nabilone and Lung-Neoplasms

Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids.. To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain.. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023.. We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.. We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.. We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain int. There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.. El dolor es un síntoma común en las personas con cáncer; entre el 30% y el 50% de las personas con cáncer experimentarán dolor de moderado a intenso. Esto puede tener un gran impacto negativo en su calidad de vida. Los fármacos opiáceos (similares a la morfina) se utilizan habitualmente para tratar el dolor por cáncer moderado o intenso, y se recomiendan para este propósito en la escala de tratamiento del dolor de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). El dolor no se alivia lo suficiente con los medicamentos opiáceos en el 10% al 15% de las personas con cáncer. En las personas con un alivio insuficiente del dolor por cáncer, se necesitan nuevos analgésicos que complementen o sustituyan de forma eficaz y segura a los opiáceos.. Evaluar los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales de los medicamentos con cannabis, incluido el cannabis medicinal, para tratar el dolor y otros síntomas en adultos con cáncer en comparación con placebo o cualquier otro analgésico establecido para el dolor por cáncer. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se utilizaron los métodos exhaustivos estándar de búsqueda de Cochrane. La última fecha de búsqueda fue el 26 de enero de 2023. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se seleccionaron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) doble ciego de cannabis medicinal, medicamentos derivados de plantas y sintéticos con cannabis versus placebo o cualquier otro tratamiento activo para el dolor por cáncer en adultos, con cualquier duración del tratamiento y al menos 10 participantes por grupo de tratamiento. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se utilizaron los métodos estándar de Cochrane. Los desenlaces principales fueron los siguientes: 1. proporción de participantes que declararon dolor leve; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) de mucha o muchísima mejoría y 3. retiros debido a eventos adversos. Los desenlaces secundarios fueron 4. número de participantes que declararon un alivio del dolor del 30% o superior y un consumo general de opiáceos reducido o estable; 5. número de participantes que declararon un alivio del dolor del 30% o superior, o del 50% o superior; 6. intensidad del dolor; 7. problemas de sueño; 8. depresión y ansiedad; 9. dosis diaria de opiáceos de mantenimiento y de inicio; 10. abandonos por falta de eficacia; 11. todos los eventos adversos del sistema nervioso central. Se utilizó el método GRADE para evaluar la calidad de la evidencia de cada desenlace.. Se identificaron 14 estudios con 1823 participantes. Ningún estudio evaluó las proporciones de participantes que declararon un dolor no peor que leve a los 14 días de inicio del tratamiento. Se encontraron cinco ECA que evaluaron nabiximoles oromucosos (tetrahidrocannabinol [THC] y cannabidiol [CBD]) o THC solo, con 1539 participantes con dolor moderado o intenso a pesar del tratamiento con opiáceos. Los periodos doble ciego de los ECA variaron entre dos y cinco semanas. Para el metanálisis se dispuso de cuatro estudios con un diseño paralelo y 1333 participantes. Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo efectos beneficiosos clínicamente relevantes en las proporciones de PGIC de mucha o muchísima mejoría (diferencia de riesgos [DR] 0,06; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,01 a 0,12; número necesario a tratar para lograr un resultado beneficioso adicional [NNTB] 16; IC del 95%: 8 a 100). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo diferencias clínicamente relevantes en la proporción de retiros debido a eventos adversos (DR 0,04; IC del 95%: 0 a 0,08; número necesario a tratar para lograr un desenlace perjudicial adicional [NNTD] 25; IC del 95%: 16 a infinito). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo diferencias entre nabiximols o THC y placebo en la frecuencia de eventos adversos graves (DR 0,02; IC del 95%: ‐0,03 a 0,07). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que los nabiximoles y el THC utilizados como tratamiento complementario para el dolor por cáncer refractario a los opiáceos no difirieron del placebo en cuanto a la reducción de la intensidad media del dolor (diferencia de medias estandarizada [DME] ‐0,19; IC del 95%: ‐0,40 a 0,02). Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que un análogo sintético del THC (nabilona) administrado durante ocho semanas no fue superior a placebo para reducir el dolor asociado con la quimioterapia o la radioquimioterapia en personas con cáncer de cabeza y cuello y cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (dos estudios, 89 participantes, análisis cualitativo). En estos estudios no fue posible realizar análisis de tolerabilidad y seguridad. Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que los análogos sintéticos del THC fueron superiores a placebo (DME ‐0,98; IC del 95%: ‐1,36 a ‐0,60), pero no superiores a la codeína en dosis bajas (DME 0,03; IC del 95%: ‐0,25 a 0,32; cinco ensayos de dosis única; 126 participantes) en cuanto a la reducción del dolor moderado a intenso por cáncer después de la interrupción del tr. Existe evidencia de certeza moderada de que los nabiximoles y el THC por vía oromucosa no son efectivos para aliviar el dolor de moderado a intenso por cáncer refractario a los opiáceos. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que la nabilona no es efectiva para reducir el dolor asociado con la radio‐quimioterapia en personas con cáncer de cabeza y cuello y cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que una dosis única de análogos sintéticos del THC no es superior a una dosis única baja equivalente de morfina para reducir el dolor moderado a intenso por cáncer. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que el CBD no aporta valor a los cuidados paliativos especializados solos en la reducción del dolor en personas con cáncer avanzado.

Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Cannabis; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Codeine; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Medical Marijuana; Morphine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

In a previous study on the antiemetic effect of nabilone (N) in patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy (CT), we found that N was only moderately effective and that its side effects limited its use, especially in elderly outpatients. We, therefore, performed a new study of N in combination with dexamethasone (DXM), a potent antiemetic in itself, to evaluate whether the addition of DXM to N would improve the antiemetic effect and/or reduce the side effects. Forty patients with lung cancer were enrolled in the study. A randomized, third-party-blinded, crossover design was used. Study drugs were given during two consecutive, identical CT cycles. N was given at a fixed dosage regimen of 2 mg b.i.d. The initial dose was administered the evening before CT, the second dose at 0.5 h before CT, and the third dose in the evening 12 h after CT. DXM, 8 mg, or placebo was given orally with the first dose of N. The subsequent doses (either 10 mg DXM or saline) were given intravenously 0.5 h before CT and at 2 and 6 h after the start of CT. The CT regimens given included the following drugs in various combinations: cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, etoposide (VP-16), vincristine, and vindesine. The combination of N and DXM was significantly superior to N alone in the reduction of vomiting episodes, both in subgroups of patients receiving cisplatin and in those receiving other CT combinations. There was no statistically significant difference between the treatments with regard to the patients' assessments of the severity of nausea or effects on appetite. Approximately half the patients (63% with N plus DXM versus 47% with N) reported no side effects. The frequency and severity of central nervous system adverse reactions, mainly vertigo, were similar in both treatment groups. The fall in blood pressure was significantly greater after N alone. Two thirds of the patients preferred N plus DXM. Thus, the addition of DXM to N enhanced the therapeutic yield of N, and we recommend DXM as an adjunct to N, when the use of steroids is not contraindicated. The optimal dose and schedule of DXM was not investigated in our study; a higher dose of DXM might increase the clinical benefit of the drug combination tested.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Blood Pressure; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Dronabinol; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Nausea; Random Allocation; Vomiting

An anti-emetic drug, nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, has been compared with prochlorperazine in 24 lung cancer patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Each of the drugs studied was given orally every 12 hours, starting the night before chemotherapy, during one of two consecutive identical chemotherapy cycles in accordance with a double-blind cross-over random order assignment. Single doses were 2 mg of nabilone, or 15 mg of prochlorperazine. The chemotherapeutic regimens given included the following drugs in various combinations: cis-platinum, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vindesine, and etoposide (VP16). Nabilone was significantly superior to prochlorperazine in the reduction of vomiting episodes. Side effects, mainly vertigo, were evident in nearly half of the patients after nabilone, and three patients were withdrawn from the study due to decreased coordination and hallucinations after nabilone. Side effects from prochlorperazine were limited to mild drowsiness in one patient. Two-thirds of the patients preferred nabilone to prochlorperazine. We conclude that nabilone is a moderately effective anti-emetic drug, but that the unpredictability of its side effects call for careful patient information, especially with elderly outpatients. We recommend that at least after the first dose of nabilone, the patient should be kept under close observation during 4 hours.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Appetite; Blood Pressure; Clinical Trials as Topic; Double-Blind Method; Dronabinol; Drug Evaluation; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Prochlorperazine; Random Allocation; Vomiting

Nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, and Prochlorperazine were compared in a double-blind crossover study of 34 patients with lung cancer undergoing a 3-day schedule of chemotherapy with Cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin and Etoposide. Symptom scores were significantly better for patients on nabilone for nausea, retching and vomiting (P less than 0.05). Fewer subjects vomited with nabilone (P = 0.05) and the number of vomiting episodes was lower (P less than 0.05); no patients on nabilone required additional parenteral anti-emetic. More patients preferred nabilone for anti-emetic control (P less than 0.005). Adverse effects common with nabilone were drowsiness (57%), postural dizziness (35%) and lightheadedness (18%). Euphoria was seen in 14% and a "high" in 7%. Erect systolic blood pressure was lower in nabilone patients on Day 1 (P = 0.05) but postural hypotension was a major problem in only 7%. Nabilone is an effective oral anti-emetic drug for moderately toxic chemotherapy, but the range and unpredictability of its side-effects warrant caution in its use.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Small Cell; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Dronabinol; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Prochlorperazine; Sleep Stages; Vomiting