Kafil Tahir S, Nguyen Tran M, MacDonald John K, Chande Nilesh
Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 8;11(11):CD012954. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012954.pub2.
Cannabis and cannabinoids are often promoted as treatment for many illnesses and are widely used among patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Few studies have evaluated the use of these agents in UC. Further, cannabis has potential for adverse events and the long-term consequences of cannabis and cannabinoid use in UC are unknown.
To assess the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids for the treatment of patients with UC.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, AMED, PsychINFO, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov and the European Clinical Trials Register from inception to 2 January 2018. Conference abstracts and references were searched to identify additional studies.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any form or dose of cannabis or its cannabinoid derivatives (natural or synthetic) to placebo or an active therapy for adults (> 18 years) with UC were included.
Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were clinical remission and relapse (as defined by the primary studies). Secondary outcomes included clinical response, endoscopic remission, endoscopic response, histological response, quality of life, C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin measurements, symptom improvement, adverse events, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, psychotropic adverse events, and cannabis dependence and withdrawal effects. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI. Data were pooled for analysis when the interventions, patient groups and outcomes were sufficiently similar (determined by consensus). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. GRADE was used to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence.
Two RCTs (92 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One study (N = 60) compared 10 weeks of cannabidiol capsules with up to 4.7% D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with placebo capsules in participants with mild to moderate UC. The starting dose of cannabidiol was 50 mg twice daily increasing to 250 mg twice daily if tolerated. Another study (N = 32) compared 8 weeks of therapy with two cannabis cigarettes per day containing 0.5 g of cannabis, corresponding to 23 mg THC/day to placebo cigarettes in participants with UC who did not respond to conventional medical treatment. No studies were identified that assessed cannabis therapy in quiescent UC. The first study was rated as low risk of bias and the second study (published as an abstract) was rated as high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. The studies were not pooled due to differences in the interventional drug.The effect of cannabidiol capsules (100 mg to 500 mg daily) compared to placebo on clinical remission and response is uncertain. Clinical remission at 10 weeks was achieved by 24% (7/29) of the cannabidiol group compared to 26% (8/31) in the placebo group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.25; low certainty evidence). Clinical response at 10 weeks was achieved in 31% (9/29) of cannabidiol participants compared to 22% (7/31) of placebo patients (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.21; low certainty evidence). Serum CRP levels were similar in both groups after 10 weeks of therapy. The mean CRP in the cannabidiol group was 9.428 mg/L compared to 7.638 mg/L in the placebo group (MD 1.79, 95% CI -5.67 to 9.25; moderate certainty evidence). There may be a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life at 10 weeks, measured with the IBDQ scale (MD 17.4, 95% CI -3.45 to 38.25; moderate certainty evidence). Adverse events were more frequent in cannabidiol participants compared to placebo. One hundred per cent (29/29) of cannabidiol participants had an adverse event, compared to 77% (24/31) of placebo participants (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.05 to1.56; moderate certainty evidence). However, these adverse events were considered to be mild or moderate in severity. Common adverse events included dizziness, disturbance in attention, headache, nausea and fatigue. None (0/29) of the cannabidiol participants had a serious adverse event compared to 13% (4/31) of placebo participants (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.11; low certainty evidence). Serious adverse events in the placebo group included worsening of UC and one complicated pregnancy. These serious adverse events were thought to be unrelated to the study drug. More participants in the cannabidiol group withdrew due to an adverse event than placebo participants. Thirty-four per cent (10/29) of cannabidiol participants withdrew due to an adverse event compared to 16% (5/31) of placebo participants (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.83 to 5.51; low certainty evidence). Withdrawls in the cannabidiol group were mostly due to dizziness. Withdrawals in the placebo group were due to worsening UC.The effect of cannabis cigarettes (23 mg THC/day) compared to placebo on mean disease activity, CRP levels and mean fecal calprotectin levels is uncertain. After 8 weeks, the mean disease activity index score in cannabis participants was 4 compared with 8 in placebo participants (MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.98 to -2.02). After 8 weeks, the mean change in CRP levels was similar in both groups (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.35 to 0.75; low certainty evidence). The mean fecal calprotectin level in cannabis participants was 115 mg/dl compared to 229 mg/dl in placebo participants (MD -114.00, 95% CI -246.01 to 18.01). No serious adverse events were observed. This study did not report on clinical remission, clinical response, quality of life, adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of cannabis and cannabidiol on UC are uncertain, thus no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of cannabis or cannabidiol in adults with active UC can be drawn.There is no evidence for cannabis or cannabinoid use for maintenance of remission in UC. Further studies with a larger number of patients are required to assess the effects of cannabis in UC patients with active and quiescent disease. Different doses of cannabis and routes of administration should be investigated. Lastly, follow-up is needed to assess the long term safety outcomes of frequent cannabis use.
