Cannabinoide in der palliativen Versorgung: Systematische Übersicht und Metaanalyse der Wirksamkeit, Verträglichkeit und Sicherheit

Modulatory Activity of the Endocannabinoid System in the Development and Proliferation of Cells in the CNS

The Endocannabinoid System (ECS, also known as Endocannabinoidome) plays a key role in the function of the Central Nervous System, though the participation of this system on the early development - specifically in neuroprotection and proliferation of nerve cells - has been poorly studied. Here, we collect and describe evidence regarding how cannabinoid receptors CB1R and CB2R regulate several cell markers related to proliferation. While CB1R participates in the modulation of neuronal and glial proliferation, CB2R is involved in the proliferation of glial cells. The endocannabinoids anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) exert significant effects on nerve cell proliferation. AEA generated during embryogenesis induces major effects on the differentiation of neuronal progenitor cells, whereas 2-AG participates in modulating cell migration events rather than affecting the neural proliferation rate. However, although the ECS has been demonstrated to participate in neuroprotection, more characterization on its role in neuronal and glial proliferation and differentiation is needed, especially in brain areas with recognized high neurogenesis rates. This has encouraged scientists to elucidate and propose specific mechanisms related with these cell proliferation mechanisms to better understand some neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson, Huntington and Alzheimer diseases, in which neuronal loss and poor neurogenesis are crucial factors for their onset and progression. In this review, we collect and present recent evidence published pointing to an active role of the ECS in the development and proliferation of nerve cells.

Hemp Seeds of the Polish 'Bialobrzeskie' and 'Henola' Varieties (Cannabis sativa L. var. sativa) as Prospective Plant Sources for Food Production

This publication characterizes the nutritional value of the Polish hemp seeds of the 'Bialobrzeskie' and 'Henola' varieties, including the profile/content of fatty acids and amino acids. Hemp seeds were found to be rich in protein, fat, and dietary fiber. Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) dominated the unsaturated fatty acids (UFA) profile. Their average share within the total fatty acids (FA) was as high as 75%. Linoleic acid belonging to this group accounted for 55% of the total FA. Lipid profile indices (Σ n - 6/Σ n - 3, Σ PUFA/Σ SFA, the thrombogenicity index, the atherogenicity index and the hypocholesterolemic/hypercholesterolemic ratio) proved the high nutritional value of hemp oil. Considering the tyrosine + phenylalanine and histidine contents, hemp protein exhibited a great degree of similarity to egg protein, which is known and valued for its high biological value.

Efficacy and safety of therapeutic use of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogs: Overview of systematic reviews

The debate on the use of cannabinoids for therapeutic purposes is constantly on the rise. This overview aimed to map the evidence on the therapeutic effects of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogs. Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized trials were identified through a comprehensive search in several databases, and their methodological quality were evaluated with AMSTAR-2. The results for main outcomes are presented, prioritizing those from updated and better quality SRs. Finally, 68 SRs, addressing 37 different health conditions, were included. The methodological quality was high for eight SRs. The evidence certainty (GRADE) for the effects of cannabinoids is not high for any of the outcomes identified. Evidence certainty was moderate for the following: (a) cannabidiol appears to be beneficial for quality of life but increases the risk of adverse events in ulcerative colitis; (b) cannabinoids in general appear to have no clinically important benefit for chronic non-oncologic pain, spasticity-related pain in multiple sclerosis, or for acute post-operative pain; (c) cannabinoids in general appear to have a benefit in reducing chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. For all other outcomes from remaining comparisons, the evidence certainty was low, very low, or not evaluated, which prevents recommendations for or against their routine use.

Cannabinoids for the Neuropsychiatric Symptoms of Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

In 2016, the global number of individuals living with dementia was 43.8 million, representing a 117% increase from 1990-mainly due to increases in aging and population growth. Up to 90% of individuals with dementia experience neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS). However, the limitations of current treatments for NPS have drivent he search for safer pharmacotherapies-including cannabinoids.

