Bio 22
the bmj | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 1
RESEARCH
Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic non-cancer and cancer related pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials Li Wang,1,2,3 Patrick J Hong,4 Curtis May,5 Yasir Rehman,2,3 Yvgeniy Oparin,1 Chris J Hong,6 Brian Y Hong,7 Mahmood AminiLari,2,3 Lucas Gallo,8 Alka Kaushal,9 Samantha Craigie,2 Rachel J Couban,2 Elena Kum,3 Harsha Shanthanna,1 Ira Price,10 Suneel Upadhye,3,11 Mark A Ware,12 Fiona Campbell,13 Rachelle Buchbinder,14 Thomas Agoritsas,3,15 Jason W Busse1,2,3,16,17
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To determine the benefits and harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycInfo, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos, and trial registries up to January 2021. STUDY SELECTION Randomised clinical trials of medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus any non-cannabis control for chronic pain at ≥1 month follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Paired 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. RESULTS A 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). CONCLUSIONS Moderate 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 REGISTRATION https://osf.io/3pwn2
For numbered affiliations see end of the article Correspondence to: Li Wang wangli1@mcmaster.ca (or @lwang246 on Twitter; ORCID 0000-0003-1585-8846) Additional material is published online only. To view please visit the journal online. Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n1034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1034
Accepted: 5 March 2021
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC Chronic pain is a common complaint that is increasingly managed with medical cannabis or cannabinoids. Prior systematic reviews exploring the effectiveness of medical cannabis for chronic pain have provided conflicting results due, in part, to limitations of analytical approaches and interpretation of findings.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS A BMJ Rapid Recommendation guideline panel, including patients, clinical experts, and methodologists, defined the scope of our review, informed outcome selection and importance, subgroup analyses, and interpretation of findings. Moderate to high certainty evidence shows that, compared with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids results in a small to very small increase in the proportion of people living with chronic pain who experience an important improvement in pain relief, physical functioning, and sleep quality. High certainty evidence shows that, compared with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids does not improve emotional, role, or social functioning. Moderate to high certainty evidence shows that, compared with placebo, non- inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing cognitive impairment, vomiting, drowsiness, dizziness (and large increase at longer follow-up), impaired attention, and nausea, but not diarrhoea.
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
2 doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | the bmj
Introduction Chronic pain affects approximately 20% of North Americans,1 2 Europeans,3 4 Australians,5 and populations in developing countries,6 and is associated with physical and emotional impairment, disability, reduced quality of life, and increased healthcare costs.3-12 The shift away from long term opioid therapy for chronic pain has increased interest in medical cannabis as a therapeutic alternative13 14; however, formal guidance has been variable. Some guidelines recommend cannabis for chronic pain only after other treatments have proved unsuccessful,15 others only for chronic non-cancer pain,16 chronic neuropathic pain,15 17 palliative care, or refractory neuropathic pain,18 while some guidelines recommend against use of medical cannabis for chronic pain.19 20
The systematic reviews15 16 18 19 21-24 supporting these guidelines have several limitations, including exclusion of some types of medical cannabis,23 consideration of select chronic pain conditions,16 22 or incomplete search strategies.16 21 23 24 Other limitations include only pooling reported responder analyses (such as ≥30% or 50% pain reduction from baseline),16 18 21 24 which excluded the majority of trials that only reported pain as a continuous outcome; using standardised mean differences to pool continuous data,16 21 22 24 which is vulnerable to baseline heterogeneity of patients and difficult to interpret25; failure to explore heterogeneity associated with pooled treatment effects16 21 23 24; lack of patient involvement15 21; and insufficient evaluation of the certainty of evidence.15 21 22
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain that addresses these limitations. This systematic review is part of the BMJ Rapid Recommendations project, a collaborative effort from the MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (https://magicevidence.org) and The BMJ. This systematic review informed a parallel guideline published on bmj.com26 and MAGICapp (box 1).
Methods We followed the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews of RCTs27 and registered our review on the Open Science Framework (https://osf. io/3pwn2). Before analysis, we planned a sensitivity analysis comparing reported versus modelled proportion of patients achieving ≥30% pain reduction with medical cannabis. We also conducted a post hoc subgroup analysis to explore the impact of industry funding versus not on treatment effects.
Guidline panel involvement The BMJ Rapid Recommendations guideline panel provided critical oversight of different steps of this review, including: (1) defining the study question; (2) categorising chronic pain conditions; (3) prioritising outcome measures; (4) ranking the importance of adverse events; (5) proposing subgroup analyses; and (6) informing if measures of precision associated
with pooled effect estimates were imprecise. The panel included nine content experts (two general internists, two family physicians, a paediatrician, a physiatrist, a paediatric anaesthesiologist, a clinical pharmacologist, and a rheumatologist), nine methodologists (five of whom are also front-line clinicians), and three people living with chronic pain (one of whom used medical cannabis). All patient partners received personal training and support to optimise contributions throughout the guideline development process. The members of the guideline panel led the interpretation of the results based on what they expected the typical values and preferences of patients to be, as well as the variation between patients.
Patient and public involvement The three patient partners were full members of the guideline panel and contributed to the selection and prioritisation of outcomes, values and preferences assessments, critical feedback to the protocol, and the interpretation of findings for the systematic review and the associated BMJ Rapid Recommendation.
Data sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, and Epistemonikos from inception to 7 February 2020, which formed the basis for evidence used by the guideline panel to formulate recommendations. We updated our search to 15 January 2021 to explore for additional eligible trials. We searched Clinical Trials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), EU Clinical Trials Register, and Health Canada Clinical Trials Database in May 2020 and again in January 2021. No language restrictions were applied, and an academic librarian developed all database-specific search strategies (see eAppendix 1 in the data supplement on bmj.com). In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of eligible reports, previous systematic reviews, and guidelines, and contacted industry representatives to identify additional studies.
Eligibility criteria We included RCTs that enrolled ≥20 chronic pain patients (pain lasting ≥3 months),28 randomised them to any form of medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus placebo or a non-cannabis active comparator, and followed them for at least one month. We included trials for multiple sclerosis only when enrolled patients were described as presenting with chronic pain29-34 or baseline data confirmed the presence of chronic pain.35-38 We excluded conference abstracts, ongoing trials, open-label trials, and studies that enrolled patients without chronic pain or with a total sample size less than 20 patients,39 as studies with very small samples are more prone to bias (such as unequal distribution of prognostic factors at baseline) and contribute little information to pooled analyses.40 We contacted authors to clarify eligibility criteria when
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
the bmj | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 3
necessary and excluded studies if we did not receive a response.
Study selection Using a standardised pilot-tested form, paired reviewers screened titles and abstracts of identified citations and full texts of potentially eligible studies. Reviewers resolved disagreements by discussion, or with an adjudicator’s help when they could not achieve consensus. We used online systematic review software (DistillerSR, Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada; http:// systematic-review.net/) to facilitate literature screening.
