Considering abuse liability and neurocognitive effects of cannabis and cannabis-derived products when assessing analgesic efficacy: a comprehensive review of randomized-controlled studies

Natural Products Derived from Cannabis sativa for Pain Management

Cannabis sativa is one of the oldest medicinal plants in human history. Even ancient physicians from hundreds of years ago used Cannabis sativa to treat several conditions like pain. In the modern era, the research community, including health-care providers, have witnessed wide-scale changes in cannabis policy, legislation, and marketing, with a parallel increase in patient interest. A simple search in PubMed using "cannabis and pain" as keywords provides more than 2,400 articles, about 80% of which were published in the last 8-10 years. Several advancements have been achieved in understanding the complex chemistry of cannabis along with its multiple pharmacological activities. Preclinical data have demonstrated evidence for the promising potential of cannabis for pain management, and the continuous rise in the prevalence of pain increases the urgency to translate this into clinical practice. Despite the large body of cannabis literature, researchers still need to find rigorous answers for the questions about the efficacy and safety of cannabis in treatment of certain disorders such as pain. In the current chapter, we seek to present a critical overview about the current knowledge on cannabis with special emphasis on pain-related disorders.

Clinical Benefits and Safety of Medical Cannabis Products: A Narrative Review on Natural Extracts

Interest in medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) has increased greatly in recent years. Two cannabinoids are of principal importance; delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9-THC), the primary psychoactive component, and also cannabidiol (CBD), considered non-intoxicating. Each has distinct mechanisms of action and different therapeutic potentials. CBMPs differ in their ∆9-THC and CBD components; predominantly ∆9-THC, balanced formulations with equivalent ∆9-THC and CBD elements, and CBD-predominant products. In this narrative review, we evaluate the published evidence for the clinical benefits of CBMPs and overall benefits in well-being. We also review the overall safety profile and discuss the potential for dependence with CBMPs. Evidence can be drawn from a wide range of randomized and other controlled studies and from observational real-world studies. Most data from observational registry studies are supportive of ∆9-THC-based products (∆9-THC-predominant or balanced CBMPs) in the management of chronic neuropathic pain. Balanced products are also effective in reducing spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Most CBMPs show benefit in providing symptomatic benefits in reducing anxiety, nausea, and in improving sleep, but the place of specific products is more subtle, and choice guided by specific circumstances. Symptomatic improvements are accompanied by improved quality of life and well-being. Safety data indicate that CBMPs are generally well tolerated in most patients without specific contraindications. The majority of adverse effects are non-serious, and transient; most are principally associated with ∆9-THC and are dose-dependent. In contrast to recreational cannabis use, there is little evidence from clinical studies that CBMPs have any potential for dependence.

The Development of Cannabinoids as Therapeutic Agents in the United States

Cannabis is one of the oldest and widely used substances in the world. Cannabinoids within the cannabis plant, known as phytocannabinoids, mediate cannabis' effects through interactions with the body's endogenous cannabinoid system. This endogenous system, the endocannabinoid system, has important roles in physical and mental health. These roles point to the potential to develop cannabinoids as therapeutic agents while underscoring the risks related to interfering with the endogenous system during nonmedical use. This scoping narrative review synthesizes the current evidence for both the therapeutic and adverse effects of the major (i.e., Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol) and lesser studied minor phytocannabinoids, from nonclinical to clinical research. We pay particular attention to the areas where evidence is well established, including analgesic effects after acute exposures and neurocognitive risks after acute and chronic use. In addition, drug development considerations for cannabinoids as therapeutic agents within the United States are reviewed. The proposed clinical study design considerations encourage methodological standards for greater scientific rigor and reproducibility to ultimately extend our knowledge of the risks and benefits of cannabinoids for patients and providers. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This work provides a review of prior research related to phytocannabinoids, including therapeutic potential and known risks in the context of drug development within the United States. We also provide study design considerations for future cannabinoid drug development.

Distinct antinociceptive and conditioned behavioral effects are produced by individual cannabinoids and a cannabis-derived mixture

