clinical rat models of nausea. In this review, we explore the human and pre-clinical animal literature examining the potential for exogenous and endogenous cannabinoid treatments to regulate chemotherapy-induced nausea. The pre-clinical evidence points to a compelling need to evaluate the antinausea potential of cannabidiol, cannabidiolic acid, and treatments that boost the functioning of the endocannabinoid system in human clinical trials.

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.

Medical marijuana patient counseling points for health care professionals based on trends in the medical uses, efficacy, and adverse effects of cannabis-based pharmaceutical drugs

The purpose of this report is to present a review of the medical uses, efficacy, and adverse effects of the three approved cannabis-based medications and ingested marijuana. A literature review was conducted utilizing key search terms: dronabinol, nabilone, nabiximols, cannabis, marijuana, smoke, efficacy, toxicity, cancer, multiple sclerosis, nausea, vomiting, appetite, pain, glaucoma, and side effects. Abstracts of the included literature were reviewed, analyzed, and organized to identify the strength of evidence in medical use, efficacy, and adverse effects of the approved cannabis-based medications and medical marijuana. A total of 68 abstracts were included for review. Dronabinol's (Marinol) most common medical uses include weight gain, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and neuropathic pain. Nabiximol's (Sativex) most common medical uses include spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuropathic pain. Nabilone's (Cesamet) most common medical uses include CINV and neuropathic pain. Smoked marijuana's most common medical uses include neuropathic pain and glaucoma. Orally ingested marijuana's most common medical uses include improving sleep, reducing neuropathic pain, and seizure control in MS. In general, all of these agents share similar medical uses. The reported adverse effects of the three cannabis-based medications and marijuana show a major trend in central nervous system (CNS)-related adverse effects along with cardiovascular and respiratory related adverse effects. Marijuana shares similar medical uses with the approved cannabis-based medications dronabinol (Marinol), nabiximols (Sativex), and nabilone (Cesamet), but the efficacy of marijuana for these medical uses has not been fully determined due to limited and conflicting literature. Medical marijuana also has similar adverse effects as the FDA-approved cannabis-based medications mainly consisting of CNS related adverse effects but also including cardiovascular and respiratory related adverse effects. Finally, insufficient higher-order evidence to support the widespread use of medical marijuana was found, but a limited amount of moderate-level evidence supports its use in pain and seizure management.

Comprehensive Review of Medicinal Marijuana, Cannabinoids, and Therapeutic Implications in Medicine and Headache: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been …

BACKGROUND

The use of cannabis, or marijuana, for medicinal purposes is deeply rooted though history, dating back to ancient times. It once held a prominent position in the history of medicine, recommended by many eminent physicians for numerous diseases, particularly headache and migraine. Through the decades, this plant has taken a fascinating journey from a legal and frequently prescribed status to illegal, driven by political and social factors rather than by science. However, with an abundance of growing support for its multitude of medicinal uses, the misguided stigma of cannabis is fading, and there has been a dramatic push for legalizing medicinal cannabis and research. Almost half of the United States has now legalized medicinal cannabis, several states have legalized recreational use, and others have legalized cannabidiol-only use, which is one of many therapeutic cannabinoids extracted from cannabis. Physicians need to be educated on the history, pharmacology, clinical indications, and proper clinical use of cannabis, as patients will inevitably inquire about it for many diseases, including chronic pain and headache disorders for which there is some intriguing supportive evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To review the history of medicinal cannabis use, discuss the pharmacology and physiology of the endocannabinoid system and cannabis-derived cannabinoids, perform a comprehensive literature review of the clinical uses of medicinal cannabis and cannabinoids with a focus on migraine and other headache disorders, and outline general clinical practice guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The literature suggests that the medicinal use of cannabis may have a therapeutic role for a multitude of diseases, particularly chronic pain disorders including headache. Supporting literature suggests a role for medicinal cannabis and cannabinoids in several types of headache disorders including migraine and cluster headache, although it is primarily limited to case based, anecdotal, or laboratory-based scientific research. Cannabis contains an extensive number of pharmacological and biochemical compounds, of which only a minority are understood, so many potential therapeutic uses likely remain undiscovered. Cannabinoids appear to modulate and interact at many pathways inherent to migraine, triptan mechanisms ofaction, and opiate pathways, suggesting potential synergistic or similar benefits. Modulation of the endocannabinoid system through agonism or antagonism of its receptors, targeting its metabolic pathways, or combining cannabinoids with other analgesics for synergistic effects, may provide the foundation for many new classes of medications. Despite the limited evidence and research suggesting a role for cannabis and cannabinoids in some headache disorders, randomized clinical trials are lacking and necessary for confirmation and further evaluation.