Data extraction Using standardised, pilot-tested forms, each eligible trial underwent duplicate data abstraction by pairs of reviewers working independently. Reviewers addressed discrepancies through discussion or adjudication by a third reviewer when necessary. If a study reported outcomes at several time points, we used the longest follow-up.
We collected information regarding study characteristics, treatment details (such as dose, mode of administration, duration of treatment), patient characteristics (including category of pain condition as guided by the International Association for the Study of Pain41 42), and all patient-important outcomes as guided by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials43 44 (pain, physical functioning, sleep quality, emotional functioning, role
functioning, social functioning, and adverse events). Based on feedback from our patient partners, we used pain at rest rather than on movement if both were reported, and we used upper limb function rather than lower limb function if both were reported and overall function was not. If multiple instruments were used to measure the same outcome domain (such as pain), we collected data from the most commonly reported instrument across trials eligible for our review. On review of adverse events reported among eligible trials, our guideline panel selected seven as most important to patients, in the following order of importance: (1) cognitive impairment, (2) vomiting, (3) drowsiness, (4) dizziness, (5) impaired attention, (6) diarrhoea, and (7) nausea.
Risk of bias assessment Using a modified Cochrane risk of bias instrument,45 46 pairs of reviewers, independently and in duplicate, assessed each article for risk of bias, including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, care givers, outcome assessors, outcome adjudicators, and data analysts, and incomplete outcome data (≥20% missing data was considered high risk of bias).
Statistical analysis We measured inter-rater agreement of the decision to include a trial after reviewing the full-text paper using an adjusted kappa statistic (κ).47 We converted all continuous measures to a common scale on a domain- by-domain basis48: (1) pain intensity to a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS), higher scores are worse; (2) physical functioning to the 100-point 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) physical functioning scale, higher scores are better; (3) emotional functioning to the 100-point SF-36 mental functioning scale, higher scores are better; (4) role functioning to the 100-point SF-36 scale of role limitations due to physical problems, higher scores are better; (5) social functioning to the 100-point SF-36 social functioning scale, higher scores are better; and (6) sleep quality to a 10 cm VAS, higher scores are worse. Crossover trials were analysed as parallel trials, thus, total number of patients enrolled were doubled.
We used change scores from baseline rather than end-of-study scores to account for inter-patient variability. If the authors did not report change scores, we calculated them using the baseline and end-of- study score and a correlation coefficient.49 50 We pooled all continuous outcomes reported by more than one study as the weighted mean difference (WMD) and the associated 95%confidence interval, and modelled the risk difference (RD) of achieving at least the minimally important difference (MID).50 The MID is the smallest amount of improvement in a treatment outcome that patients recognise as important.51 For the 10 cm VAS for pain and sleep quality, the MID has been established as approximately 1 cm.52 53 For the SF-36, a MID of 10 points was used for all individual scales (that is, physical, emotional, role, and social functioning).54
Box 1: Linked articles in this BMJ Rapid Recommendation cluster • Busse JW, Vankrunkelsven P, Zeng L, et al. Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for
chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ 2021;374:n2040. doi:10.1136/bmj. n2040
○Summary of the results from the Rapid Recommendation process • Wang L, Hong PJ, May C, et al. Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic
non-cancer and cancer related pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 2021;374:n1034
○Review of randomised trials that assessed medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain
• Zeraatkar D, Cooper MA, Agarwal A, et al. Long-term and serious harms of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a systematic review of non-randomised studies. medRxiv 2021 doi:10.1101/2021.05.27.21257921
○Review of observational studies exploring long term harms associated with use of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain
• Zeng L, Lytvyn L, Wang X, et al. Values and preferences towards medical cannabis or cannabinoids among patients with chronic pain: a mixed methods systematic review. BMJ Open 2021;0:e050831. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050831.
○Review of studies exploring patients’ values and preferences regarding use of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.
• Noori A, Miroshnychenko A, Shergill Y, et al. Opioid-sparing effects of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies. BMJ Open 2021;11:e047717. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2020-047717
○Review of evidence assessing the impact of medical cannabis or cannabinoids when added to opioids among patients living with chronic pain.
• MAGICapp (https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/jMMYPj) ○Expanded version of the results with a multilayered recommendation, evidence summaries, and decision aids for use on all electronic devices
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
4 doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | the bmj
Modelling assumptions for estimating the RD of achieving the MID assume that the standard deviations (SDs) of outcome measurements are the same in both the treatment and control groups, and that change scores in both groups are normally distributed.50 We explored if these assumptions were likely to have been met by comparing SDs between treatment and control groups, and calculating the mean score for pain ±2 SDs in each treatment group for all trials that contributed to our responder analysis to identify any cases in which the distributions were substantially skewed.
We pooled the effect of medical cannabis on adverse events and directly reported pain responder analyses (that is, ≥30% pain relief from baseline, which was the threshold most commonly applied among trials reporting the proportion of responders) as relative risks (RRs), RDs and the associated 95% CIs. We used the DerSimonian-Laird method and random-effects models for all meta-analyses, which are conservative as they consider both within- and between-study variability.55
Missing data If standard errors (SEs) of effect measures or SDs for continuous outcomes were not reported directly, we estimated SEs from confidence intervals or P values, or SDs from SEs, confidence intervals, or P values.49 When necessary, we estimated the sample mean and SD from sample size, median, interquartile range, or range.56 We contacted authors to acquire missing SEs or SDs when there were no variance-related information reported. If unsuccessful, we imputed missing SEs using the hot deck approach50 or missing SDs by assuming a linear relationship between SDs and means among other studies reporting this information and contributing to the pooled effect.49
Some authors reported the effect of medical cannabis was not statistically significant, but without accompanying data. If we were unable to acquire these data by contacting the author, we addressed the risk of overestimating the magnitude of association by imputing a WMD of “0” or RR of “1” for effect estimates and imputed the associated variance using the hot deck approach.50
Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and meta- regression We used the Cochran’s χ2 test and the I2 statistic to examine statistical heterogeneity of pooled effect estimates.49 In consultation with the guideline panel, we tested the following a priori subgroup hypotheses that larger treatment effects were associated with: (1) chronic non-cancer pain versus chronic cancer related pain; (2) neuropathic pain versus non-neuropathic pain; (3) tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) alone versus THC and cannabidiol (CBD) versus CBD alone versus palmitoylethanolamide (PEA); (4) inhaled versus ingested versus topical cannabis; (5) enriched enrolment versus not; (6) high versus low risk of bias on a component-by-component basis; and (7) industry funded trials versus not. We conducted subgroup
analyses only if there were two or more studies in each subgroup.
