Petzke F, Enax-Krumova E K, Häuser W
Schmerz-Tagesklinik und -Ambulanz, Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland.
Neurologische Klinik, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil GmbH, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 44789, Bochum, Deutschland.
Schmerz. 2016 Feb;30(1):62-88. doi: 10.1007/s00482-015-0089-y.
Recently published systematic reviews came to different conclusions with respect to the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for treatment of chronic neuropathic pain.
A systematic search of the literature was carried out in MEDLINE, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) and clinicaltrials.gov up until November 2015. We included double-blind randomized placebo-controlled studies (RCT) of at least 2 weeks duration and with at least 9 patients per treatment arm comparing medicinal cannabis, plant-based or synthetic cannabinoids with placebo or any other active drug treatment in patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Clinical endpoints of the analyses were efficacy (more than 30 % or 50 % reduction of pain, average pain intensity, global improvement and health-related quality of life), tolerability (drop-out rate due to side effects, central nervous system and psychiatric side effects) and safety (severe side effects). Using a random effects model absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. The methodological quality of RCTs was rated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
We included 15 RCTs with 1619 participants. Study duration ranged between 2 and 15 weeks. Of the studies 10 used a plant-derived oromucosal spray with tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol, 3 studies used a synthetic cannabinoid (2 with nabilone and 1 with dronabinol) and 2 studies used medicinal cannabis. The 13 studies with parallel or cross-over design yielded the following results with 95 % confidence intervals (CI): cannabinoids were superior to placebo in the reduction of mean pain intensity with SMD - 0.10 (95 % CI - 0.20- - 0.00, p = 0.05, 13 studies with 1565 participants), in the frequency of at least a 30 % reduction in pain with an RD of 0.10 [95 % CI 0.03-0.16, p = 0.004, 9 studies with 1346 participants, number needed to treat for additional benefit (NNTB) 14, 95 % CI 8-45] and in the frequency of a large or very large global improvement with an RD of 0.09 (95 % CI 0.01-0.17, p = 0.009, 7 studies with 1092 participants). There were no statistically significant differences between cannabinoids and placebo in the frequency of at least a 50 % reduction in pain, in improvement of health-related quality of life and in the frequency of serious adverse events. Patients treated with cannabinoids dropped out more frequently due to adverse events with an RD of 0.04 [95 % CI 0.01-0.07, p = 0.009, 11 studies with 1572 participants, number needed to treat for additional harm (NNTH) 19, 95 % CI 13-37], reported central nervous system side effects more frequently with an RD of 0.38 (95 % CI 0.18-0.58, p = 0.0003, 9 studies with 1304 participants, NNTH 3, 95 % CI 2-4) and psychiatric side effects with an RD of 0.11 (95 % CI 0.06-0.16, p < 0.0001, 9 studies with 1304 participants, NNTH 8, 95 % CI 7-12).
Cannabinoids were marginally superior to placebo in terms of efficacy and inferior in terms of tolerability. Cannabinoids and placebo did not differ in terms of safety during the study period. Short-term and intermediate-term therapy with cannabinoids can be considered in selected patients with chronic neuropathic pain after failure of first-line and second-line therapies.
最近发表的系统评价对于大麻素治疗慢性神经性疼痛的疗效、耐受性和安全性得出了不同结论。
截至2015年11月,在医学文献数据库(MEDLINE)、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)和临床试验.gov上对文献进行了系统检索。我们纳入了至少为期2周且每个治疗组至少有9名患者的双盲随机安慰剂对照研究(RCT),这些研究比较了药用大麻、植物性或合成大麻素与安慰剂或任何其他活性药物治疗慢性神经性疼痛患者的效果。分析的临床终点包括疗效(疼痛减轻超过30%或50%、平均疼痛强度、整体改善情况以及与健康相关的生活质量)、耐受性(因副作用、中枢神经系统和精神副作用导致的退出率)和安全性(严重副作用)。对于分类数据,使用随机效应模型计算绝对风险差异(RD);对于连续变量,计算标准化均值差异(SMD)。RCT的方法学质量由Cochrane偏倚风险工具进行评估。
我们纳入了15项RCT,共1619名参与者。研究持续时间为2至15周。其中10项研究使用了含四氢大麻酚/大麻二酚的植物源性口腔喷雾剂,3项研究使用了合成大麻素(2项使用纳布隆,1项使用屈大麻酚),2项研究使用了药用大麻。13项采用平行或交叉设计的研究得出以下结果及95%置信区间(CI):大麻素在降低平均疼痛强度方面优于安慰剂,SMD为 -0.10(95%CI -0.20至 -0.00,p = 0.05,13项研究,1565名参与者);在疼痛至少减轻30%的频率方面,RD为0.10 [95%CI 0.03 - 0.16,p = 0.004,9项研究,1346名参与者,额外获益所需治疗人数(NNTB)为14,95%CI 8 - 45];在整体改善程度为大或非常大的频率方面,RD为0.09(95%CI 0.01 - 0.17,p = 0.009,7项研究,1092名参与者)。在疼痛至少减轻50%的频率、与健康相关生活质量的改善以及严重不良事件的频率方面,大麻素与安慰剂之间无统计学显著差异。接受大麻素治疗的患者因不良事件退出的频率更高,RD为0.04 [95%CI 0.01 - 0.07,p = 0.009,11项研究,1572名参与者,额外伤害所需治疗人数(NNTH)为19,95%CI 13 - 37],报告中枢神经系统副作用的频率更高,RD为0.38(95%CI 0.18 - 0.58,p = 0.0003,9项研究,1304名参与者,NNTH为3,95%CI 2 - 4),报告精神副作用的频率更高,RD为0.11(95%CI 0.06 - 0.16,p < 0.0001,9项研究,1304名参与者,NNTH为8,95%CI 7 - 12)。
大麻素在疗效方面略优于安慰剂,在耐受性方面较差。在研究期间,大麻素与安慰剂在安全性方面无差异。对于一线和二线治疗失败的慢性神经性疼痛患者,可考虑对部分患者进行短期和中期大麻素治疗。