Medical marijuana for cancer

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Marijuana has been used for centuries, and interest in its medicinal properties has been increasing in recent years. Investigations into these medicinal properties has led to the development of cannabinoid pharmaceuticals such as dronabinol, nabilone, and nabiximols. Dronabinol is best studied in the treatment of nausea secondary to cancer chemotherapy and anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for those indications. Nabilone has been best studied for the treatment of nausea secondary to cancer chemotherapy. There are also limited studies of these drugs for other conditions. Nabiximols is only available in the United States through clinical trials, but is used in Canada and the United Kingdom for the treatment of spasticity secondary to multiple sclerosis and pain. Studies of marijuana have concentrated on nausea, appetite, and pain. This article will review the literature regarding the medical use of marijuana and these cannabinoid pharmaceuticals (with emphasis on indications relevant to oncology), as well as available information regarding adverse effects of marijuana use.

The therapeutic potential of cannabis and cannabinoids

BACKGROUND

Cannabis-based medications have been a topic of intense study since the endogenous cannabinoid system was discovered two decades ago. In 2011, for the first time, a cannabis extract was approved for clinical use in Germany.

METHODS

Selective literature review.

RESULTS

Cannabis-based medications exert their effects mainly through the activation of cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2). More than 100 controlled clinical trials of cannabinoids or whole-plant preparations for various indications have been conducted since 1975. The findings of these trials have led to the approval of cannabis-based medicines (dronabinol, nabilone, and a cannabis extract [THC:CBD=1:1]) in several countries. In Germany, a cannabis extract was approved in 2011 for the treatment of moderate to severe refractory spasticity in multiple sclerosis. It is commonly used off label for the treatment of anorexia, nausea, and neuropathic pain. Patients can also apply for government permission to buy medicinal cannabis flowers for self-treatment under medical supervision. The most common side effects of cannabinoids are tiredness and dizziness (in more than 10% of patients), psychological effects, and dry mouth. Tolerance to these side effects nearly always develops within a short time. Withdrawal symptoms are hardly ever a problem in the therapeutic setting.

CONCLUSION

There is now clear evidence that cannabinoids are useful for the treatment of various medical conditions.

Efficacy of dronabinol alone and in combination with ondansetron versus ondansetron alone for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of dronabinol, ondansetron, or the combination for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a 5-day, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients receiving moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy received dexamethasone (20 mg PO), ondansetron (16 mg IV) and either placebo or dronabinol (2.5 mg) prechemotherapy on day 1. Patients randomized to active treatment (dronabinol and/or ondansetron) also received dronabinol (2.5 mg) after chemotherapy on day 1. On day 2, fixed doses of placebo, dronabinol (10 mg), ondansetron (16 mg), or combination therapy were administered. On days 3-5, patients received placebo, flexible doses of dronabinol (10-20 mg), ondansetron (8-16 mg), or dronabinol and ondansetron (10-20 mg dronabinol, 8-16 mg ondansetron).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total response (TR = nausea intensity <5 mm on visual analog scale, no vomiting/retching, no rescue antiemetic), nausea (occurrence and intensity) and vomiting/retching episodes.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were randomized; 61 analyzed for efficacy. TR was similar with dronabinol (54%), ondansetron (58%), and combination therapy (47%) versus placebo (20%). Nausea absence was significantly greater in active treatment groups (dronabinol, 71%; ondansetron, 64%; combination therapy, 53%) versus placebo (15%; p < 0.05 vs. placebo for all). Nausea intensity and vomiting/retching were lowest in patients treated with dronabinol. Active treatments were well tolerated. The low number of patients due to slow enrollment limits the interpretation of these data.