We used meta-regression to explore the association between treatment effects and length of follow-up and the proportion of loss to follow-up when there were at least 10 studies available.49 57 We assessed the credibility of subgroup effects using ICEMAN criteria.58 We conducted sensitivity analyses excluding converted change scores, and excluding data imputation for non- significant effects, to explore the impact on pooled effect estimates. Among trials that directly reported the proportion of patients achieving ≥30% pain reduction from baseline (which equated to approximately a 2 cm reduction in pain on a 10 cm VAS), we calculated both the responder analysis and a modelled responder analysis of achieving ≥2 cm pain reduction to explore consistency of results. We also pooled effect estimates with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method as a sensitivity analysis.59
Small study effects When there were at least 10 studies available for meta- analysis,49 we assessed for small study effects by visual assessment of asymmetry of the funnel plot for each outcome and calculated Egger’s test60 for continuous outcomes and Harbord’s test61 for binary outcomes.
Certainty of evidence The authors and the guideline panel achieved consensus in categorising the certainty of evidence for all reported outcomes as high, moderate, low, or very low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.62 If subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in treatment effect between trials at low and high risk of bias (on a component-by-component basis), we presented the pooled effect for studies at low risk of bias. If no significant subgroup effect was found, we pooled across all trials and did not rate down for risk of bias. Rating of imprecision was fully contextualised by the guideline panel. We also rated down significant effects for imprecision if they were informed by <300 patients for continuous outcomes or <300 events for dichotomised outcomes.63 We did not rate down the same effect estimate twice for both inconsistency and imprecision. We followed GRADE guidance for communicating our findings.64
We performed all statistical analyses using Stata statistical software version 15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). All comparisons were 2-tailed using a threshold of P ≤0.05.
Results Of 11 952 citations, 31 English language trials29-38 65-85 and one German language trial86 met eligibility criteria, including one article80 that reported two trials and two articles36 37 that reported outcomes at different follow- up times for the same trial. Thus, we included 32 unique trials with 5174 patients (fig 1). We shared our list of eligible trials with representatives from Canopy Growth, CannaPiece, the Cronos Group, Dosist,
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
the bmj | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 5
Tilray, Whistler Therapeutics, Tetra Bio-Pharma, Syqe Medical, the Organic Green Dutchman, International Cannabis Solutions, and Harvest Medical; seven representatives replied and indicated they were unaware of any trials missing from our review. One trial (n=34) of cannabidivarin versus placebo for HIV associated neuropathic pain (information summarised in eTable 1 in data supplement) was identified after guideline recommendations were made. We did not include the results of this trial in our pooled estimates of treatment effects to maintain consistency with the evidence used by the guideline panel to formulate recommendations.
Studies excluded due to short follow-up (<4 weeks), small sample size (<20 patients), or open-label design, as well as ongoing trials, are reported in eAppendix 2. There was almost perfect agreement between reviewers at the full text review stage (κ=0.81). Of 14 authors contacted for clarification of eligibility,35 87-99 three responded.92 94 99 Of 13 authors contacted
for additional information,31 66 68 75-79 85 100-103 five provided data.75 76 78 85 103
Study characteristics Among eligible trials, 28 enrolled patients living with chronic non-cancer pain and four enrolled patients with chronic cancer related pain.79-81 Types of chronic non-cancer pain included neuropathic pain (n=11 trials), spasticity related pain (n=7), nociplastic pain (n=5), nociceptive pain (n=2), medication overuse headache (n=1), and mixed chronic non-cancer pain (n=2) (eTable 2). Among 21 trials that reported baseline pain,29-31 33 65 66 68 69 71 73-76 79-83 85 86 the mean baseline pain score was 6.10 cm on a 10 cm VAS (median of individual trials 6.28, interquartile range (IQR) 5.67- 6.73 cm). The median of the mean age among eligible trials was 53 years (IQR 50-60 years); among 31 trials reporting sex distribution, 55% (2715/4955) of enrolled patients were female (median of individual trials 60%, IQR 39-70%).
Citations identified through references searching (108 from other reviews plus 207 registered trial record)
Full text articles excluded Conference abstract Non-randomised study Follow-up<4 weeks Patients enrolled without chronic pain Ongoing trial Intervention was not medical cannabis Sample size <20 Duplicates/overlaps Open label design Animal study
111 77 37 23 23
7 6 5 1 1
Citations retrieved
Citations identified through database searching
Duplicates removed
Titles and abstracts screened
Studies included in qualitative synthesis
291
315
11 952
32
Studies included in quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) 28
3104
Citations excluded 8525
8848
Full text articles assessed for eligibility
11 637
323
Fig 1 | Studies included in review of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
6 doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | the bmj
Placebo was the most common control (29 of 32 trials), including one three-arm trial that compared palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) with placebo and celecoxib66; other active comparators included dihydrocodeine,67 ibuprofen,70 and saw palmetto.77 Topical cannabidiol (CBD) was administrated in two trials78 83 (including one two-dose CBD versus placebo trial78) and oral cannabidivarin (CBDV; a homologue of CBD) in one trial,85 PEA in five trials,66 68 76 77 82 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in nine trials,31 33 34 67 70 73-75 86 a combination of THC and CBD in 14 trials29 30 32 35 38 65 69 71 72 79 80 81 84 (including one three-dose THC-CBD versus placebo trial79), and one three-arm trial reported in two articles that compared THC, THC-CBD, and placebo.36 37 Sixteen trials administered cannabis as gel filled capsules or oil drops,31-34 36 66-68 70 73-77 85 86 13 as an oral spray,29 30 35 38 65 69 71 72 79-81 84 one as sublingual oil drops,82 and two as a transdermal cream.78 83 No trial of inhaled medical cannabis (smoked or vapourised) was eligible because of inadequate length of follow- up (<4 weeks). Non-inhaled medical cannabis was added to patient’s pre-trial analgesic therapy in 24 trials,29-32 34-36 38 67 69-76 79-82 84 86 four trials allowed restricted co-analgesics,33 65 66 78 one trial did not permit participants to receive additional analgesic therapy,68 and three were unclear regarding concurrent analgesic therapy.77 83 85
The median follow-up was 50 days (IQR 35-84; range 28-154 days). Most trials (21/32, 66%) were funded by industry, six (19%) were not, and five (16%) did not specify a source of funding. Four trials used an enrichment design,35 38 74 80 in which patients were excluded if there was no improvement and/or intolerable adverse events during an open-label run-in period. No trials reported enrolling veterans, individuals receiving disability benefits, involved in litigation, or presenting with comorbid mental illness. One trial (3%) excluded patients with on going litigation associated with their chronic pain.67 Twenty one trials (66%) excluded patients with current or prior substance use dis order,29 30 33-35 38 65 67 69 70 72-75 80-85 and 23 trials (72%) excluded patients with mental illness or using psychotropic medication.29 30 32 33 35 36 38 65 67 69 70 72-75 79-85
Risk of bias Among 32 eligible trials, 29 (94%) were at risk of bias for at least one domain, 20 (63%) adequately generated their randomisation sequence, 31 (97%) appropriately concealed allocation, 32 (100%) blinded patients, 31 (97%) blinded care givers, data collectors, and outcome assessors, and four (13%) included a blinded data analyst. Fourteen of 30 trials (47%) reported ≥20% missing outcome data; two trials68 77 did not report the proportion of missing data (eTable 3).