AIM

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of cannabinoids for the treatment of NPS in individuals with dementia.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Of 6,902 papers, 9 were eligible (n = 205, 44% female, 78 ± 7 years, 85% Alzheimer disease). Trials were in North America and Europe and explored tetrahydrocannabinol (n = 3), dronabinol (n = 5), or nabilone (n = 1).

MEASUREMENT

Titles/abstracts were independently screened by one reviewer and reviewed by a second. Full-text screening was by two reviewers with discrepancies resolved via a third reviewer. We extracted data on the standardized mean difference (SMD) for several NPS instruments, trial completion, and adverse events. Data were pooled using random-effects models.

FINDINGS

Cannabinoids led to significant improvements across NPS instruments, including the Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory (SMD = -0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.45 to -0.16), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (SMD = -0.61; CI, -1.07 to -0.15), and nocturnal actigraphy (SMD = -1.05; CI, -1.56 to -0.54h). Cannabinoids were well-tolerated, with an overall trial completion rate of 93% (193/205) and no serious treatment-related adverse events. Treatment efficacy was associated with baseline dementia severity and dose, but not dementia subtype, age, or sex. The overall study quality was rated as low.

CONCLUSIONS

There is preliminary evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of cannabinoids as treatments for NPS. Population-based studies are needed to characterize their real-world effectiveness and acceptability.

Palliative Care and the Management of Common Distressing Symptoms in Advanced Cancer: Pain, Breathlessness, Nausea and Vomiting, and Fatigue

Good symptom management in oncology is associated with improved patient and family quality of life, greater treatment compliance, and may even offer survival advantages. With population growth and aging, the proportion of patients with multiple symptoms-both related and unrelated to their cancer-is anticipated to increase, supporting calls for a more routine and integrated approach to symptom management. This article presents a summary of the literature for the use of symptom assessment tools and reviews the management of four common and distressing symptoms commonly experienced by people with advanced cancer: pain, breathlessness, nausea and vomiting, and fatigue. We also discuss the role of palliative care in supporting a holistic approach to symptom management throughout the cancer trajectory.

Therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids: an evidence mapping and appraisal of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Although cannabis and cannabinoids are widely used with therapeutic purposes, their claimed efficacy is highly controversial. For this reason, medical cannabis use is a broad field of research that is rapidly expanding. Our objectives are to identify, characterize, appraise, and organize the current available evidence surrounding therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids, using evidence maps.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) published from their inception up to December 2017. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. We assessed methodological quality of the included SRs using the AMSTAR tool. To illustrate the extent of use of medical cannabis, we organized the results according to identified PICO questions using bubble plots corresponding to different clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

A total of 44 SRs published between 2001 and 2017 were included in this evidence mapping with data from 158 individual studies. We extracted 96 PICO questions in the following medical conditions: multiple sclerosis, movement disorders (e.g. Tourette Syndrome, Parkinson Disease), psychiatry conditions, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, acute and chronic pain, cancer, neuropathic pain, symptoms related to cancer (e.g. emesis and anorexia related with chemotherapy), rheumatic disorders, HIV-related symptoms, glaucoma, and COPD. The evidence about these conditions is heterogeneous regarding the conclusions and the quality of the individual primary studies. The quality of the SRs was moderate to high according to AMSTAR scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on medical uses of cannabis is broad. However, due to methodological limitations, conclusions were weak in most of the assessed comparisons. Evidence mapping methodology is useful to perform an overview of available research, since it is possible to systematically describe the extent and distribution of evidence, and to organize scattered data.

Benefits and harms of medical cannabis: a scoping review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

There has been increased interest in the role of cannabis for treating medical conditions. The availability of different cannabis-based products can make the side effects of exposure unpredictable. We sought to conduct a scoping review of systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines for any condition.

