Explore the vast range of titles available.

Ecological research suggests that increased access to cannabis may facilitate reductions in opioid use and harms, and medical cannabis patients describe the substitution of opioids with cannabis for pain management. However, there is a lack of research using individual-level data to explore this question. We aimed to investigate the longitudinal association between frequency of cannabis use and illicit opioid use among people who use drugs (PWUD) experiencing chronic pain. This study included data from people in 2 prospective cohorts of PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, who reported major or persistent pain from June 1, 2014, to December 1, 2017 (n = 1,152). We used descriptive statistics to examine reasons for cannabis use and a multivariable generalized linear mixed-effects model to estimate the relationship between daily (once or more per day) cannabis use and daily illicit opioid use. There were 424 (36.8%) women in the study, and the median age at baseline was 49.3 years (IQR 42.3-54.9). In total, 455 (40%) reported daily illicit opioid use, and 410 (36%) reported daily cannabis use during at least one 6-month follow-up period. The most commonly reported therapeutic reasons for cannabis use were pain (36%), sleep (35%), stress (31%), and nausea (30%). After adjusting for demographic characteristics, substance use, and health-related factors, daily cannabis use was associated with significantly lower odds of daily illicit opioid use (adjusted odds ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.74, p < 0.001). Limitations of the study included self-reported measures of substance use and chronic pain, and a lack of data for cannabis preparations, dosages, and modes of administration. We observed an independent negative association between frequent cannabis use and frequent illicit opioid use among PWUD with chronic pain. These findings provide longitudinal observational evidence that cannabis may serve as an adjunct to or substitute for illicit opioid use among PWUD with chronic pain.

Cannabinoids, when co-administered with opioids, may enable reduced opioid doses without loss of analgesic efficacy (ie, an opioid-sparing effect). The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine the opioid-sparing potential of cannabinoids. Eligible studies included pre-clinical and clinical studies for which the outcome was either analgesia or opioid dose requirements. Clinical studies included controlled studies and case series. We searched Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, and Embase. Nineteen pre-clinical and nine clinical studies met the search criteria. Seventeen of the 19 pre-clinical studies provided evidence of synergistic effects from opioid and cannabinoid co-administration. Our meta-analysis of pre-clinical studies indicated that the median effective dose (ED ) of morphine administered in combination with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) is 3.6 times lower (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95, 6.76; n=6) than the ED of morphine alone. In addition, the ED for codeine administered in combination with delta-9-THC was 9.5 times lower (95% CI 1.6, 57.5, n=2) than the ED of codeine alone. One case series (n=3) provided very-low-quality evidence of a reduction in opioid requirements with cannabinoid co-administration. Larger controlled clinical studies showed some clinical benefits of cannabinoids; however, opioid dose changes were rarely reported and mixed findings were observed for analgesia. In summary, pre-clinical studies provide robust evidence of the opioid-sparing effect of cannabinoids, whereas one of the nine clinical studies identified provided very-low-quality evidence of such an effect. Prospective high-quality-controlled clinical trials are required to determine the opioid-sparing effect of cannabinoids.