Outcomes for non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus placebo Pain relief Moderate certainty evidence from 27 RCTs (3939 patients)29-35 38 65 66 68 69 71-76 78-84 86 shows that, compared
with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis probably results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief at or above the MID: 10% modelled risk difference (95% CI 5% to 15%) for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm, based on a weighted mean difference (WMD) of −0.50 cm on a 10 cm VAS (95% CI −0.75 to −0.25 cm; fig 2, table 1). There are no subgroup differences in pain relief based on neuropathic versus non-neuropathic pain (test of interaction P=0.21, eFigure 1 in data supplement) or chronic non-cancer versus chronic cancer-related pain (test of interaction P=0.16, fig 2, eTable 4, eAppendix 3). Meta-regression shows a significant association between higher loss to follow-up and less pain relief (P=0.008, eFigure 2); however, this subgroup effect is of very low credibility (eAppendix 3).
Moderate certainty evidence from 10 studies (1691 patients)29-38 65-84 86 101 that directly reported a responder analysis shows that non-inhaled medical cannabis probably results in a higher proportion of patients experiencing ≥30% pain reduction with medical cannabis versus placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.004 to 1.47; RD 7%, 0.1% to 16%, eFigure 3, table 1). Our modelled responder analysis for ≥30% pain reduction among these same 10 trials finds the identical RD, but with a more precise estimate of effect (modelled RD 7%, 2% to 12%; eTable 5).
Physical functioning High certainty evidence from 15 RCTs (2425 patients)29-33 35 36 65 69 71 75 76 79 86 shows that, compared with placebo, medical cannabis taken orally results in a very small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing an improvement of physical functioning at or above the MID: 4% modelled RD (95% CI 0.1% to 8%) for achieving at least the MID of 10 points, based on a WMD of 1.67 points on the 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale (95% CI 0.03 to 3.31; fig 3, table 1).
Sleep quality Sixteen RCTs (3124 patients)29 30 32 34 35 38 65 69 72 74 79-82 84 reported sleep quality. Compared with placebo, medical cannabis taken orally probably results in a significant improvement in sleep quality (WMD −0.53 cm on a 10 cm VAS, 95% CI −0.75 to −0.30 cm; eFigure 4); however, we found evidence of small study effects (eFigure 5; Egger’s test P=0.02). When restricted to larger trials (standard error of the WMD ≤0.4; Egger’s test P=0.24), high certainty evidence from nine RCTs29 32 35 72 79-81 84 (2652 patients) shows that, compared with placebo, medical cannabis taken orally results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing an improvement of sleep quality at or above the MID: 6% modelled RD (95% CI 2% to 9%) for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm, based on a WMD −0.35 cm on a 10 cm VAS (−0.55 to −0.14 cm; fig 4, table 1).
Emotional functioning High certainty evidence from 10 RCTs (2115 patients)29 32-36 71 75 79 86 shows medical cannabis taken orally does not improve emotional functioning compared with placebo (WMD 0.53 points on the
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
the bmj | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 7
100-point SF-36 mental functioning scale, 95% CI −0.67 to 1.73; eFigure 6, table 1).
Role functioning High certainty evidence from seven RCTs (1128 patients)29 35 71 75 79 82 86 finds no effect of oral administration of medical cannabis on role functioning compared with placebo (WMD 0.20 points on the 100-point SF-36 role limitations due to physical functioning scale, 95% CI −3.02 to 3.42; eFigure 7, table 1).
Social functioning High certainty evidence from eight RCTs (1405 patients)29 32 35 71 75 79 82 86 shows that, compared with
placebo, medical cannabis taken orally does not affect social functioning (WMD −0.63 points on the 100-point SF-36 social functioning scale, 95% CI −2.27 to 1.02; eFigure 8, table 1).
Adverse events One study, which compared topical CBD cream versus placebo for peripheral neuropathy, reported no adverse events during the study period.83 Another study, which compared two doses of topical CBD cream versus placebo for nociceptive pain (chronic knee pain due to osteoarthritis), reported no difference in dizziness (RR 3.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 66.22).78
Moderate certainty evidence shows that medical cannabis taken orally, compared with placebo,
Chronic non-cancer pain
Rog et al 2005
Blake et al 2006
NCT00710424 2006
Pinsger et al 2006
Wissel et al 2006
Nurmikko et al 2007
Skrabek et al 2008
Selvarajah et al 2010
Cobellis et al 2011
Novotna et al 2011
Toth et al 2012
Zajicek et al 2012
Langford et al 2013
Murina et al 2013
Serpell et al 2014
Andresen et al 2016
Germini et al 2017
Schimrigk et al 2017
de Vries et al 2017
Hunter et al 2018
van Amerongen et al 2018
Markova et al 2019
Xu et al 2020
Subtotal: P<0.001; I2=74.9%
Portenoy et al 2012
Fallon et al 2017
Fallon et al 2017
Lichtman et al 2018
Subtotal: P=0.249; I2=27.2%
Overall: P<0.001; I2=75.0%
-1.21 (-2.15 to -0.27)
-0.80 (-1.74 to 0.14)
-0.12 (-0.60 to 0.36)
-0.90 (-2.04 to 0.24)
-2.00 (-4.09 to 0.09)
-0.96 (-1.59 to -0.33)
-1.43 (-2.87 to 0.01)
0.60 (-0.96 to 2.16)
-2.81 (-3.55 to -2.07)
0.50 (-0.02 to 1.02)
-1.90 (-3.14 to -0.66)
-0.90 (-1.49 to -0.31)
-0.17 (-0.62 to 0.28)
0.30 (-0.90 to 1.50)
-0.48 (-1.08 to 0.12)
0.20 (-0.61 to 1.01)
0.01 (-1.64 to 1.66)
-0.11 (-0.63 to 0.41)
0.30 (-0.88 to 1.48)
-0.37 (-0.93 to 0.19)
-0.81 (-1.66 to 0.04)
-1.40 (-2.23 to -0.57)
-0.75 (-2.54 to 1.04)
-0.63 (-0.96 to -0.29)
-0.31 (-0.61 to 0.00)
0.12 (-0.18 to 0.42)
-0.02 (-0.42 to 0.38)
-0.16 (-0.44 to 0.12)
-0.10 (-0.28 to 0.09)
-0.50 (-0.75 to -0.25)
-4 -3 -2 0 1-1 2
Study
Favours cannabis Favours placebo
Mean difference, IV, random (95% CI)
Mean difference, IV, random (95% CI)
-2.65
-2.20
-1.67
-1.90
-2.00
-1.48
-2.04
-2.50
-5.31
-0.01
-3.00
-1.20
-1.93
-3.60
NR
-0.50
-0.50
-1.92
-1.60
-2.73
-1.02
-3.20
-1.34
-1.17
NR
NR
NR
IV = inverse variance; random = random-effects model; NR = arm-level data not reported
Mean
1.90
1.94
2.13
2.30
2.57
2.26
2.45
2.01
1.18
2.06
1.59
2.60
1.94
1.41
NR
1.57
1.50
2.01
2.08
2.94
1.06
2.18
2.24
1.82
NR
NR
NR
SD
33
31
146
21
12
63
15
15
21
124
13
143
167
10
73
28
7
105
21
211
12
53
15
268
199
103
199
No
3.28
3.30
4.97
2.72
1.18
4.38
2.04