Cannabinoids have been proposed as therapeutics for pain mitigation. Therefore, the antihyperalgesic effects of a proprietary cannabis-derived mixture, Non-Euphoric Phytocannabinoid Elixir #14 (NEPE14), were examined in a persistent Complete Freund's Adjuvant (CFA)-induced model of inflammatory pain. The acute antinociceptive and operant behavioral effects of NEPE14 were then compared with single cannabinoid preparations of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), Δ8-THC, the synthetic cannabinoid (-)-CP 55,940 (CP), and cannabidiol (CBD). The THC isomers and CP were also administered with cannabinoid-type-1 receptor (CB1R) antagonist, AM251, and NEPE14 was administered in combination with THC or CP. To induce inflammation, CFA or saline was administered into the paw of male and female Wistar rats. After injections, mechanical hypersensitivity was assessed with Von Frey filaments, and thermal hyperalgesia with a thermal probe. Nine Sprague Dawley rats were also trained to respond under a fixed-ratio 30 schedule for food reinforcers during a 60-min session. Response rates were recorded during the session and warm-water tail-withdrawal latency post session. In CFA-administered rats, mechanical and thermal paw-withdrawal thresholds significantly decreased compared to vehicle, indicating hyperalgesia. Both i.p. (6.6-20.7 ml/kg) and o.m. (30-300 μL) NEPE14 significantly reduced the mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia. In contrast, neither NEPE14 (3.7-20.7 mL/kg i.p., 100-1000 μL o.m.) nor CBD (10-100 mg/kg) significantly decreased response rates or increased tail-withdrawal latency. Acute Δ9-THC, Δ8-THC (1-5.6 mg/kg), and CP (0.032-0.18 mg/kg) significantly and dose-dependently decreased overall response rate and increased tail-withdrawal latency compared to vehicle. AM251 significantly antagonized the rate-decreasing effects of THC, and CP, as well as the antinociceptive effects of CP. Combinations of NEPE14 with Δ9-THC or CP were not significantly different from these cannabinoids alone. In summary, while NEPE14 significantly reduced CFA-induced hyperalgesia, it was more similar to CBD than Δ9-THC, Δ8-THC, and CP for significantly reducing thermal nociception and disrupting conditioned behavior.

Negative experiences of patients using medicinal cannabis: A systematic review of qualitative studies

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

In this study, we systematically reviewed qualitative studies concerning patients' experience with medicinal cannabis (MC) use, to gain insight into the negative effects of MC.

BACKGROUND

Over the past decades, the use of MC for therapeutic purposes has increased. However, there is conflicting and insufficient data on possible negative physiological and psychological effects of MC treatment.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted and the PRISMA guidelines were adopted. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist used to assess risk of bias in the included studies.

METHODS

We included studies focusing on conventional medical treatment using cannabis-based products, approved by a physician for a particular health issue.

RESULTS

Of the 1230 articles identified in the initial search, eight articles were included in the review. Following the compilation of themes in the eligible studies, six themes were identified: (1) MC approval; (2) administrative barriers; (3) social perception; (4) MC misuse/widespread effect; (5) adverse effects; and (6) dependence or addiction. These were grouped into two meta-themes: (1) administrative and social aspects of MC use; and (2) experiences of the effects of medicinal cannabis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings call for specific attention to unique consequences associated with MC use. Further research is needed in order to assess the degree to which negative experiences associated with MC use may affect various aspects of patients' medical condition.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Describing the complex experience of MC treatment and its spectrum of consequences for patients may enable physicians, therapists and researchers to provide more attentive and accurate MC treatment to their patients.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

In this review, patients' narratives were explored, yet the research methods did not directly involve patients or the public.

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol modulates pain sensitivity among persons receiving opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A within-subject, randomized, placebo-controlled laboratory study

The opioid and cannabinoid receptor systems are inextricably linked-overlapping at the anatomical, functional and behavioural levels. Preclinical studies have reported that cannabinoid and opioid agonists produce synergistic antinociceptive effects. Still, there are no experimental data on the effects of cannabinoid agonists among humans who receive opioid agonist therapies for opioid use disorder (OUD). We conducted an experimental study to investigate the acute effects of the delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) among persons receiving methadone therapy for OUD. Using a within-subject, crossover, human laboratory design, 25 persons on methadone therapy for OUD (24% women) were randomly assigned to receive single oral doses of THC (10 or 20 mg, administered as dronabinol) or placebo, during three separate 5-h test sessions. Measures of experimental and self-reported pain sensitivity, abuse potential, cognitive performance and physiological effects were collected. Mixed-effects models examined the main effects of THC dose and interactions between THC (10 and 20 mg) and methadone doses (low-dose methadone defined as <90 mg/day; high dose defined as >90 mg/day). Results demonstrated that, for self-reported rather than experimental pain sensitivity measures, 10 mg THC provided greater relief than 20 mg THC, with no substantial evidence of abuse potential, and inconsistent dose-dependent cognitive adverse effects. There was no indication of any interaction between THC and methadone doses. Collectively, these results provide valuable insights for future studies aiming to evaluate the risk-benefit profile of cannabinoids to relieve pain among individuals receiving opioid agonist therapy for OUD, a timely endeavour amidst the opioid crisis.

Are Cannabis, Cannabis-Derived Products, and Synthetic Cannabinoids a Therapeutic Tool for Rheumatoid Arthritis? A Friendly Summary of the Body of Evidence

BACKGROUND

Symptom management in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remains a complex challenge. Widespread use of cannabis-based medicines for a myriad of symptoms has fostered rheumatology patients' interest. However, their safety and efficacy in RA remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a structured summary of the body of evidence in order to determine whether cannabis, cannabis-derived products, and synthetic cannabinoids are an effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

An electronic search in Epistemonikos database was performed to identify systematic reviews and their primary studies that addressed our clinical question. The body of evidence was collected in a pivot table in Epistemonikos. Information and data from the primary studies were extracted from the identified reviews. Finally, extracted data were reanalyzed, and a summary of findings table was generated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-six systematic reviews were identified which included in total only 1 randomized trial assessing our clinical question.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis, cannabis-derived products and synthetic cannabinoids may slightly reduce disease activity in patients with RA. Its use may result in little to no difference in pain reduction and may slightly increase nervous system adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cannabis, cannabis-derived products, and synthetic cannabinoids on serious adverse events risk.