METHODS

A protocol was followed throughout the conduct of this scoping review. A protocol-guided scoping review conduct. Searches of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) and gray literature were performed. Two people selected and charted data from systematic reviews. Categorizations emerged during data synthesis. The reporting of results from systematic reviews was performed at a high level appropriate for a scoping review.

RESULTS

After screening 1975 citations, 72 systematic reviews were included. The reviews covered many conditions, the most common being pain management. Several reviews focused on management of pain as a symptom of conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), injury, and cancer. After pain, the most common symptoms treated were spasticity in MS, movement disturbances, nausea/vomiting, and mental health symptoms. An assessment of review findings lends to the understanding that, although in a small number of reviews results showed a benefit for reducing pain, the analysis approach and reporting in other reviews was sub-optimal, making it difficult to know how consistent findings are when considering pain in general. Adverse effects were reported in most reviews comparing cannabis with placebo (49/59, 83%) and in 20/24 (83%) of the reviews comparing cannabis to active drugs. Minor adverse effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness) were common and reported in over half of the reviews. Serious harms were not as common, but were reported in 21/59 (36%) reviews that reported on adverse effects. Overall, safety data was generally reported study-by-study, with few reviews synthesizing data. Only one review was rated as high quality, while the remaining were rated of moderate (n = 36) or low/critically low (n = 35) quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the included reviews were mixed, with most reporting an inability to draw conclusions due to inconsistent findings and a lack of rigorous evidence. Mild harms were frequently reported, and it is possible the harms of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh benefits.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol for this scoping review was posted in the Open Access (https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37247).

[Dronabinol in geriatric pain and palliative care patients : A retrospective evaluation of statutory-health-insurance-covered outpatient medical treatment]

BACKGROUND

Geriatric patients often suffer from a long history of pain and have a limited life expectancy. Cannabinoid receptor agonists like dronabinol may be an effective, low-risk treatment option for geriatric patients with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

The effectiveness and side effects of dronabinol therapy in geriatric patients are analyzed. The effects of the approval requirement are presented.

METHODS

In our retrospective monocentric cohort study, the study population comprised all geriatric patients over the age of 80 years who were treated in our office since the cannabis law came into effect on 10 March 2017 until 17 July 2018 (evaluation date). Geriatric, nonpalliative pain patients (group A) and geriatric palliative patients (group B) were investigated. The basis of the evaluation was a questionnaire sheet that we use in our office with details of dosages, pain intensity, treatment effects and side effects from dronabinol therapy.

RESULTS

By using dronabinol, 21 of the 40 geriatric patients (52.5%) achieved pain relief of more than 30%, 10% of the patients of more than 50%. On average, about four symptoms or side effects related to previous treatment were positively influenced. 26% of patients reported side effects. The rejection rates on the part of the health insurances were 38.7% (group A) and 10.3% (group B).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is one of the few analyses of the use of Dronabinol in geriatric patients. We show that cannabis-based drugs (in this case dronabinol) are an effective, low-risk treatment option that should be considered early in therapy. Regarding the indication spectrum, further clinical studies and an approval-free test phase are necessary.

[Position paper on medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines in pain medicine]

Since March 2017, the prescription of medical cannabis at the expense of the statutory health insurance is possible after approval by the respective medical services. Chronic pain is the most common indication, as health claims data and the accompanying survey show. From the point of view of the law, a prescription is indicated in cases of serious illness, missing or not indicated established therapeutic approaches and a not entirely remote prospect of improvement of the illness or its symptoms. This describes a broader indication spectrum than can currently be based on randomised controlled clinical trials. There is weak evidence of low efficacy for neuropathic pain. For pain related to spasticity and cancer-related pain there is evidence of improvements in quality of life, but effects on pain are of little relevance. For all other indications, only an individual therapeutic trial can be justified based on the available external evidence. However, this usually corresponds to the demand of "a not entirely remote prospect" of a noticeably positive effect of medical cannabis. It is also problematic that almost no long-term studies for the application and efficacy of flowers and extracts are available.Current knowledge on the use of cannabis-based drugs and, more clearly, medical cannabis for chronic pain is insufficient. The increase in the number of countries with marketing authorisations or exemptions for medicinal cannabis or cannabis-based drugs for chronic pain will also pave the way for larger empirical and population-based studies that will further improve the evidence base of research and clinical use.

[Efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis: results of the CaPRis study]

In the 1990s, the endocannabinoid system was discovered as part of the human physiology. Since then, the effects of cannabis as a medicine have been researched more systematically. To summarize the scientific knowledge, the German Federal Ministry of Health commissioned an expertise.The project "Cannabis: Potential and Risks: a Scientific Analysis" (CaPRis), which started in 2016, aimed at analyzing the potential of medicinal cannabis and the risks of recreational cannabis use. A search of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted in five international databases (publication date: 2006-2017). For the medical use of cannabis 16 SRs (of 186 RCTs) were included from a global search and nine further RCTs were comprised from a de novo search. All studies were methodologically assessed.Evidence for the efficacy of cannabis medicine (given as an adjunct to other medication) was found in patients with chronic pain and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. Benefits were also found for appetite stimulation, improvement of nausea, and weight gain in patients with cancer, HIV/AIDS or in palliative care. Effects were often small. For other physical or mental disorders, only few or no controlled human studies are available. Adverse effects of cannabis medicine are often reported; severe adverse effects were mentioned in single cases only.To provide reliable treatment recommendations for clinicians and patients, more large-sized RCTs with follow-up assessments, consistent outcome measures, and active comparisons are needed.

[Cannabis for medical purposes and its prescription]

Since 10 March 2017, physicians have been allowed to prescribe cannabis to patients with serious illnesses and in the absence of alternative therapies. Patients can obtain it as dried flowers or extracts in standardised pharmaceutical quality by prescription (narcotic prescription, except for cannabidiol) in pharmacies. When prescribing, physicians have to take a few things into account. The first step is to decide which therapeutic effects are to be achieved and which is the most suitable cannabis product.Cannabis for medical use must meet the requirements for pharmaceutical quality. An identity check must be carried out in the pharmacy on the basis of the monographs of the German Pharmacopoeia (DAB) or the German Pharmaceutical Codex/New Prescription Form (DAC/NRF). For the production of prescription drugs, e.g. capsules, drops or inhalates, there are also corresponding monographs for the preparation of prescription drugs. These standardised, quality-assured prescription formulas should be given preference in the case of a medical prescription.When prescribing an oral or inhalative form of application, it should be noted that the onset and duration of action are very different. Also, due to the complex pharmacology of cannabinoids, interindividual genetic differences in the metabolisation of ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the individual structure and function of the cannabinoid receptors, as well as differences in receptor density and distribution, the dosage and frequency of application must be individually determined. Last but not least, the dosage also depends on the type of disease and individual susceptibility to side effects. When prescribed for the first time, a creeping dosage with a very low initial dose is recommended.

How effective and safe is medical cannabis as a treatment of mental disorders? A systematic review

We conducted a review of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) to analyze efficacy and safety of cannabis-based medication in patients with mental disorders. Five data bases were systematically searched (2006-August 2018); 4 SRs (of 11 RCTs) and 14 RCTs (1629 participants) were included. Diagnoses were: dementia, cannabis and opioid dependence, psychoses/schizophrenia, general social anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, anorexia nervosa, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and Tourette`s disorder. Outcome variables were too heterogeneous to conduct a  meta-analysis. A narrative synthesis method was applied. The study quality was assessed using the risk-of-bias tool and SIGN-checklists. THC- and CBD-based medicines, given as adjunct to pharmaco- and psychotherapy, were associated with improvements of several symptoms of mental disorders, but not with remission. Side effects occurred, but severe adverse effects were mentioned in single cases only. In order to provide reliable treatment recommendations, more and larger RCTs with follow-up assessments, consistent outcome measures and active comparisons are needed.