1.82
3.99
4.83
2.45
4.56
5.07
2.55
4.52
3.74
1.68
4.84
2.60
4.66
3.59
3.66
1.49
77.93
5.57
5.59
5.27
5.64
22.07
100.00
Weight (%)
Cannabis group
-1.44
-1.40
-1.55
-1.00
0.00
-0.52
-0.61
-3.10
-2.50
-0.51
-1.10
-0.30
-1.76
-3.90
NR
-0.70
0.51
-1.81
-1.90
-2.37
-0.22
-1.80
-0.59
-0.08
NR
NR
NR
Mean
1.99
1.71
2.09
1.33
2.64
2.09
1.58
2.27
1.23
2.06
1.64
2.40
1.95
1.33
NR
1.56
1.65
1.94
2.14
2.94
1.06
2.18
2.65
1.82
NR
NR
NR
SD
32
27
148
21
12
62
18
14
20
117
13
134
172
10
89
30
7
104
29
103
12
53
14
91
198
103
198
No Placebo group
Fig 2 | Pain relief on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) among people living with chronic pain who received non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus placebo. Test of interaction P=0.16 for chronic non-cancer pain versus chronic cancer related pain. Black dashed vertical line represents the minimally important difference of 1 cm for the 10 cm VAS for pain. Purple dashed vertical line represents the overall pooled measure of effect.
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
8 doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | the bmj
probably results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing transient cognitive impairment (five RCTs and 1033 patients; RR 2.39, 1.06 to 5.38; RD 2%, 0.1% to 6%; eFigure 9, table 1), vomiting (9 RCTs and 2284 patients; RR 1.46, 1.07 to 1.99; RD 3%, 0.4% to 6%), drowsiness (15 RCTs and 2505 patients; RR 2.14, 1.55 to 2.95; RD 5%, 2% to 8%), impaired attention (7 RCTs and 895 patients, RR 4.04, 1.67 to 9.74; RD 3%, 1% to 8%), and nausea (14 RCTs and 2877 patients, RR 1.59, 1.28 to 1.99;
RD 5%, 2% to 8%); there was no effect on diarrhoea (10 RCTs and 2605 patients; RR 1.53, 0.97 to 2.40) (eTable 6).
Meta-regression shows oral administration of medical cannabis increases the risk of dizziness significantly over time (P=0.03; eFigure 10), and we found evidence of small study effects for trials reporting dizziness with <3 months’ follow-up (Harbord’s test P=0.03; eFigure 11). Thus, we restricted our analysis to larger trials (standard error of log RR <0.9) for
Table 1 | GRADE evidence profile of non-inhaled medical cannabis versus placebo for people living with chronic pain
No of trials (No of patients)
Follow-up period (months)
Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Publication bias
Treatment association (95% CI) Overall quality of evidencePlacebo
Cannabis/ cannabinoids
Pain: 10 cm VAS for pain; lower is better; MID=1 cm 27 (3939) 1 to 4 No serious
risk of bias*
Serious inconsistency I2=75%
No serious indirectness
No serious imprecision
Undetected; Symmetric funnel plot; Begg’s test P=0.55
952 (52%) achieved at or above MID
1309 (62%) achieved at or above MID
Moderate
Modelled RD 10% (5% to 15%) WMD −0.50 cm (−0.75 to −0.25)
Pain: ≥30% pain reduction from baseline 10 (1691) 1.25 to 3.5 No serious
risk of bias*
No serious inconsistency I2=38%
No serious indirectness
Serious imprecision†
Undetected; Symmetric funnel plot; Harbord’s test P=0.77
238 (33%) achieved at or above MID
718 (40%) achieved at or above MID
Moderate
RD 7% (0.1% to 16%) RR 1.21 (1.004 to 1.47)
Physical functioning: 0-100 point SF-36 physical functioning scale; higher is better; MID=10 points 15 (2425) 1 to 4 No serious
risk of bias*
No serious inconsistency I2=46%
No serious indirectness
No serious imprecision
Undetected; Symmetric funnel plot; Begg’s test P=0.10
289 (28%) achieved at or above MID
440 (32%) achieved at or above MID
High
Modelled RD 4% (0.1% to 8%) WMD 1.67 points (0.03 to 3.31)
Sleep quality: 0-10 sleep quality scale; higher is worse; MID=1 9‡ (2652) 1.25 to 3.5 No serious
risk of bias*
No serious inconsistency I2=47%
No serious indirectness
No serious imprecision
Undetected; Symmetric funnel plot; Begg’s test P=0.24
601 (48%) achieved at or above MID
765 (54%) achieved at or above MID
High
Modelled RD 6% (2% to 9%) WMD −0.35 cm (−0.55 to −0.14)
Emotional functioning: 0-100 point SF-36 mental component summary scale; higher is better; MID=10 points 10 (2115) 1 to 4 No serious
risk of bias*
No serious inconsistency I2=0%
No serious indirectness
No serious imprecision§
Undetected; Symmetric funnel plot; Begg’s test P=0.64
276 (31%) achieved at or above MID
403 (33%) achieved at or above MID
High
Modelled RD 2% (−2% to 4%) WMD 0.53 points (−0.67 to 1.73)
Role functioning: 0-100 point SF-36 physical role functioning scale; higher is better; MID=10 points 7 (1128) 1 to 3.5 No serious
risk of bias*
No serious inconsistency I2=21%
No serious indirectness
No serious imprecision§
Undetected 195 (41%) achieved at or above MID
267 (41%) achieved at or above MID
High
Modelled RD 0% (−4% to 5%) WMD 0.20 points (−3.02 to 3.42)
Social functioning: 0-100 point SF-36 social role functioning scale; higher is better; MID=10 points 8 (1405) 1 to 3.5 No serious
risk of bias*
No serious inconsistency I2=0%
No serious indirectness
No serious imprecision§
Undetected 239 (39%) achieved at or above MID
301 (38%) achieved at or above MID
High
Modelled RD −1% (−4% to 2%) WMD −0.63 points (−2.27 to 1.02)
Cognitive impairment 5 for oral cannabis (1033)
1.25 to 3.5 No serious risk of bias
No serious inconsistency I2=0%
No serious indirectness
Serious imprecision†
Undetected 7 (1%) experienced cognitive impairment
21 (3%) experienced cognitive impairment
Moderate
RD 2% (0.1% to 6%) RR 2.39 (1.06 to 5.38)
95%CI=95% confidence interval; VAS=visual analogue scale; MID=minimally important difference; RD=risk difference; WMD=weighted mean difference; RR=relative risk; SE=standard error. *We did not rate down for risk of bias as subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in trials at low versus high risk of bias on a component-by-component basis. †Although the estimate of precision excluded no effect, we rated down for imprecision because the guideline panel determined the lower and upper limits of 95%CI associated with the risk difference included both patient important and unimportant effects, and/or there were less than 300 observations or events to inform the pooled effect estimate. ‡We found evidence of small study effects for sleep quality among 16 eligible studies (Egger’s P=0.02). We therefore removed small studies (sample size <130 patients and SE >0.4) from our pooled estimate of effect. §Although the estimate of precision included no effect, we did not rate down for imprecision because the guideline panel determined that the 95%CI did not include patient-important effects.
