Departments of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine.
Washington University Pain Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Clin J Pain. 2020 Apr;36(4):302-319. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000807.
Current treatments for chronic pain have limited effectiveness and tolerability. With growing interest in the potential of cannabinoids, there is a need to inform risk-benefit considerations. Thus, this focused systematic review assesses the quality of safety assessment and reporting in chronic noncancer pain cannabinoid trials.
The protocol for this review has been published, and, registered in PROSPERO. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PsychINFO for double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids for chronic pain, with a primary outcome related to pain. The primary review outcome is adherence to the 2004 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Harms extension. Secondary outcomes included type, reporting method, frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs), trial participant withdrawals, and reasons for withdrawals.
In total, 43 studies (4436 participants) were included. Type of cannabinoid (number of studies) included nabiximols (12), dronabinol (8), nabilone (7), oral cannabis extract preparations (5), smoked tetrahydrocannabinol (5), vaporized tetrahydrocannabinol (3), novel synthetic cannabinoids (2), sublingual cannabis extract preparations (1). The median CONSORT score was 7. On average, 3 to 4 recommendations of the CONSORT guidelines were not being met in trials. Seventeen trials did not provide their method of AE assessment, 14 trials did not report on serious AEs and, 7 trials provided no quantitative data about AEs.
Better harms assessment and reporting are needed in chronic pain cannabinoid trials. Improvements may be achieved through: expanded education/knowledge translation increased research regulation by ethics boards, funding agencies and journals, and greater emphasis on safety assessment and reporting throughout research training.
目前治疗慢性疼痛的方法效果有限且耐受性差。鉴于人们对大麻素潜在作用的兴趣日益浓厚,有必要对其风险效益进行评估。因此,本聚焦式系统评价评估了慢性非癌痛大麻素试验中安全性评估和报告的质量。
本研究方案已发表,并在 PROSPERO 注册。我们检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆、Scopus 和 PsychINFO,以获取与疼痛相关的主要结局的双盲、安慰剂对照、随机对照试验。主要评价结果是对 2004 年 CONSORT 扩展报告试验(CONSORT)危害延伸的遵循情况。次要结局包括不良事件(AE)的类型、报告方法、频率和严重程度、试验参与者退出和退出原因。
共纳入 43 项研究(4436 名参与者)。纳入的大麻素类型(研究数量)包括纳比西酮(12)、大麻隆(8)、那比洛(7)、口服大麻素提取物制剂(5)、吸食四氢大麻酚(5)、汽化四氢大麻酚(3)、新型合成大麻素(2)、舌下含服大麻素提取物制剂(1)。CONSORT 评分中位数为 7 分。平均而言,有 3 至 4 项 CONSORT 指南推荐未在试验中得到满足。17 项试验未提供 AE 评估方法,14 项试验未报告严重 AE,7 项试验未提供 AE 的定量数据。
需要在慢性疼痛大麻素试验中更好地评估和报告危害。可以通过以下方式进行改进:扩大教育/知识转化、增加伦理委员会、资助机构和期刊对研究的监管,以及在整个研究培训过程中更加重视安全性评估和报告。