There was an increased risk of non-serious AEs with cannabinoids compared with placebo .
Conclusions There was moderate evidence to support cannabinoids in treating chronic , non-cancer pain at 2 weeks .
Similar results were observed at later time points , but the confidence in effect is low .
There is little evidence that cannabinoids increase the risk of experiencing serious AEs , although non-serious AEs may be common in the short-term period following use
Background For patients with chronic , non-cancer pain , traditional pain-relieving medications include opioids , which have shown benefits but are associated with increased risks of addiction and adverse effects .
Medical cannabis has emerged as a treatment alternative for managing these patients and there has been a rise in the number of r and omized clinical trials in recent years ; therefore , a systematic review of the evidence was warranted .
Objective To analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic , non-cancer-related pain .
The Cannabinoid Use in Progressive Inflammatory brain Disease (CUPID) trial: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group multicentre trial and economic evaluation of cannabinoids to slow progression in multiple sclerosis.
BACKGROUND The Cannabinoid Use in Progressive Inflammatory brain Disease ( CUPID ) trial aim ed to determine whether or not oral Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol ( Δ(9)-THC ) slowed the course of progressive multiple sclerosis ( MS ) ; evaluate safety of cannabinoid administration ; and , improve methods for testing treatments in progressive MS . OBJECTIVES There were three objectives in the CUPID study : ( 1 ) to evaluate whether or not Δ(9)-THC could slow the course of progressive MS ; ( 2 ) to assess the long-term safety of Δ(9)-THC ; and ( 3 ) to explore newer ways of conducting clinical trials in progressive MS . DESIGN The CUPID trial was a r and omised , double-blind , placebo-controlled , parallel-group , multicentre trial . Patients were r and omised in a 2 : 1 ratio to Δ(9)-THC or placebo . R and omisation was balanced according to Exp and ed Disability Status Scale ( EDSS ) score , study site and disease type . Analyses were by intention to treat , following a pre-specified statistical analysis plan . A cranial magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) sub study , Rasch measurement theory ( RMT ) analyses and an economic evaluation were undertaken . SETTING Twenty-seven UK sites . PARTICIPANTS Adults aged 18 - 65 years with primary or secondary progressive MS , 1-year evidence of disease progression and baseline EDSS 4.0 - 6.5 . INTERVENTIONS Oral Δ(9)-THC ( maximum 28 mg/day ) or matching placebo . ASSESSMENT VISITS Three and 6 months , and then 6-monthly up to 36 or 42 months . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcomes were time to EDSS progression , and change in Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 version 2 ( MSIS-29v2 ) 20-point physical subscale ( MSIS-29phys ) score . Various secondary patient- and clinician-reported outcomes and MRI outcomes were assessed . RMT analyses examined performance of MS-specific rating scales as measurement instruments and tested for a symptomatic or disease-modifying treatment effect . Economic evaluation estimated mean incremental costs and quality -adjusted life-years ( QALYs ) . RESULTS Effectiveness - recruitment targets were achieved . Of the 498 r and omised patients ( 332 to active and 166 to placebo ) , 493 ( 329 active and 164 placebo ) were analysed . PRIMARY OUTCOMES no significant treatment effect ; hazard ratio EDSS score progression ( active : placebo ) 0.92 [ 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) 0.68 to 1.23 ] ; and estimated between-group difference in MSIS-29phys score ( active-placebo ) -0.9 points ( 95 % CI -2.0 to 0.2 points ) . Secondary clinical and MRI outcomes : no significant treatment effects . Safety - at least one serious adverse event : 35 % and 28 % of active and placebo patients , respectively . RMT analyses - scale evaluation : MSIS-29 version 2 , MS Walking Scale-12 version 2 and MS Spasticity Scale-88 were robust measurement instruments . There was no clear symptomatic or disease-modifying treatment effect . Economic evaluation - estimated mean incremental cost to NHS over usual care , over 3 years £ 27,443.20 per patient . No between-group difference in QALYs . CONCLUSIONS The CUPID trial failed to demonstrate a significant treatment effect in primary or secondary outcomes . There were no major safety concerns , but unwanted side effects seemed to affect compliance . Participants were more disabled than in previous studies and deteriorated less than expected , possibly reducing our ability to detect treatment effects . RMT analyses supported performance of MS-specific rating scales as measures , enabled group- and individual person-level examination of treatment effects , but did not influence study inferences . The intervention had significant additional costs with no improvement in health outcomes ; therefore , it was dominated by usual care and not cost-effective . Future work should focus on determining further factors to predict clinical deterioration , to inform the development of new studies , and modifying treatments in order to minimise side effects and improve study compliance . The absence of disease-modifying treatments in progressive MS warrants further studies of the cannabinoid pathway in potential neuroprotection . TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials IS RCT N62942668 . FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme , the Medical Research Council Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme , Multiple Sclerosis Society and Multiple Sclerosis Trust . The report will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol . 19 , No. 12 . See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information
There was an increased risk of non-serious AEs with cannabinoids compared with placebo .
Conclusions There was moderate evidence to support cannabinoids in treating chronic , non-cancer pain at 2 weeks .
Similar results were observed at later time points , but the confidence in effect is low .
There is little evidence that cannabinoids increase the risk of experiencing serious AEs , although non-serious AEs may be common in the short-term period following use
Background For patients with chronic , non-cancer pain , traditional pain-relieving medications include opioids , which have shown benefits but are associated with increased risks of addiction and adverse effects .
Medical cannabis has emerged as a treatment alternative for managing these patients and there has been a rise in the number of r and omized clinical trials in recent years ; therefore , a systematic review of the evidence was warranted .
Objective To analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic , non-cancer-related pain .