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):CD012853. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012853.pub2.
Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic immune-mediated condition of transmural inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract, associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life. The endocannabinoid system provides a potential therapeutic target for cannabis and cannabinoids and animal models have shown benefit in decreasing inflammation. However, there is also evidence to suggest transient adverse events such as weakness, dizziness and diarrhea, and an increased risk of surgery in people with CD who use cannabis.
The objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids for induction and maintenance of remission in people with CD.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsychINFO, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and the European Clinical Trials Register up to 17 October 2018. We searched conference abstracts, references and we also contacted researchers in this field for upcoming publications.
Randomized controlled trials comparing any form of cannabis or its cannabinoid derivatives (natural or synthetic) to placebo or an active therapy for adults with Crohn's disease 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. Remission is commonly defined as a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) of < 150. Relapse is defined as a CDAI > 150. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, histological improvement, quality of life, C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin measurements, adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, withdrawal due to AEs, and cannabis dependence and withdrawal effects. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Data were combined for analysis when the interventions, patient groups and outcomes were sufficiently similar (determined by consensus). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis and the overall certainty of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria.
Three studies (93 participants) that assessed cannabis in people with active CD met the inclusion criteria. One ongoing study was also identified. Participants in two of the studies were adults with active Crohn's disease who had failed at least one medical treatment. The inclusion criteria for the third study were unclear. No studies that assessed cannabis therapy in quiescent CD were identified. The studies were not pooled due to differences in the interventional drug.One small study (N = 21) compared eight weeks of treatment with cannabis cigarettes containing 115 mg of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to placebo cigarettes containing cannabis with the THC removed in participants with active CD. This study was rated as high risk of bias for blinding and other bias (cannabis participants were older than placebo). The effects of cannabis on clinical remission were unclear. Forty-five per cent (5/11) of the cannabis group achieved clinical remission compared with 10% (1/10) of the placebo group (RR 4.55, 95% CI 0.63 to 32.56; very low certainty evidence). A difference was observed in clinical response (decrease in CDAI score of >100 points) rates. Ninety-one per cent (10/11) of the cannabis group achieved a clinical response compared to 40% (4/10) of the placebo group (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.97; very low certainty evidence). More AEs were observed in the cannabis cigarette group compared to placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.15 to 14.57; very low certainty evidence). These AEs were considered to be mild in nature and included sleepiness, nausea, difficulty with concentration, memory loss, confusion and dizziness. This study did not report on serious AEs or withdrawal due to AEs.One small study (N = 22) compared cannabis oil (5% cannabidiol) to placebo oil in people with active CD. This study was rated as high risk of bias for other bias (cannabis participants were more likely than placebo participants to be smokers). There was no difference in clinical remission rates. Forty per cent (4/10) of cannabis oil participants achieved remission at 8 weeks compared to 33% (3/9) of the placebo participants (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.97; very low certainty evidence). There was no difference in the proportion of participants who had a serious adverse event. Ten per cent (1/10) of participants in the cannabis oil group had a serious adverse event compared to 11% (1/9) of placebo participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.38, very low certainty evidence). Both serious AEs were worsening Crohn's disease that required rescue intervention. This study did not report on clinical response, CRP, quality of life or withdrawal due to AEs.One small study (N= 50) compared cannabis oil (15% cannabidiol and 4% THC) to placebo in participants with active CD. This study was rated as low risk of bias. Differences in CDAI and quality of life scores measured by the SF-36 instrument were observed. The mean quality of life score after 8 weeks of treatment was 96.3 in the cannabis oil group compared to 79.9 in the placebo group (MD 16.40, 95% CI 5.72 to 27.08, low certainty evidence). After 8 weeks of treatment, the mean CDAI score was118.6 in the cannabis oil group compared to 212.6 in the placebo group (MD -94.00, 95%CI -148.86 to -39.14, low certainty evidence). This study did not report on clinical remission, clinical response, CRP or AEs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of cannabis and cannabis oil on Crohn's disease are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabis oil in adults with active Crohn's disease can be drawn. The effects of cannabis or cannabis oil in quiescent Crohn's disease have not been investigated. Further studies with larger numbers of participants are required to assess the potential benefits and harms of cannabis in Crohn's disease. Future studies should assess the effects of cannabis in people with active and quiescent Crohn's disease. Different doses of cannabis and delivery modalities should be investigated.