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the benefits and harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycInfo, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos, and trial registries up to January 2021.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials of medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus any non-cannabis control for chronic pain at ≥1 month follow-up.Data extraction and synthesisPaired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects models meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.ResultsA total of 32 trials with 5174 adult patients were included, 29 of which compared medical cannabis or cannabinoids with placebo. Medical cannabis was administered orally (n=30) or topically (n=2). Clinical populations included chronic non-cancer pain (n=28) and cancer related pain (n=4). Length of follow-up ranged from 1 to 5.5 months. Compared with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis probably results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing at least the minimally important difference (MID) of 1 cm (on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS)) in pain relief (modelled risk difference (RD) of 10% (95% confidence interval 5% to 15%), based on a weighted mean difference (WMD) of −0.50 cm (95% CI −0.75 to −0.25 cm, moderate certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally results in a very small improvement in physical functioning (4% modelled RD (0.1% to 8%) for achieving at least the MID of 10 points on the 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale, WMD of 1.67 points (0.03 to 3.31, high certainty)), and a small improvement in sleep quality (6% modelled RD (2% to 9%) for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm on a 10 cm VAS, WMD of −0.35 cm (−0.55 to −0.14 cm, high certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally does not improve emotional, role, or social functioning (high certainty). Moderate certainty evidence shows that medical cannabis taken orally probably results in a small increased risk of transient cognitive impairment (RD 2% (0.1% to 6%)), vomiting (RD 3% (0.4% to 6%)), drowsiness (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), impaired attention (RD 3% (1% to 8%)), and nausea (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), but not diarrhoea; while high certainty evidence shows greater increased risk of dizziness (RD 9% (5% to 14%)) for trials with <3 months follow-up versus RD 28% (18% to 43%) for trials with ≥3 months follow-up; interaction test P=0.003; moderate credibility of subgroup effect).ConclusionsModerate to high certainty evidence shows that non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids results in a small to very small improvement in pain relief, physical functioning, and sleep quality among patients with chronic pain, along with several transient adverse side effects, compared with placebo. The accompanying BMJ Rapid Recommendation provides contextualised guidance based on this body of evidence.Systematic review registrationhttps://osf.io/3pwn2

An updated systematic review of randomized controlled trials examining cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews reporting on health care outcomes. Eleven trials published since our last review met inclusion criteria. The quality of the trials was excellent. Seven of the trials demonstrated a significant analgesic effect. Several trials also demonstrated improvement in secondary outcomes (e.g., sleep, muscle stiffness and spasticity). Adverse effects most frequently reported such as fatigue and dizziness were mild to moderate in severity and generally well tolerated. This review adds further support that currently available cannabinoids are safe, modestly effective analgesics that provide a reasonable therapeutic option in the management of chronic non-cancer pain.

Chronic neuropathic pain affects 1%–2% of the adult population and is often refractory to standard pharmacologic treatment. Patients with chronic pain have reported using smoked cannabis to relieve pain, improve sleep and improve mood. Adults with post-traumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain were randomly assigned to receive cannabis at four potencies (0%, 2.5%, 6% and 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol) over four 14-day periods in a crossover trial. Participants inhaled a single 25-mg dose through a pipe three times daily for the first five days in each cycle, followed by a nine-day washout period. Daily average pain intensity was measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale. We recorded effects on mood, sleep and quality of life, as well as adverse events. We recruited 23 participants (mean age 45.4 [standard deviation 12.3] years, 12 women [52%]), of whom 21 completed the trial. The average daily pain intensity, measured on the 11-point numeric rating scale, was lower on the prespecified primary contrast of 9.4% v. 0% tetrahydrocannabinol (5.4 v. 6.1, respectively; difference = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02−1.4). Preparations with intermediate potency yielded intermediate but nonsignificant degrees of relief. Participants receiving 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol reported improved ability to fall asleep (easier, p = 0.001; faster, p < 0.001; more drowsy, p = 0.003) and improved quality of sleep (less wakefulness, p = 0.01) relative to 0% tetrahydrocannabinol. We found no differences in mood or quality of life. The most common drug-related adverse events during the period when participants received 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol were headache, dry eyes, burning sensation in areas of neuropathic pain, dizziness, numbness and cough. A single inhalation of 25 mg of 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol herbal cannabis three times daily for five days reduced the intensity of pain, improved sleep and was well tolerated. Further long-term safety and efficacy studies are indicated. (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register no. ISRCTN68314063)

Background Integrated primary care programs for patients living with chronic pain which are accessible, interdisciplinary, and patient-centered are needed for preventing chronicity and improving outcomes. Evaluation of the implementation and impact of such programs supports further development of primary care chronic pain management. This study examined patient-reported outcomes among individuals with low back pain (LBP) receiving care in a novel interdisciplinary primary care program. Methods Patients were referred by primary care physicians in four regions of Quebec, Canada, and eligible patients received an evidence-based interdisciplinary pain management program over a six-month period. Patients were screened for risk of chronicity. Patient-reported outcome measures of pain interference and intensity, physical function, depression, and anxiety were evaluated at regular intervals over the six-month follow-up. A multilevel regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between patient characteristics at baseline, including risk of chronicity, and change in pain outcomes. Results Four hundred and sixty-four individuals (mean age 55.4y, 63% female) completed the program. The majority (≥ 60%) experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity and interference at six months. Patients with moderate (71%) or high risk (81%) of chronicity showed greater improvement in pain interference than those with low risk (51%). Significant predictors of improvement in pain interference included a higher risk of chronicity, younger age, female sex, and lower baseline disability. Conclusion The outcomes of this novel LBP program will inform wider implementation considerations by identifying key components for further effectiveness, sustainability, and scale-up of the program.

