Systematic Review of the Use of Phytochemicals for Management of Pain in Cancer Therapy

Recent trends and therapeutic potential of phytoceutical-based nanoparticle delivery systems in mitigating non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death globally, with non-small cell lung cancer accounting for the majority (85%) of cases. Standard treatments including chemotherapy and radiotherapy present multiple adverse effects. Medicinal plants, used for centuries, are traditionally processed by methods such as boiling and oral ingestion, However, water solubility, absorption, and hepatic metabolism reduce phytoceutical bioavailability. More recently, isolated molecular compounds from these plants can be extracted with these phytoceuticals administered either individually or as an adjunct with standard therapy. Phytoceuticals have been shown to alleviate symptoms, may reduce dosage of chemotherapy and, in some cases, enhance pharmaceutical mechanisms. Research has identified many phytoceuticals' actions on cancer-associated pathways, such as oncogenesis, the tumour microenvironment, tumour cell proliferation, metastasis, and apoptosis. The development of novel nanoparticle delivery systems such as solid lipid nanoparticles, liquid crystalline nanoparticles, and liposomes has enhanced the bioavailability and targeted delivery of pharmaceuticals and phytoceuticals. This review explores the biological pathways associated with non-small cell lung cancer, a diverse range of phytoceuticals, the cancer pathways they act upon, and the pros and cons of several nanoparticle delivery systems.

MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events

BACKGROUND

Approximately 18% of patients with cancer use cannabis at one time as palliation or treatment for their cancer. We performed a systematic review of randomized cannabis cancer trials to establish a guideline for its use in pain and to summarize the risk of harm and adverse events when used for any indication in cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized trials with or without meta-analysis was carried out from MEDLINE, CCTR, Embase, and PsychINFO. The search involved randomized trials of cannabis in cancer patients. The search ended on November 12, 2021. The Jadad grading system was used for grading quality. Inclusion criteria for articles were randomized trials or systematic reviews of randomized trials of cannabinoids versus either placebo or active comparator explicitly in adult patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Thirty-four systematic reviews and randomized trials met the eligibility criteria for cancer pain. Seven were randomized trials involving patients with cancer pain. Two trials had positive primary endpoints, which could not be reproduced in similarly designed trials. High-quality systematic reviews with meta-analyses found little evidence that cannabinoids are an effective adjuvant or analgesic to cancer pain. Seven systematic reviews and randomized trials related to harms and adverse events were included. There was inconsistent evidence about the types and levels of harm patients may experience when using cannabinoids.

CONCLUSION

The MASCC panel recommends against the use of cannabinoids as an adjuvant analgesic for cancer pain and suggests that the potential risk of harm and adverse events be carefully considered for all cancer patients, particularly with treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Optimization of an in Silico Protocol Using Probe Permeabilities to Identify Membrane Pan-Assay Interference Compounds

Membrane pan-assay interference compounds (PAINS) are a class of molecules that interact nonspecifically with lipid bilayers and alter their physicochemical properties. An early identification of these compounds avoids chasing false leads and the needless waste of time and resources in drug discovery campaigns. In this work, we optimized an in silico protocol on the basis of umbrella sampling (US)/molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to discriminate between compounds with different membrane PAINS behavior. We showed that the method is quite sensitive to membrane thickness fluctuations, which was mitigated by changing the US reference position to the phosphate atoms of the closest interacting monolayer. The computational efficiency was improved further by decreasing the number of umbrellas and adjusting their strength and position in our US scheme. The inhomogeneous solubility-diffusion model (ISDM) used to calculate the membrane permeability coefficients confirmed that resveratrol and curcumin have distinct membrane PAINS characteristics and indicated a misclassification of nothofagin in a previous work. Overall, we have presented here a promising in silico protocol that can be adopted as a future reference method to identify membrane PAINS.

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines for pain management: an overview of systematic reviews

ABSTRACT

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBM) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We assessed methodological quality, scope, and results of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of these treatments. Several search strategies sought self-declared systematic reviews. Methodological quality was assessed using both AMSTAR-2 and techniques important for bias reduction in pain studies. Of the 106 articles read, 57 were self-declared systematic reviews, most published since 2010. They included any type of cannabinoid, cannabis, or CBM, at any dose, however administered, in a broad range of pain conditions. No review examined the effects of a particular cannabinoid, at a particular dose, using a particular route of administration, for a particular pain condition, reporting a particular analgesic outcome. Confidence in the results in the systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 definitions was critically low (41), low (8), moderate (6), or high (2). Few used criteria important for bias reduction in pain. Cochrane reviews typically provided higher confidence; all industry-conflicted reviews provided critically low confidence. Meta-analyses typically pooled widely disparate studies, and, where assessable, were subject to potential publication bias. Systematic reviews with positive or negative recommendation for use of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain typically rated critically low or low (24/25 [96%] positive; 10/12 [83%] negative). Current reviews are mostly lacking in quality and cannot provide a basis for decision-making. A new high-quality systematic review of randomised controlled trials is needed to critically assess the clinical evidence for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain.

Tasty THC: Promises and Challenges of Cannabis Edibles

Food products containing cannabis extract (edibles) have emerged as a popular and lucrative facet of the legalized market for both recreational and medicinal cannabis. The many formulations of cannabis extracts used in edibles present a unique regulatory challenge for policy makers. Though edibles are often considered a safe, discreet, and effective means of attaining the therapeutic and/or intoxicating effects of cannabis without exposure to the potentially harmful risks of cannabis smoking, little research has evaluated how ingestion differs from other methods of cannabis administration in terms of therapeutic efficacy, subjective effects, and safety. The most prominent difference between ingestion and inhalation of cannabis extracts is the delayed onset of drug effect with ingestion. Consumers often do not understand this aspect of edible use and may consume a greater than intended amount of drug before the drug has taken effect, often resulting in profoundly adverse effects. Written for the educated layperson and for policy makers, this paper explores the current state of research regarding edibles, highlighting the promises and challenges that edibles present to both users and policy makers, and describes the approaches that four states in which recreational cannabis use is legal have taken regarding regulating edibles.