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
the bmj | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 9
Chronic non-cancer pain
Zajicek et al 2003
Rog et al 2005
Blake et al 2006
Pinsger et al 2006
Wissel et al 2006
Nurmikko et al 2007
Selvarajah et al 2010
Novotna et al 2011
Zajicek et al 2012
Langford et al 2013
Andresen et al 2016
Germini et al 2017
Schimrigk et al 2017
de Vries et al 2017
Subtotal: P=0.021; I2=48.7%
Chronic cancer related pain�
Portenoy et al 2012
Subtotal: P= ; I2= %
Overall: P=0.028; I2=45.6%
0.10 (-1.09 to 1.29)
1.83 (-1.77 to 5.44)
8.00 (0.19 to 15.81)
10.00 (2.09 to 17.91)
0.00 (-20.97 to 20.97)
8.36 (2.98 to 13.74)
-2.10 (-17.16 to 12.96)
-0.46 (-3.71 to 2.79)
7.38 (1.22 to 13.53)
-0.45 (-3.68 to 2.78)
4.00 (-7.76 to 15.76)
5.75 (-25.50 to 37.00)
0.32 (-3.69 to 4.33)
-7.95 (-21.77 to 5.87)
2.11 (0.17 to 4.05)
0.00 (-2.35 to 2.35)
0.00 (-2.35 to 2.35)
1.67 (0.03 to 3.31)
-30 -20 -10 10 200 30
Study
Favours placebo Favours cannabis
Mean difference, IV, random (95% CI)
Mean difference, IV, random (95% CI)
0.06
2.67
9.00
10.00
NR
8.01
3.60
0.30
37.63
1.56
3.70
39.00
3.50
-4.68
NR
IV = inverse variance; random = random-effects model; NR = arm-level data not reported
Mean
6.31
7.50
14.78
14.80
�NR
15.34
15.26
12.88
29.00
15.17
24.04
22.75
14.07
23.22
NR
SD
345
33
31
21
12
63
15
124
143
167
34
6
105
21
268
No
18.79
10.38
3.64
3.56
0.59
6.43
1.12
11.45
5.29
11.52
1.78
0.27
9.27
1.32
85.41
14.59
�
100.00
Weight (%)
Cannabis group
-0.04
0.83
1.00
0.00
NR
-0.34
5.70
0.76
30.25
2.02
-0.30
33.25
3.18
3.27
NR
Mean
6.78
7.33
15.44
11.10
�NR
15.34
24.69
12.88
23.13
15.17
25.43
31.75
15.51
25.94
NR
SD
183
32
27
21
12
62
14
117
134
172
34
6
104
28
91
No Placebo group
Fig 3 | Physical functioning assessed by the 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale among people living with chronic pain who received non- inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus placebo. Black dashed vertical line represents the minimally important difference of 10 points for the 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale. Purple dashed vertical line represents the overall pooled measure of effect.
Chronic non-cancer pain
NCT00710424 2006
Novotna et al 2011
Zajicek et al 2012
Langford et al 2013
Serpell et al 2014
Subtotal: P=0.069; I2=53.9%
Chronic cancer related pain�
Portenoy et al 2012
Fallon et al 2017
Fallon et al 2017
Lichtman et al 2018
Subtotal: P=0.182 ; I2=38.2%
Overall: P=0.056; I2=47.3%
-0.40 (-1.09 to 0.29)
-0.88 (-1.40 to -0.36)
-0.50 (-1.17 to 0.17)
0.05 (-0.41 to 0.51)
-0.91 (-1.63 to -0.19)
-0.50 (-0.90 to -0.11)
-0.43 (-0.76 to -0.10)
-0.31 (-0.67 to 0.05)
0.06 (-0.27 to 0.39)
-0.34 (-0.64 to -0.04)
-0.26 (-0.47 to -0.05)
-0.35 (-0.55 to -0.14)
-2 -1.5 -1 0 0.5-0.5 1
Study
Favours cannabis Favours placebo
Mean difference, IV, random (95% CI)
Mean difference, IV, random (95% CI)
-2.00
-0.13
-1.40
-1.96
-1.49
NR
NR
NR
NR
3.02
2.05
3.10
2.18
2.34
NR
NR
NR
NR
-1.60
0.75
-0.90
-2.00
-0.58
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.76
2.05
2.60
2.18
2.34
NR
NR
NR
NR
IV = inverse variance; random = random-effects model; NR = arm-level data not reported
Mean SD
132
124
143
167
73
268
103
199
199
No
6.50
9.56
6.70
10.87
5.99
39.61
15.12
14.06
14.95
16.26
60.39
100.00
Weight (%)
Cannabis group Mean SD
142
117
134
172
89
91
103
198
198
No Placebo group
Fig 4 | Sleep quality on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) among people living with chronic pain who received non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus placebo Test of interaction P=0.32 for chronic non-cancer pain versus chronic cancer related pain when analysis was restricted to larger trials (standard error of the WMD ≤0.4) due to small study effects. Black dashed vertical line represents the minimally important difference of 1 cm for the 10 cm VAS for sleep quality. Purple dashed vertical line represents the overall pooled measure of effect.