Pain is a common problem among elite athletes and is frequently associated with sport injury. Both pain and injury interfere with the performance of elite athletes. There are currently no evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines for the management of pain in elite athletes. Typically, pain management consists of the provision of analgesics, rest and physical therapy. More appropriately, a treatment strategy should address all contributors to pain including underlying pathophysiology, biomechanical abnormalities and psychosocial issues, and should employ therapies providing optimal benefit and minimal harm. To advance the development of a more standardised, evidence-informed approach to pain management in elite athletes, an IOC Consensus Group critically evaluated the current state of the science and practice of pain management in sport and prepared recommendations for a more unified approach to this important topic.

The presence of multiple coexisting chronic pain (CP) conditions (eg, low-back pain and migraines) within patients has received little attention in literature. The goals of this observational longitudinal study were to determine the prevalence of coexisting CP conditions, identify the most frequent ones and patterns of coexistence, investigate the relationships among patients' biopsychosocial characteristics and number of CP conditions, and determine the impact of coexisting CP conditions on treatment response. A total of 3,966 patients attending multidisciplinary pain-treatment centers who were enrolled in the Quebec Pain Registry were included. Patients completed self-report and nurse-administered questionnaires before their first visit and 6 months later. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, factor and cluster analyses, negative binomials with log-link generalized linear models, and linear mixed-effect models. A third of patients reported coexisting CP conditions. No specific patterns of comorbidities emerged. The presence of coexisting CP conditions was associated with longer pain duration, older age, being female, and poorer quality of life. The presence of more than one CP condition did not have a clinically significant impact on treatment responses. The novelty of the study results relate to the heterogeneity that was found in the patterns of coexistence of CP conditions and the fact that having multiple CP conditions did not clinically impact treatment response. These results highlight the need for future research that examines causes of coexistence among CP conditions across the spectrum of CP, as opposed to focusing on specific conditions, and to examine whether multiple CP conditions impact on additional domains, such as treatment satisfaction. These results highlight the importance of studying the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the development of coexisting CP conditions, in order eventually to prevent/minimize their occurrence and/or develop optimal treatment and management approaches.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol [DRO]) as an add-on treatment in patients with refractory chronic pain (CP). Methods An exploratory retrospective analysis of 12-week data provided by the German Pain e-Registry on adult patients with treatment refractory CP who received DRO. Results Between March 10, 2017, and June 30, 2019, the German Pain e-Registry collected information on 89,095 patients with pain, of whom 1,145 patients (1.3%) received DRO (53.8% female, mean ± standard deviation age: 56.9 ± 10.6 years), and 70.0% documented use for the entire 12-week evaluation period. The average DRO daily dose was 15.8 ± 7.5 mg, typically in three divided doses (average DRO dose of 5.3 ± 2.1 mg). Average 24-hour pain intensity decreased from 46.3 ± 16.1 to 26.8 ± 18.7 mm on a visual analog scale (absolute visual analog scale difference: –19.5 ± 17.3; P < 0.001). Among patients who completed follow-up, an improvement from baseline of at least 50% was documented for pain (46.5%), activities of daily living (39%), quality of life (31.4%), and sleep (35.3%). A total of 536 patients (46.8%) reported at least one of 1,617 drug-related adverse events, none of which were serious, and 248 patients (21.7%) stopped treatment. Over the 12-week period, 59.0% of patients reported a reduction of other pain treatments, and 7.8% reported a complete cessation of any other pharmacological pain treatments. Conclusion Add-on treatment with DRO in patients with refractory CP was well tolerated and associated with a significant improvement.