Cannabis based medicines and cannabis dependence: A critical review of issues and evidence

Cannabis has been legalised for medical use in an ever-increasing number of countries. A growing body of scientific evidence supports the use of medical cannabis for a range of therapeutic indications. In parallel with these developments, concerns have been expressed by many prescribers that increased use will lead to patients developing cannabis use disorder. Cannabis use disorder has been widely studied in recreational users, and these findings have often been projected onto patients using medical cannabis. However, studies exploring medical cannabis dependence are scarce and the appropriate methodology to measure this construct is uncertain. This article provides a narrative review of the current research to discern if, how and to what extent, concerns about problems of dependence in recreational cannabis users apply to prescribed medical users. We focus on the main issues related to medical cannabis and dependence, including the importance of dose, potency, cannabinoid content, pharmacokinetics and route of administration, frequency of use, as well as set and setting. Medical and recreational cannabis use differs in significant ways, highlighting the challenges of extrapolating findings from the recreational cannabis literature. There are many questions about the potential for medical cannabis use to lead to dependence. It is therefore imperative to address these questions in order to be able to minimise harms of medical cannabis use. We draw out seven recommendations for increasing the safety of medical cannabis prescribing. We hope that the present review contributes to answering some of the key questions surrounding medical cannabis dependence.

Cannabis for medical purposes: A cross-sectional analysis of health care professionals' knowledge

BACKGROUND

Legalization of cannabis use and the evidence base supporting both risks and benefits of cannabinoids are expanding, but our understanding of health care professionals' (HCPs) knowledge about cannabis for medical purposes is limited. Understanding of the knowledge base and knowledge gaps about medical cannabis use is critical to advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) because they are increasingly called on to manage patients taking multiple drugs, including prescribed and unprescribed cannabis and prescription cannabinoids.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine HCPs' knowledge of clinical cannabis, including laws and regulations; risks and harms; pharmacology; and effects on pain, multiple sclerosis spasticity, and seizures as assessed with written tests before an in-person, continuing medical education program.

METHODS

Total scores and differences among professions and topics were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 178 of the 226 program attendees completed the test (79%) (107 [47%] physicians, 30 [13%] APRNs, and 18 [8%] registered nurses). The mean test score was 63.2% (SD = 12.7%) without significant differences among professions (F(3, 174) = 1.53; p = .21) but with significant differences among topics (χ2(7, 1068) = 201.13; p < .001). The score was lowest for effects on seizures (43.8%) and with scores below 70% for all other areas except laws and regulations (85.7%).

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There are substantial gaps in HCPs' knowledge about the clinical effects of cannabis, especially about risks and harms, pharmacology, and the effects on pain, multiple sclerosis spasticity, and seizures. Further education may help HCPs to understand the risks and benefits of cannabis and cannabinoids across conditions.

Therapeutic potential and safety considerations for the clinical use of synthetic cannabinoids

The phytocannabinoid Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) was isolated and synthesized in the 1960s. Since then, two synthetic cannabinoids (SCBs) targeting the cannabinoid 1 (CB1R) and 2 (CB2R) receptors were approved for medical use based on clinical safety and efficacy data: dronabinol (synthetic THC) and nabilone (synthetic THC analog). To probe the function of the endocannabinoid system further, hundreds of investigational compounds were developed; in particular, agonists with (1) greater CB1/2R affinity relative to THC and (2) full CB1/2R agonist activity. This pharmacological profile may pose greater risks for misuse and adverse effects relative to THC, and these SCBs proliferated in retail markets as legal alternatives to cannabis (e.g., novel psychoactive substances [NPS], "Spice," "K2"). These SCBs were largely outlawed in the U.S., but blanket policies that placed all SCB chemicals into restrictive control categories impeded research progress into novel mechanisms for SCB therapeutic development. There is a concerted effort to develop new, therapeutically useful SCBs that target novel pharmacological mechanisms. This review highlights the potential therapeutic efficacy and safety considerations for unique SCBs, including CB1R partial and full agonists, peripherally-restricted CB1R agonists, selective CB2R agonists, selective CB1R antagonists/inverse agonists, CB1R allosteric modulators, endocannabinoid-degrading enzyme inhibitors, and cannabidiol. We propose promising directions for SCB research that may optimize therapeutic efficacy and diminish potential for adverse events, for example, peripherally-restricted CB1R antagonists/inverse agonists and biased CB1/2R agonists. Together, these strategies could lead to the discovery of new, therapeutically useful SCBs with reduced negative public health impact.