European Pain Federation (EFIC) position paper on appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for chronic pain management

Cannabis-based medicines are being approved for pain management in an increasing number of European countries. There are uncertainties and controversies on the role and appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines for the management of chronic pain. EFIC convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of basic science and relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper to empower and inform specialist and nonspecialist prescribers on appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and harnessed the clinical experience to produce these series of recommendations. Therapy with cannabis-based medicines should only be considered by experienced clinicians as part of a multidisciplinary treatment and preferably as adjunctive medication if guideline-recommended first- and second-line therapies have not provided sufficient efficacy or tolerability. The quantity and quality of evidence are such that cannabis-based medicines may be reasonably considered for chronic neuropathic pain. For all other chronic pain conditions (cancer, non-neuropathic noncancer pain), the use of cannabis-based medicines should be regarded as an individual therapeutic trial. Realistic goals of therapy have to be defined. All patients must be kept under close clinical surveillance. As with any other medical therapy, if the treatment fails to reach the predefined goals and/or the patient is additionally burdened by an unacceptable level of adverse effects and/or there are signs of abuse and misuse of the drug by the patient, therapy with cannabis-based medicines should be terminated.

SIGNIFICANCE

This position paper provides expert recommendations for nonspecialist and specialist healthcare professionals in Europe, on the importance and the appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines as part of a multidisciplinary approach to pain management, in properly selected and supervised patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cannabinoids in palliative medicine

We provide a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids in palliative medicine. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and http://clinicaltrials.gov, and a selection of cancer journals were searched up until 15th of March 2017. Of the 108 screened studies, nine studies with a total of 1561 participants were included. Overall, the nine studies were at moderate risk of bias. The quality of evidence comparing cannabinoids with placebo was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation as low or very low because of indirectness, imprecision, and potential reporting bias. In cancer patients, there were no significant differences between cannabinoids and placebo for improving caloric intake (standardized mean differences [SMD]: 0.2 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-0.66, 1.06] P = 0.65), appetite (SMD: 0.81 95% CI: [-1.14, 2.75]; P = 0.42), nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.21 [-0.10, 0.52] P = 0.19), >30% decrease in pain (risk differences [RD]: 0.07 95% CI: [-0.01, 0.16]; P = 0.07), or sleep problems (SMD: -0.09 95% CI: [-0.62, 0.43] P = 0.72). In human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients, cannabinoids were superior to placebo for weight gain (SMD: 0.57 [0.22; 0.92]; P = 0.001) and appetite (SMD: 0.57 [0.11; 1.03]; P = 0.02) but not for nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.20 [-0.15, 0.54]; P = 0.26). Regarding side effects in cancer patients, there were no differences between cannabinoids and placebo in symptoms of dizziness (RD: 0.03 [-0.02; 0.08]; P = 0.23) or poor mental health (RD: -0.01 [-0.04; 0.03]; P = 0.69), whereas in HIV patients, there was a significant increase in mental health symptoms (RD: 0.05 [0.00; 0.11]; P = 0.05). Tolerability (measured by the number of withdrawals because of adverse events) did not differ significantly in cancer (RD: 1.15 [0.80; 1.66]; P = 0.46) and HIV patients (RD: 1.87 [0.60; 5.84]; P = 0.28). Safety did not differ in cancer (RD: 1.12 [0.86; 1.46]; P = 0.39) or HIV patients (4.51 [0.54; 37.45]; P = 0.32) although there was large uncertainty about the latter reflected in the width of the CI. In one moderate quality study of 469 cancer patients with cancer-associated anorexia, megestrol was superior to cannabinoids in improving appetite, producing >10% weight gain and tolerability. In another study comparing megestrol to dronabinol in HIV patients, megestrol treatment led to higher weight gain without any differences in tolerability and safety. We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids are of value for anorexia or cachexia in cancer or HIV patients.

