Suppr超能文献

系统评价和荟萃分析似乎表明,大麻素用于慢性原发性疼痛治疗的益处有限。

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Seem to Indicate that Cannabinoids for Chronic Primary Pain Treatment Have Limited Benefit.

作者信息

Giossi Riccardo, Carrara Federica, Padroni Matteo, Bilancio Maria Concetta, Mazzari Martina, Enisci Silvia, Romio Maria Silvia, Boni Gloria, Corrù Federica, Fittipaldo Veronica Andrea, Tramacere Irene, Pani Arianna, Scaglione Francesco, Fornasari Diego

机构信息

Department of Medical Biotechnology and Translational Medicine, Postgraduate School of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Department of Research and Clinical Development, Scientific Directorate, Fondazione I.R.C.C.S. Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Via Celoria 11, 20133, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Pain Ther. 2022 Dec;11(4):1341-1358. doi: 10.1007/s40122-022-00434-5. Epub 2022 Sep 21.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The IASP ICD-11 chronic primary pain (CPP) definition includes 19 different painful conditions. In recent years, interest in the potential role of cannabinoids in the management of CPP has increased, since they demonstrated a possible efficacy in treating pain, especially in secondary pain conditions. However, limited evidence is available for patients with CPP. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cannabinoid administration in CPP.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched form the beginning up to 31 October 2021 to retrieve published articles of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational, retrospective or prospective, studies, investigating cannabinoids in CPP. The study screening process was completed during November 2021. The primary outcome was pain reduction by means of the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were quality of life by means of the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ) or other available scales, appetite, anxiety, depression, and sleep by means of any available scales. Safety was assessed with the reporting of serious adverse events (SAE) and discontinuation due to adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed. The weighted generic inverse variance method and Mantel-Haenszel method were used to estimate the mean difference (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. For outcome measures reported with different scales (pain, anxiety, depression), we used the standardized MD (SMD) as the effect measure and then converted it into units of the VAS scale for pain, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) for anxiety, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) for depression. Summary of findings was produced using GRADEproGDT.

RESULTS

From 3007 identified records, we included eight articles reporting the results of eight different RCTs (four parallel and four crossover studies; seven compared to placebo and one to amitriptyline), with a total population of 240 patients. VAS pain reduction was non-significant for cannabinoids against placebo (MD = - 0.64; 95% CI - 1.30 to 0.02) or amitriptyline (MD = - 0.19; 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.19). More than 4 weeks cannabinoid treatment significantly reduced pain compared to placebo in parallel studies with more than 4 weeks of treatment duration (MD = - 1.28; 95% CI - 2.33 to - 0.22). Differences for the FIQ (MD = - 21.69; 95% CI - 46.20 to 2.82), BAI (MD = - 2.32; 95% CI - 7.99 to 3.08), and BDI (MD = 2.32; 95% CI - 1.71 to 6.35) were non-significant, likewise for discontinuation due to adverse events (OR = 2.15; 95% CI 0.44-10.65), when comparing cannabinoids to placebo. The quality of the evidence was generally low mainly as a result of imprecision and risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Cannabinoid treatment in patients with CPP had limited benefit on pain relief; however, it might improve pain with long-term administration.

摘要

引言

国际疼痛研究协会(IASP)的《国际疾病分类第11版》(ICD - 11)中慢性原发性疼痛(CPP)的定义包含19种不同的疼痛状况。近年来,大麻素在CPP管理中的潜在作用越来越受到关注,因为它们在治疗疼痛方面显示出可能的疗效,尤其是在继发性疼痛状况中。然而,关于CPP患者的证据有限。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估大麻素治疗CPP的疗效和安全性。

方法

检索了截至2021年10月31日的PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆,以获取已发表的随机对照试验(RCT)或观察性、回顾性或前瞻性研究的文章,这些研究调查了CPP患者使用大麻素的情况。研究筛选过程于2021年11月完成。主要结局是通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估的疼痛减轻情况。次要结局包括通过纤维肌痛影响问卷(FIQ)或其他可用量表评估的生活质量、通过任何可用量表评估的食欲、焦虑、抑郁和睡眠情况。通过报告严重不良事件(SAE)和因不良事件停药情况来评估安全性。评估了偏倚风险。分别使用加权通用逆方差法和Mantel - Haenszel法来估计连续和二分结局的平均差(MD)和比值比(OR)及其95%置信区间(CI)。对于用不同量表报告的结局指标(疼痛、焦虑、抑郁),我们使用标准化平均差(SMD)作为效应量,然后将其转换为疼痛的VAS量表单位、焦虑的贝克焦虑量表(BAI)单位和抑郁的贝克抑郁量表(BDI)单位。使用GRADEproGDT生成研究结果总结。

结果

从3007条识别记录中,我们纳入了8篇文章,报告了8项不同的RCT结果(4项平行研究和4项交叉研究;7项与安慰剂比较,1项与阿米替林比较),总共有240名患者。与安慰剂(MD = - 0.64;95%CI - 1.30至0.02)或阿米替林(MD = - 0.19;95%CI - 0.58至0.19)相比,大麻素减轻VAS疼痛不显著。在治疗持续时间超过4周的平行研究中,与安慰剂相比,超过4周的大麻素治疗显著减轻了疼痛(MD = - 1.28;95%CI - 2.33至 - 0.22)。FIQ(MD = - 21.69;95%CI - 46.20至2.82)、BAI(MD = - 2.32;95%CI - 7.99至3.08)和BDI(MD = 2.32;95%CI - 1.71至6.35)的差异不显著,与安慰剂相比,因不良事件停药情况(OR = 2.15;95%CI 0.44 - 10.65)也是如此。证据质量总体较低,主要是由于不精确性和偏倚风险。

结论

大麻素治疗CPP患者对缓解疼痛的益处有限;然而,长期给药可能会改善疼痛。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d0af/9633894/ace807fa485c/40122_2022_434_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验