CONCLUSIONS

Dronabinol or ondansetron was similarly effective for the treatment of CINV. Combination therapy with dronabinol and ondansetron was not more effective than either agent alone. Active treatments were well tolerated.

Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential

In order to assess the current knowledge on the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids, a meta-analysis was performed through Medline and PubMed up to July 1, 2005. The key words used were cannabis, marijuana, marihuana, hashish, hashich, haschich, cannabinoids, tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, dronabinol, nabilone, levonantradol, randomised, randomized, double-blind, simple blind, placebo-controlled, and human. The research also included the reports and reviews published in English, French and Spanish. For the final selection, only properly controlled clinical trials were retained, thus open-label studies were excluded. Seventy-two controlled studies evaluating the therapeutic effects of cannabinoids were identified. For each clinical trial, the country where the project was held, the number of patients assessed, the type of study and comparisons done, the products and the dosages used, their efficacy and their adverse effects are described. Cannabinoids present an interesting therapeutic potential as antiemetics, appetite stimulants in debilitating diseases (cancer and AIDS), analgesics, and in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, Tourette's syndrome, epilepsy and glaucoma.

[Review of cannabinoids in the treatment of nausea and vomiting]

Cannabinoids are used to treat nausea and vomiting. The effect appears to be mediated by cannabinoid receptors in the nucleus tractus solitarius. Results are available from studies on the use of cannabinoids to manage nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy. None of these studies, however, compared cannabinoids with the newer serotonin antagonists. The antiemetic efficacy of cannabinoids for other indications has not yet been studied sufficiently. Most of the studies report significantly more or stronger side effects with cannabinoid medication in comparison to similar medication. In some of the studies on treatment after chemotherapy or radiotherapy, the patients terminated the cannabinoid therapy more frequently due to side effects. Although clinical studies have provided clear evidence for the antiemetic efficacy of cannabinoids, the frequency and severity of side effects argue against their use as the method of first choice. For patients who cannot be adequately treated with conventional antiemetic agents, cannabinoids can represent a valuable adjunct to the antiemetic regimen.

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are among the most distressing adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy. They can lead to both physical and psychological complications if uncontrolled. The exact mechanism for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is not known; it is thought to occur through numerous neuronal pathways acting on different sites. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are broken down into 3 phases: acute, delayed, and anticipatory. The incidence of each phase depends largely on the chemotherapy agent used and is primarily treated with different antiemetic agents. Pharmacists can assist in optimizing antiemetic use by selecting appropriate antiemetics based on the emetogenicity of the cancer treatment and helping to individualize therapy to each patient’s specific needs.

R(+)-methanandamide induces cyclooxygenase-2 expression in human neuroglioma cells via a non-cannabinoid receptor-mediated mechanism

Cannabinoids affect prostaglandin (PG) formation in the central nervous system through as yet unidentified mechanisms. Using H4 human neuroglioma cells, the present study investigates the effect of R(+)-methanandamide (metabolically stable analogue of the endocannabinoid anandamide) on the expression of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) enzyme. Incubation of cells with R(+)-methanandamide was accompanied by concentration-dependent increases in COX-2 mRNA, COX-2 protein, and COX-2-dependent PGE(2) synthesis. Moreover, treatment of cells with R(+)-methanandamide in the presence of interleukin-1beta led to an overadditive induction of COX-2 expression. The stimulatory effect of R(+)-methanandamide on COX-2 expression was mimicked by the structurally unrelated cannabinoid Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol. Stimulation of both COX-2 mRNA expression and subsequent PGE(2) synthesis by R(+)-methanandamide was not affected by the selective CB(1) receptor antagonist AM-251 or the G(i/o) protein inactivator pertussis toxin. Enhancement of COX-2 expression by R(+)-methanandamide was paralleled by time-dependent phosphorylations of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and p42/44 MAPK. Consistent with the activation of both kinases, R(+)-methanandamide-induced COX-2 mRNA expression and PGE(2) formation were abrogated in the presence of specific inhibitors of p38 MAPK (SB203580) and p42/44 MAPK activation (PD98059). Together, our results demonstrate that R(+)-methanandamide induces COX-2 expression in human neuroglioma cells via a cannabinoid receptor-independent mechanism involving activation of the MAPK pathway. In conclusion, induction of COX-2 expression may represent a novel mechanism by which cannabinoids mediate PG-dependent effects within the central nervous system.