[Acute emergencies in oncology]

The spectrum of dermato-oncological emergencies is multifaceted. They are particularly observed in cases with malignant melanoma due to the large number of patients and prolonged survival rates that are associated with new therapies for advanced disease. Dermato-oncological patients present to the hospital with symptoms like nausea and emesis, unexpected neurological deficits, various gastrointestinal problems, and even acute abdomen, acute breathlessness, or hemoptysis. Furthermore, emergencies can be caused by hematological problems like anemia and leukopenia. In addition to standardized care for medical emergencies, there are many other problems caused by metastases and/or therapeutic side effects that need interdisciplinary skills to optimize procedures and deliberate on surgical interventions, radiotherapy, and medical therapeutic choices with regard to the overall situation of the patient. The article deals with a spectrum of acute organ-specific emergencies, including recommendations for medical treatment and considerations for therapeutic decisions. Recommendations for supportive care in patients who are severely ill are summarized. In addition to stage-adapted pain therapy, supportive measures such as nutritional supplementation, the use of dronabinol in cases of loss of appetite, and antipruritic therapies are outlined. This article provides a succinct summary of the most frequently observed dermato-oncological emergencies with references to the respective detailed literature of associated medical societies and guidelines.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management - An overview of systematic reviews

Medicinal cannabis has already entered mainstream medicine in some countries. This systematic review (SR) aimed at evaluating the efficacy, acceptability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. Qualitative systematic review of SRs of randomized controlled trials with cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. The Cochrane databases of SRs, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and PubMed were searched for SR published in the period January 2009 to January 2017. Assessment of the methodological quality of SR was performed by the AMSTAR checklist. Out of 748 papers identified, 10 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was high in four and moderate in six SRs. There were inconsistent findings of four SRs on the efficacy of cannabis-based medicines in neuropathic pain and of one SR for painful spasms in multiple sclerosis. There were consistent results that there was insufficient evidence of any cannabis-based medicine for pain management in patients with rheumatic diseases (three SRs) and in cancer pain (two SRs). Cannabis-based medicines undoubtedly enrich the possibilities of drug treatment of chronic pain conditions. It remains the responsibility of the health care community to continue to pursue rigorous study of cannabis-based medicines to provide evidence that meets the standard of 21st century clinical care.

SIGNIFICANCE

We provide an overview of systematic reviews on the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. There are inconsistent findings of the efficacy of cannabinoids in neuropathic pain and painful spasms in multiple sclerosis. There are inconsistent results on tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for any chronic pain.

Cannabinoids in Pain Management and Palliative Medicine

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting interpretations of the evidence regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids in pain management and palliative medicine.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review (SR) of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and prospective long-term observational studies of the use of cannabinoids in pain management and palliative medicine. Pertinent publications from January 2009 to January 2017 were retrieved by a selective search in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Medline. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR instrument, and the clinical relevance of quantitative data syntheses was assessed according to the standards of the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Of the 750 publications identified, 11 SRs met the inclusion criteria; 3 of them were of high and 8 of moderate methodological quality. 2 prospective long-term observational studies with medical cannabis and 1 with tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol spray (THC/CBD spray) were also analyzed. There is limited evidence for a benefit of THC/CBD spray in the treatment of neuropathic pain. There is inadequate evidence for any benefit of cannabinoids (dronabinol, nabilone, medical cannabis, or THC/CBD spray) to treat cancer pain, pain of rheumatic or gastrointestinal origin, or anorexia in cancer or AIDS. Treatment with cannabis-based medicines is associated with central nervous and psychiatric side effects.

CONCLUSION

The public perception of the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabis-based medicines in pain management and palliative medicine conflicts with the findings of systematic reviews and prospective observational studies conducted according to the standards of evidence-based medicine.