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
10 doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | the bmj
dizziness at <3 months’ follow-up. Subgroup analysis of high certainty evidence found oral administration of medical cannabis is associated with higher risk of dizziness at ≥3 months versus <3months (7 RCTs and 2270 patients; RR 4.65, 3.30 to 6.55; RD 28%, 18% to 43%; versus 7 RCTs and 1432 patients; RR 1.95, 1.50 to 2.55; RD 9%, 5% to 14%; test of interaction P=0.003, eFigure 12; moderate credibility of subgroup effect, eAppendix 3).
Outcomes for non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus active comparators Medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) Two trials compared medical cannabis with NSAIDs and reported conflicting results for pain relief.66 70 One trial, including 41 patients, suggested that PEA was inferior to celecoxib for pain relief among women with nociplastic pain (chronic pelvic pain) (mean difference (MD) 0.91 cm on 10 cm VAS, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.57 cm, low certainty).66 The other, a crossover trial including 26 patients, suggested there was no significant difference in pain relief for medication overuse headache between THC and ibuprofen (MD −0.90 cm on 10 cm VAS for pain, −1.91 to 0.11 cm, very low certainty).70 (eTable 7)
Low certainty evidence from the crossover trial including 26 patients with medication overuse headache70 suggested no difference between THC and ibuprofen on physical functioning (MD 2.30 points on 100 point SF-36 physical functioning scale, 95%CI −1.85 to 6.45), emotional functioning (MD 1.40 points on the 100-point SF-36 mental functioning scale, 95% CI −4.21 to 7.01), vomiting (RR 5.00, 0.25 to 99.34), dizziness (RR 5.00, 0.25 to 99.34), impaired attention (RR 0.33, 0.01 to 7.82), or nausea (RR 0.50, 0.05 to 5.18); no patients in either treatment group reported cognitive impairment or drowsiness (eTable 7).
Medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus opioids Low certainty evidence from one crossover trial67 including 73 patients with chronic neuropathic pain suggested nabilone might result in no difference in pain relief compared with dihydrocodeine (MD −0.13 cm on 10 cm VAS for pain, −1.04 to 0.77 cm), physical functioning (MD −1.2 points on 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale, −4.5 to 2.1 points), emotional functioning (MD 2.5 points on 100-point SF-36 mental functioning scale, −2.7 to 7.6 points), or social functioning (MD 3.4 points on 100-point SF-36 social functioning scale, −4.1 to 10.8 points); but a significant improvement in role functioning (MD 8.9 points on 100-point SF-36 role limitations due to physical functioning scale, 1.1 to 16.7 points) (eTable 8).
Medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus saw palmetto Low to very low certainty evidence from one trial77 including 44 patients with nociplastic pain (chronic prostatitis or chronic pelvic pain syndrome) found
that, compared with saw palmetto, PEA might improve symptoms (MD −6.00 on International Prostate Symptom Score, 95% CI −9.88 to −2.12) but not erectile function (MD 3.00 on International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire, −0.06 to 6.06) (eTable 9). No significant drug related side effects were observed in either treatment arm.77
Additional subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis Among 29 trials comparing non-inhaled medical cannabis with placebo, four trials used fixed doses of PEA66 68 76 82 and two used topical CBD cream,78 83 23 trials (79%) allowed for post-randomisation titration of cannabis dose, which precluded between- trial subgroup analysis of higher versus lower doses of medical cannabis. Two trials compared different doses of medical cannabis with placebo, and no significant dose-response relationship was found for pain relief, physical function, or sleep quality; higher doses of medicinal cannabis containing THC (but not CBD alone) was associated with higher risk of adverse events (eTable 10).78 79
No additional subgroup analysis or meta-regression were significant aside from those reported above (eTables 11 to 15). Our sensitivity analyses found no important differences in results whether we incorporated data imputed for non-significant effects. When we excluded change scores converted from baseline and end-of-study scores and used only reported change scores, the effect of non-inhaled medical cannabis on physical functioning became non-significant. Use of the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik- Jonkman method for pooling versus the DerSimonian- Laird method rendered the effect of non-inhaled medical cannabis on physical function and cognitive impairment non-significant (eTables 16 and 17). Most trials (25 of 28, 89%) in which authors provided a measure of variance for pain reported mean effect scores with an associated SD or SE, or MD and 95% CI (eTable 18), suggesting trial authors concluded their data met normal distribution assumptions. When we calculated the mean score for pain ±2 SDs in each treatment group for all trials that contributed to our responder analysis, we found no case in which the results exceeded the range of the study’s pain instrument, providing support that distributions were not substantially skewed. Moreover, SDs between treatment and control groups proved very similar (eTable 18).
Discussions Main findings Moderate to high certainty evidence shows that, compared with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids results in a small to very small increase in the proportion of patients living with chronic cancer and non-cancer pain who experience an important improvement in pain relief, physical functioning, and sleep quality, along with several adverse side effects. The accompanying BMJ Rapid Recommendation
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
the bmj | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 11
provides contextualised guidance based on this body of evidence.
Our results were restricted to 1-5.5 months’ treatment, and most trials explored oral formulations of tetrahydrocannabinol alone or in combination with cannabidiol among adult patients living with chronic pain. Our findings may or may not apply to inhaled forms of medical cannabis, veterans, individuals with substance use disorder or other mental illness, or those involved in litigation or receiving disability benefits.
Relation to other studies The systematic review of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain23 that informed a 2019 NICE guideline19 included only 12 of the 31 trials in our review, and included eight additional trials that we excluded because of short follow-up (from 3 hours to 3 weeks),94 104-108 fewer than 20 patients,109 or enrolment of patients without chronic pain.110 Only effects of medical cannabis on pain, physical function, analgesic consumption, and adverse events were considered, and stratified by specific type and route of medical cannabis without subgroup analyses to confirm systematic differences in effects. The authors only pooled effects when trials reported the same outcome measure, which introduced selection bias. Further, they concluded that medical cannabis did not reduce opioid consumption but failed to report that each trial reporting this outcome required patients to maintain stable opioid doses during the study period (eTable 19).79-81
This prior review found similar effects on pain relief in their largest analysis (weighted mean difference −0.44 on a 0-10 visual analogue scale for pain; 95% confidence interval −0.18 to −0.70; 11 trials), which they assigned low certainty evidence due to very serious risk of bias; we did not rate down for risk of bias as subgroup analyses showed no association between risk of bias components and treatment effects. The review authors concluded that the average effect on pain relief was unimportant as it fell below the MID; however, this assumes that all trial patients experience comparable analgesia and fails to consider the distribution around the mean and the proportion of patients who achieve the MID. We converted average effects to the proportion of responders and, based on feedback from our guideline panel which included patient representatives, concluded that some patients may find the modelled proportion of 10% for achieving the MID for pain relief warrants a trial of treatment with medical cannabis.
