Walitt Brian, Klose Petra, Fitzcharles Mary-Ann, Phillips Tudor, Häuser Winfried
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, USA, 20892.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jul 18;7(7):CD011694. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011694.pub2.
This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue affecting approximately 2% of the general population. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain and other somatic and psychological symptoms.
To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for fibromyalgia symptoms in adults.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE to April 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, three clinical trial registries, and contact with trial authors.
We selected randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks' duration of any formulation of cannabis products used for the treatment of adults with fibromyalgia.
Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that did not meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers (i.e. data from at least 200 participants) in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
We included two studies with 72 participants. Overall, the two studies were at moderate risk of bias. The evidence was derived from group mean data and completer analysis (very low quality evidence overall). We rated the quality of all outcomes according to GRADE as very low due to indirectness, imprecision and potential reporting bias.The primary outcomes in our review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety). Nabilone was compared to placebo and to amitriptyline in one study each. Study sizes were 32 and 40 participants. One study used a cross-over design and one used a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Both studies used nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, with a bedtime dosage of 1 mg/day. No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 30% or 50% pain relief or who were very much improved. No study provided first or second tier (high to moderate quality) evidence for an outcome of efficacy, tolerability and safety. Third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated greater reduction of pain and limitations of HRQoL compared to placebo in one study. There were no significant differences to placebo noted for fatigue and depression (very low quality evidence). Third tier evidence indicated better effects of nabilone on sleep than amitriptyline (very low quality evidence). There were no significant differences between the two drugs noted for pain, mood and HRQoL (very low quality evidence). More participants dropped out due to adverse events in the nabilone groups (4/52 participants) than in the control groups (1/20 in placebo and 0/32 in amitriptyline group). The most frequent adverse events were dizziness, nausea, dry mouth and drowsiness (six participants with nabilone). Neither study reported serious adverse events during the period of both studies. We planned to create a GRADE 'Summary of findings' table, but due to the scarcity of data we were unable to do this. We found no relevant study with herbal cannabis, plant-based cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoids other than nabilone in fibromyalgia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia. The tolerability of nabilone was low in people with fibromyalgia.
本综述是关于用于治疗纤维肌痛的药物系列综述之一。纤维肌痛是一种临床定义明确但病因不明的慢性疾病,其特征为慢性广泛性疼痛,常伴有睡眠问题和疲劳,影响约2%的普通人群。患者常报告残疾程度高且健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)较差。药物治疗的重点是减轻关键症状和残疾程度,并改善HRQoL。大麻已被使用数千年以减轻疼痛及其他躯体和心理症状。
评估大麻素对成人纤维肌痛症状的疗效、耐受性和安全性。
我们检索了截至2016年4月的Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE和EMBASE,以及检索到的论文和综述的参考文献列表、三个临床试验注册库,并与试验作者进行了联系。
我们选择了使用任何大麻产品制剂治疗成人纤维肌痛且持续时间至少四周的随机对照试验。
两位综述作者独立提取所有纳入研究的数据并评估偏倚风险。我们通过讨论解决分歧。我们使用三级证据进行分析。一级证据来自符合当前最佳标准且偏倚风险最小的数据(结果等同于疼痛强度大幅降低,意向性分析不填补脱落数据;比较组中至少有200名参与者,持续时间为8至12周,平行设计),二级证据来自不符合这些标准中的一项或多项且被认为存在一定偏倚风险但比较组中有足够数量(即至少200名参与者的数据)的数据,三级证据来自涉及少量参与者的数据,这些数据被认为极有可能存在偏倚或使用的临床效用有限的结果,或两者皆有。我们使用GRADE(推荐分级评估、制定和评价)评估证据。
我们纳入了两项研究,共72名参与者。总体而言,这两项研究存在中度偏倚风险。证据来自组均值数据和完成分析(总体证据质量极低)。由于间接性、不精确性和潜在的报告偏倚,我们根据GRADE将所有结果的质量评为极低。我们综述中的主要结果包括参与者报告疼痛缓解50%或更多、患者总体变化印象(PGIC)显著或非常显著改善、因不良事件退出(耐受性)和严重不良事件(安全性)。在一项研究中,将纳布啡分别与安慰剂和阿米替林进行了比较。研究规模分别为32名和40名参与者。一项研究采用交叉设计,另一项采用平行组设计;研究持续时间为四周或六周。两项研究均使用纳布啡,一种合成大麻素,睡前剂量为1毫克/天。没有研究报告经历至少30%或50%疼痛缓解或显著改善的参与者比例。没有研究为疗效、耐受性和安全性结果提供一级或二级(高至中度质量)证据。三级(极低质量)证据表明,在一项研究中,与安慰剂相比,纳布啡能更大程度地减轻疼痛和改善HRQoL受限情况。在疲劳和抑郁方面,与安慰剂相比无显著差异(极低质量证据)。三级证据表明,纳布啡对睡眠的影响优于阿米替林(极低质量证据)。在疼痛、情绪和HRQoL方面,两种药物之间无显著差异(极低质量证据)。纳布啡组因不良事件退出的参与者(4/52名参与者)多于对照组(安慰剂组为1/20,阿米替林组为0/32)。最常见的不良事件是头晕、恶心、口干和嗜睡(纳布啡组有6名参与者)。两项研究期间均未报告严重不良事件。我们计划创建一个GRADE“结果总结”表,但由于数据稀缺,我们无法做到。我们未发现关于草药大麻、植物性大麻素或除纳布啡以外的合成大麻素用于纤维肌痛的相关研究。
我们未发现有说服力的、无偏倚的高质量证据表明纳布啡对治疗纤维肌痛患者有价值。纳布啡在纤维肌痛患者中的耐受性较低。