大麻和大麻素常被宣传可用于治疗多种疾病,且在溃疡性结肠炎(UC)患者中广泛使用。很少有研究评估这些药物在UC中的应用。此外,大麻存在发生不良事件的可能性,其在UC中使用的长期后果尚不清楚。
评估大麻和大麻素治疗UC患者的疗效和安全性。
我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(WHO ICTRP)、联合和补充医学数据库(AMED)、心理学文摘数据库(PsychINFO)、Cochrane炎症性肠病(IBD)小组专业注册库、Cochrane系统评价数据库(CENTRAL)、美国国立医学图书馆临床试验数据库(ClinicalTrials.Gov)以及欧洲临床试验注册库,检索时间从各数据库建库至2018年1月2日。检索会议摘要和参考文献以识别其他研究。
纳入比较任何形式或剂量的大麻或其大麻素衍生物(天然或合成)与安慰剂或活性疗法,用于治疗成人(>18岁)UC的随机对照试验(RCT)。
两名作者独立筛选检索结果、提取数据,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚。主要结局为临床缓解和复发(如原始研究所定义)。次要结局包括临床反应、内镜缓解、内镜反应、组织学反应、生活质量、C反应蛋白(CRP)和粪便钙卫蛋白测量值、症状改善、不良事件、严重不良事件、因不良事件退出研究、精神性不良事件以及大麻依赖和戒断效应。对于二分法结局,我们计算风险比(RR)及相应的95%置信区间。对于连续性结局,我们计算平均差(MD)及相应的95%置信区间。当干预措施、患者组和结局足够相似时(由共识确定),将数据合并进行分析。基于意向性分析对数据进行分析。采用GRADE评估证据的总体确定性。
两项RCT(92名参与者)符合纳入标准。一项研究(N =60)将10周的大麻二酚胶囊(含高达4.7%的D9 - 四氢大麻酚(THC))与安慰剂胶囊进行比较,纳入轻度至中度UC参与者。大麻二酚的起始剂量为每日50mg,分两次服用,如果耐受可增加至每日250mg,分两次服用。另一项研究(N =32)将每天吸食两支含0.5g大麻(相当于23mg THC/天)的大麻卷烟,为期8周的治疗与安慰剂卷烟进行比较,纳入对传统药物治疗无反应的UC参与者。未识别出评估大麻疗法用于静止期UC的研究。第一项研究被评为低偏倚风险,第二项研究(以摘要形式发表)在参与者和研究人员的盲法方面被评为高偏倚风险。由于干预药物不同,未对研究进行合并。与安慰剂相比,大麻二酚胶囊(每日100mg至500mg)对临床缓解和反应的影响尚不确定。大麻二酚组10周时24%(7/29)达到临床缓解,而安慰剂组为26%(8/31)(RR 0.94,95%CI 0.39至 2.25;低确定性证据)。大麻二酚组10周时31%(9/29)达到临床反应,而安慰剂组为22%(7/31)(RR 1.37,95%CI 0.59至3.21;低确定性证据)。治疗10周后两组血清CRP水平相似。大麻二酚组的平均CRP为9.428mg/L,而安慰剂组为7.638mg/L(MD 1.79,95%CI -5.67至9.25;中度确定性证据)。使用炎症性肠病问卷(IBDQ)量表测量,10周时生活质量可能有具有临床意义的改善(MD 17.4,95%CI -3.45至38.25;中度确定性证据)。与安慰剂相比,大麻二酚组参与者的不良事件更频繁。大麻二酚组100%(29/29)有不良事件,而安慰剂组为77%(24/31)(RR 1.28,95%CI 1.05至1.56;中度确定性证据)。然而,这些不良事件被认为严重程度为轻度或中度。常见不良事件包括头晕、注意力障碍、头痛、恶心和疲劳。大麻二酚组无一例(0/29)发生严重不良事件,而安慰剂组为13%(4/31)(RR 0.12,95%CI 0.01至2.11;低确定性证据)。安慰剂组的严重不良事件包括UC病情恶化和一例复杂妊娠。这些严重不良事件被认为与研究药物无关。与安慰剂组相比,大麻二酚组因不良事件退出研究的参与者更多。大麻二酚组34%(10/29)因不良事件退出研究,而安慰剂组为16%(5/31)(RR 2.14,95%CI 0.83至5.51;低确定性证据)。大麻二酚组退出主要是由于头晕。安慰剂组退出是由于UC病情恶化。与安慰剂相比,大麻卷烟(23mg THC/天)对平均疾病活动度、CRP水平和平均粪便钙卫蛋白水平的影响尚不确定。8周后,大麻组的平均疾病活动指数评分为4,而安慰剂组为8(MD -4.00,95%CI -5.98至-2.02)。8周后,两组CRP水平的平均变化相似(MD -0.30,95%CI -1.35至0.75;低确定性证据)。大麻组的平均粪便钙卫蛋白水平为115mg/dl,而安慰剂组为229mg/dl(MD -114.00,95%CI -246.01至18.01)。未观察到严重不良事件。该研究未报告临床缓解、临床反应、生活质量、不良事件或因不良事件退出研究的情况。
大麻和大麻二酚对UC的影响尚不确定,因此无法就大麻或大麻二酚对活动期UC成人患者疗效和安全性得出确切结论。没有证据表明大麻或大麻素可用于维持UC缓解。需要开展更多患者参与的进一步研究,以评估大麻对活动期和静止期UC患者的影响。应研究不同剂量的大麻及其给药途径。最后,需要进行随访以评估频繁使用大麻的长期安全性结局。