Cannabinoids for control of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the antiemetic efficacy and adverse effects of cannabis used for sickness induced by chemotherapy.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, bibliographies), any language, to August 2000.

STUDIES

30 randomised comparisons of cannabis with placebo or antiemetics from which dichotomous data on efficacy and harm were available (1366 patients). Oral nabilone, oral dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol), and intramuscular levonantradol were tested. No cannabis was smoked. Follow up lasted 24 hours.

RESULTS

Cannabinoids were more effective antiemetics than prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, thiethylperazine, haloperidol, domperidone, or alizapride: relative risk 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.62), number needed to treat 6 for complete control of nausea; 1.28 (1.08 to 1.51), NNT 8 for complete control of vomiting. Cannabinoids were not more effective in patients receiving very low or very high emetogenic chemotherapy. In crossover trials, patients preferred cannabinoids for future chemotherapy cycles: 2.39 (2.05 to 2.78), NNT 3. Some potentially beneficial side effects occurred more often with cannabinoids: "high" 10.6 (6.86 to 16.5), NNT 3; sedation or drowsiness 1.66 (1.46 to 1.89), NNT 5; euphoria 12.5 (3.00 to 52.1), NNT 7. Harmful side effects also occurred more often with cannabinoids: dizziness 2.97 (2.31 to 3.83), NNT 3; dysphoria or depression 8.06 (3.38 to 19.2), NNT 8; hallucinations 6.10 (2.41 to 15.4), NNT 17; paranoia 8.58 (6.38 to 11.5), NNT 20; and arterial hypotension 2.23 (1.75 to 2.83), NNT 7. Patients given cannabinoids were more likely to withdraw due to side effects 4.67 (3.07 to 7.09), NNT 11.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, the cannabinoids tested in these trials may be useful as mood enhancing adjuvants for controlling chemotherapy related sickness. Potentially serious adverse effects, even when taken short term orally or intramuscularly, are likely to limit their widespread use.

Cannabinoids for control of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the antiemetic efficacy and adverse effects of cannabis used for sickness induced by chemotherapy.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, bibliographies), any language, to August 2000.

STUDIES

30 randomised comparisons of cannabis with placebo or antiemetics from which dichotomous data on efficacy and harm were available (1366 patients). Oral nabilone, oral dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol), and intramuscular levonantradol were tested. No cannabis was smoked. Follow up lasted 24 hours.

RESULTS

Cannabinoids were more effective antiemetics than prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, thiethylperazine, haloperidol, domperidone, or alizapride: relative risk 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.62), number needed to treat 6 for complete control of nausea; 1.28 (1.08 to 1.51), NNT 8 for complete control of vomiting. Cannabinoids were not more effective in patients receiving very low or very high emetogenic chemotherapy. In crossover trials, patients preferred cannabinoids for future chemotherapy cycles: 2.39 (2.05 to 2.78), NNT 3. Some potentially beneficial side effects occurred more often with cannabinoids: "high" 10.6 (6.86 to 16.5), NNT 3; sedation or drowsiness 1.66 (1.46 to 1.89), NNT 5; euphoria 12.5 (3.00 to 52.1), NNT 7. Harmful side effects also occurred more often with cannabinoids: dizziness 2.97 (2.31 to 3.83), NNT 3; dysphoria or depression 8.06 (3.38 to 19.2), NNT 8; hallucinations 6.10 (2.41 to 15.4), NNT 17; paranoia 8.58 (6.38 to 11.5), NNT 20; and arterial hypotension 2.23 (1.75 to 2.83), NNT 7. Patients given cannabinoids were more likely to withdraw due to side effects 4.67 (3.07 to 7.09), NNT 11.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, the cannabinoids tested in these trials may be useful as mood enhancing adjuvants for controlling chemotherapy related sickness. Potentially serious adverse effects, even when taken short term orally or intramuscularly, are likely to limit their widespread use.