克罗恩病(CD)是一种胃肠道透壁性炎症的慢性免疫介导性疾病,会导致严重发病并降低生活质量。内源性大麻素系统为大麻和大麻素提供了一个潜在的治疗靶点,动物模型已显示其在减轻炎症方面具有益处。然而,也有证据表明使用大麻的CD患者会出现诸如虚弱、头晕和腹泻等短暂不良事件,以及手术风险增加。
评估大麻和大麻素在诱导和维持CD患者缓解方面的疗效和安全性。
我们检索了截至2018年10月17日的MEDLINE、Embase、AMED、PsychINFO、Cochrane IBD小组专业注册库、CENTRAL、ClinicalTrials.Gov和欧洲临床试验注册库。我们检索了会议摘要、参考文献,还联系了该领域的研究人员以获取即将发表的文献。
纳入比较任何形式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治疗成年克罗恩病患者的随机对照试验。
两位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。缓解通常定义为克罗恩病活动指数(CDAI)<150。复发定义为CDAI>150。次要结局包括临床反应、内镜缓解(内镜改善)、组织学改善、生活质量、C反应蛋白(CRP)和粪便钙卫蛋白测量、不良事件(AE)、严重不良事件、因AE退出研究,以及大麻依赖和戒断效应。我们计算了二分结局的风险比(RR)和相应的95%置信区间(95%CI)。对于连续结局,我们计算了平均差(MD)和95%CI。当干预措施、患者组和结局足够相似(通过共识确定)时,将数据合并进行分析。数据按意向性分析,使用GRADE标准评估支持结局的证据的总体确定性。
三项评估大麻对活动期CD患者疗效的研究(93名参与者)符合纳入标准。还确定了一项正在进行的研究。其中两项研究的参与者为成年活动期克罗恩病患者,他们至少一种药物治疗失败。第三项研究的纳入标准不明确。未找到评估大麻疗法对静止期CD疗效的研究。由于干预药物的差异,这些研究未进行合并分析。一项小型研究(N = 21)将含115mg D9 - 四氢大麻酚(THC)的大麻香烟与去除THC的含大麻安慰剂香烟对活动期CD参与者进行为期8周的治疗比较。该研究在盲法和其他偏倚方面被评为高偏倚风险(大麻组参与者比安慰剂组年龄大)。大麻对临床缓解的影响不明确。大麻组45%(5/11)的参与者实现临床缓解,而安慰剂组为10%(1/10)(RR 4.55,95%CI 0.63至32.56;极低确定性证据)。在临床反应(CDAI评分降低>100分)率方面观察到差异。大麻组91%(10/11)的参与者实现临床反应,而安慰剂组为40%(4/10)(RR 2.27,95%CI 1.04至4.97;极低确定性证据)。与安慰剂相比,大麻香烟组观察到更多不良事件(RR 4.09,95%CI 1.15至14.57;极低确定性证据)。这些不良事件被认为性质轻微,包括嗜睡、恶心、注意力不集中、记忆力减退、意识模糊和头晕。该研究未报告严重不良事件或因不良事件退出研究的情况。一项小型研究(N = 22)将大麻油(5%大麻二酚)与安慰剂油对活动期CD患者进行比较。该研究在其他偏倚方面被评为高偏倚风险(大麻组参与者比安慰剂组参与者更可能是吸烟者)。临床缓解率无差异。大麻油组40%(4/10)的参与者在8周时实现缓解,而安慰剂组为33%(3/9)(RR 1.20,95%CI 0.36至3.9;极低确定性证据)。发生严重不良事件的参与者比例无差异。大麻油组10%(1/10)的参与者发生严重不良事件,而安慰剂组为11%(1/9)(RR 0.90,95%CI 0.07至12.38,极低确定性证据)。两项严重不良事件均为克罗恩病恶化,需要救援干预。该研究未报告临床反应、CRP、生活质量或因不良事件退出研究的情况。一项小型研究(N = 50)将大麻油(15%大麻二酚和4%THC)与安慰剂对活动期CD参与者进行比较。该研究被评为低偏倚风险。观察到用SF - 36工具测量的CDAI和生活质量评分存在差异。治疗8周后,大麻油组的平均生活质量评分为96.3,而安慰剂组为79.9(MD 16.40,95%CI 5.72至27.08,低确定性证据)。治疗8周后,大麻油组的平均CDAI评分为118.6,而安慰剂组为212.6(MD - 94.00,95%CI - 148.86至 - 39.14,低确定性证据)。该研究未报告临床缓解、临床反应、CRP或不良事件。
大麻和大麻油对克罗恩病的影响尚不确定。因此,对于活动期克罗恩病成年患者,无法就大麻和大麻油的疗效和安全性得出确凿结论。尚未研究大麻或大麻油对静止期克罗恩病的影响。需要更多参与者的进一步研究来评估大麻在克罗恩病中的潜在益处和危害。未来的研究应评估大麻对活动期和静止期克罗恩病患者的影响。应研究不同剂量的大麻及其给药方式。