Cannabinoids in clinical practice

Cannabis has a potential for clinical use often obscured by unreliable and purely anecdotal reports. The most important natural cannabinoid is the psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinol (delta9-THC); others include cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabigerol (CBG). Not all the observed effects can be ascribed to THC, and the other constituents may also modulate its action; for example CBD reduces anxiety induced by THC. A standardised extract of the herb may be therefore be more beneficial in practice and clinical trial protocols have been drawn up to assess this. The mechanism of action is still not fully understood, although cannabinoid receptors have been cloned and natural ligands identified. Cannabis is frequently used by patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) for muscle spasm and pain, and in an experimental model of MS low doses of cannabinoids alleviated tremor. Most of the controlled studies have been carried out with THC rather than cannabis herb and so do not mimic the usual clincal situation. Small clinical studies have confirmed the usefulness of THC as an analgesic; CBD and CBG also have analgesic and antiinflammatory effects, indicating that there is scope for developing drugs which do not have the psychoactive properties of THC. Patients taking the synthetic derivative nabilone for neurogenic pain actually preferred cannabis herb and reported that it relieved not only pain but the associated depression and anxiety. Cannabinoids are effective in chemotherapy-induced emesis and nabilone has been licensed for this use for several years. Currently, the synthetic cannabinoid HU211 is undergoing trials as a protective agent after brain trauma. Anecdotal reports of cannabis use include case studies in migraine and Tourette's syndrome, and as a treatment for asthma and glaucoma. Apart from the smoking aspect, the safety profile of cannabis is fairly good. However, adverse reactions include panic or anxiety attacks, which are worse in the elderly and in women, and less likely in children. Although psychosis has been cited as a consequence of cannabis use, an examination of psychiatric hospital admissions found no evidence of this, however, it may exacerbate existing symptoms. The relatively slow elimination from the body of the cannabinoids has safety implications for cognitive tasks, especially driving and operating machinery; although driving impairment with cannabis is only moderate, there is a significant interaction with alcohol. Natural materials are highly variable and multiple components need to be standardised to ensure reproducible effects. Pure natural and synthetic compounds do not have these disadvantages but may not have the overall therapeutic effect of the herb.

Medicinal marijuana: a comprehensive review

Considerable controversy exists regarding the role of marijuana as a therapeutic agent; however, many practitioners are taught very little about existing marijuana data. The authors therefore undertook a comprehensive literature review of the topic. References were identified using textbooks, review and opinion articles, and a primary literature review in MEDLINE. Sources were included in this review based primarily on the quality of the data. Some data exists that lends credence to many of the claims about marijuana's properties. In general, however, the body of literature about marijuana is extremely poor in quality. Marijuana and/or its components may help alleviate suffering in patients with a variety of serious illnesses. Health care providers can best minimize short term adverse consequences and drug interactions for terminally ill patients by having a thorough understanding of the pharmacology of marijuana, potential adverse reactions, infection risks, and drug interactions (along with on-going monitoring of the patient). For chronic conditions, the significance and risk of short and long term adverse effects must be weighed against the desired benefit. Patients who are best suited to medicinal marijuana will be those who will gain substantial benefit to offset these risks, and who have failed a well-documented, compliant and comprehensive approach to standard therapies.

Intractable nausea and vomiting due to gastrointestinal mucosal metastases relieved by tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol)

Four years following resection of a Clark's level IV malignant melanoma, a 50-year-old man developed widespred metastatic disease involving the liver, bones, brain, gastrointestinal mucosa, and lungs. One week after whole brain radiation therapy, he was admitted to the hospital for nausea, vomiting, and pain. He was treated with several antiemetic drugs, but it was not until dronabinol was added that the nausea and vomiting stopped. Dronabinol was an effective antiemetic used in combination with prochlorperazine in nausea and vomiting unresponsive to conventional antiemetics.

Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibition of macrophage nitric oxide production

delta 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) inhibited nitric oxide (NO) production by mouse peritoneal macrophages activated by bacterial endotoxin lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and interferon-gamma (IFN)-gamma). Inhibition of NO production was noted at THC concentrations as low as 0.5 microgram/mL, and was nearly total at 7 micrograms/mL. Inhibition was greatest if THC was added 1-4 hr before induction of nitric oxide synthase (NOS) by LPS and IFN-gamma, and declined with time after addition of the inducing agents. This suggested that an early step such as NOS gene transcription or NOS synthesis, rather than NOS activity, was affected by THC. Steady-state levels of mRNA for NOS were not affected by THC. In contrast, protein synthesis was inhibited as indicated by immunoblotting. NOS activity was also decreased in the cytosol of cells pretreated with THC. Addition of excess cofactors did not restore activity. Inhibition of NO production was greater at low levels of IFN-gamma, indicating the ability of the cytokine to overcome inhibition. The effectiveness of various THC analogues, in decreasing order of potency, was delta 8-THC > delta 9-THC > cannabidiol > or = 11-OH-THC > cannabinol. The presumably inactive stereoisomer, (+)delta 9-THC, and the endogenous ligand for cannabinoid receptors, anandamide, were weakly inhibitory. Inhibition may be mediated by a process that depends partly on stereoselective receptors and partly on a nonselective process. LPS, IFN-gamma, hormone receptor agonists, and forskolin increased macrophage cyclic AMP levels. THC inhibited this increase, indicating functional cannabinoid receptors. Addition of 8-bromocyclic AMP increased NO 2-fold, and partially restored NO production that had been inhibited by THC. This occurred only under conditions of limited NOS induction, suggesting that the effect of THC on cyclic AMP was responsible for only a small portion of the inhibition of NO.

Control of chemotherapy-induced emesis

The development of antiemetic drugs has been one of the most rewarding areas of oncologic research, since therapeutic advances in this area can result in immediate improvement in the quality of life for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Antiemetic therapy has progressed dramatically during the past decade and a half. Fifteen years ago, patients receiving cisplatin for the first time had a median of 12 vomiting episodes within the first 24 hours, whereas now more than 50 percent of such patients have no vomiting episodes at all. Theoretical and clinical challenges remain, however, in the effort to control chemotherapy-induced emesis. The mechanisms of anticipatory vomiting and delayed vomiting are still not understood, and consistently effective therapeutic approaches to these problems have yet to be developed.

Gastrointestinal manifestations in the child with cancer

Pediatric oncology nurses provide a major role in the assessment and management of gastrointestinal complications in children resulting from cancer therapies. The clinical problems most frequently seen in this area include stomatitis, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea. These areas are reviewed in detail according to various nursing diagnoses including definitions and pathophysiology, recent studies and interventions, special considerations for children, and patient and parent education.

Recent clinical experience with dronabinol

Dronabinol, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in sesame oil, has been used for several years as an antiemetic for patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. In combination studies with prochlorperazine, enhancement of efficacy, as measured by duration of episodes of nausea and vomiting and by severity of nausea, has been found. The incidence of psychotropic effects from dronabinol appears to be decreased by concomitant administration of prochlorperazine. In open pilot studies, dronabinol caused weight gain in seven of ten patients with symptomatic HIV infection. In both HIV and cancer patients, dronabinol improved appetite at a dose which was well tolerated for chronic administration.

Dronabinol and prochlorperazine in combination for treatment of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Dronabinol (Marinol, Roxane Laboratories, Columbus, OH) and prochlorperazine were tested alone and in combination in a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients were randomized to receive either 1) dronabinol 10 mg every 6 hr plus placebo; 2) placebo plus prochlorperazine 10 mg every 6 hr; or 3) dronabinol and prochlorperazine, each 10 mg every 6 hr. Antiemetic treatment was begun 24 hr prior to and continued for 24 hr after the last dose of chemotherapy; all was given orally. Only 29% of patients in group 3 versus 47% in group 1 and 60% in group 2 experienced nausea after chemotherapy. In addition, the median duration per episode and severity of nausea were significantly less with combination therapy. Vomiting occurred after chemotherapy in 41%, 55%, and 35% of patients in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The median duration per episode of vomiting was 1 min in group 3 versus two in group 1 and four in group 2. Side effects, primarily CNS, were more common in group 1 than in group 2; addition of prochlorperazine to dronabinol appeared to decrease the frequency of dysphoric effects seen with the latter agent. The combination was significantly more effective than was either single agent in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.