Strengths and limitations Strengths of our review include a comprehensive search for eligible RCTs in any language. We engaged a guideline panel of patients and clinical experts to fully contextualise our assessment of the evidence. We used the GRADE approach to appraise the certainty of evidence and converted all significant pooled mean effects to RDs to facilitate interpretation. We found evidence to support the assumptions used
for modelling RDs for achieving the MID. We used pre-defined subgroup analyses to explore sources of heterogeneity and assessed the credibility of all potential subgroup effects.
There are some limitations to our review. First, we could not assess long term effects of medical cannabis for chronic pain, because no eligible trial followed patients for more than 5.5 months. Second, over two thirds of the trials included in our review explicitly excluded patients with current or prior substance use disorders or other active mental illness, and the remaining trials did not report if they enrolled patients with mental illness; our findings might not be transferable to this patient population. Third, we present the effect of medical cannabis across different types of chronic pain. Our guideline panel advised it was plausible that cannabis would provide similar effects across chronic pain types, and this was supported by subgroup analyses, which found no systematic difference in treatment effects for neuropathic versus non-neuropathic pain or for chronic cancer versus non-cancer pain. Fourth, high variability among trial effects and the small numbers of trials contributing to some subgroups may have obscured significant subgroup effects. Specifically, PEA and CBD may be less effective than forms of medical cannabis that contain THC (eTable 11 and 12), and medical cannabis may be less effective (or ineffective) for chronic cancer related pain versus chronic non-cancer pain (fig 2, fig 3, eFigure 4, eTable 4). Fifth, although litigation, wage replacement benefits, and veteran status may influence treatment effects, there were insufficient data in the included trials to explore these issues. Sixth, none of our included trials explored inhaled forms of cannabis, and our results may not be generalisable to smoked or vapourised forms of medical cannabis.
Conclusions In this systematic review of randomised controlled trials, moderate to high certainty evidence shows a small to very small increase in the proportion of people living with chronic pain (cancer and non-cancer) who experience an important improvement in pain relief, physical functioning, and sleep quality with non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids when compared with placebo, along with several transient adverse side effects. The accompanying BMJ Rapid Recommendation provides contextualised guidance based on this body of evidence.
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS 1Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 2The Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 3Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 4Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 5School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 6Department of Otolaryngology - Head &Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
12 doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | the bmj
7Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 8Division of Plastic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 9Department of Family Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada 10Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 11Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 12Alan Edwards Pain Management Unit, McGill University Health Centre; and Department of Family Medicine and Anesthesia, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 13Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 14Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University; and Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Melbourne, Australia 15Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 16The Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 17Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada We thank Arnav Agarwal and Claire Guyatt for screening citations; Anne Scheidecker and Stefan Schandelmaier for extracting one German language article; Beatriz Romerosa and Karin Kirmayr for extracting one Spanish article that was excluded due to short follow-up; and Heather Zariffeh, Claire Guyatt, and Mark Jeddi for data extraction. We thank Marjan de Vries (Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands), Maura Marcucci (Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada), David Hunter (Royal North Shore Hospital and Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Sydney, Australia), Aleksandra Nitecka-Buchta (Department of Temporomandibular Disorders, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland), and Christoph Stein and Luca Eibach (Department of Anesthesiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany) for providing additional data; and Jeremy R Johnson (Severn Hospice, Shrewsbury, UK), Jordi Faig-Marti (Hospital Sant Rafael, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain), and Charlie Fairhurst (Department of Paediatric Neurosciences, Evelina London Children’s Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK) for clarifying eligibility of their studies for our review. No financial compensation was provided to any of these individuals. Contributors: JWB and LW conceived and designed the study. LW, JWB, PJH, CM, YR, YO, CH, BYH, MA, LG, AK, SC, EK, HS, IR and SU acquired the data. LW carried out the statistical analysis. JWB, LW, TA, MAW, FC, and RB interpreted the data. LW and JWB drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the article for important intellectual content and gave final approval for the article. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. Funding: This study was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (FRN 147994, Co-PIs: JW Busse, MA Ware). RB is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellowship. The funding organisations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no financial support from any industry for the submitted work; IP and SU have received research funds from Northern Green Canada; IP has been a paid consultant for Northern Green Science, Northern Green Canada, Monk-E psychedelics, and Evergreen Pacific Insurance Corporation; SU and IP received honoraria from Spectrum Therapeutics and Tilray Inc. for educational presentations; MAW is the chief medical officer for Canopy Growth Corporation. Ethical approval: Not required. Data sharing: Details of the characteristics of the included studies were shared in the supplementary materials. The study specific data
included in the meta-analysis can be obtained from the corresponding author at wangli1@mcmaster.ca. Transparency: The lead authors affirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained. Dissemination to participants and related patient and public communities: We used MAGICapp decision aids (available at www. magicapp.org/) to facilitate conversations between healthcare providers and patients. The MAGICapp decision aids were co-created with people living with chronic pain. We also plan to use social media, the websites of our organizations and pain related associations or societies to disseminate our findings. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is noncommercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/.
1 Dahlhamer J, Lucas J, Zelaya C, et al. Prevalence of chronic pain and high impact chronic pain among adults – United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67:1001-6. doi:10.15585/ mmwr.mm6736a2
2 Schopflocher D, Taenzer P, Jovey R. The prevalence of chronic pain in Canada. Pain Res Manag 2011;16:445-50. doi:10.1155/2011/876306.
3 van Hecke O, Torrance N, Smith BH. Chronic pain epidemiology and its clinical relevance. Br J Anaesth 2013;111:13-8. doi:10.1093/bja/ aet123.
4 Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain 2006;10:287-333. doi:10.1016/j. ejpain.2005.06.009.
5 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Chronic pain in Australia. 2020. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/chronic-disease/chronic- pain-in-australia/contents/summary.
6 Sá KN, Moreira L, Baptista AF, et al. Prevalence of chronic pain in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Rep 2019;4:e779. doi:10.1097/PR9.0000000000000779.
7 Dueñas M, Ojeda B, Salazar A, Mico JA, Failde I. A review of chronic pain impact on patients, their social environment and the health care system. J Pain Res 2016;9:457-67. doi:10.2147/JPR. S105892.
8 Mills SEE,Mills SEE, Nicolson KP, Smith BH. Chronic pain: a review of its epidemiology and associated factors in population-based studies. Br J Anaesth 2019;123:e273-83. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.03.023.
9 Phillips CJ. The cost and burden of chronic pain. Rev Pain 2009;3:2-5. doi:10.1177/204946370900300102.
10 Gustavsson A, Bjorkman J, Ljungcrantz C, et al. Socio-economic burden of patients with a diagnosis related to chronic pain--register data of 840,000 Swedish patients. Eur J Pain 2012;16:289-99. doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.07.006.
11 Breivik H. A major challenge for a generous welfare system: a heavy socio-economic burden of chronic pain conditions in Sweden--and how to meet this challenge. Eur J Pain 2012;16:167-9. doi:10.1002/ j.1532-2149.2011.00025.x.
12 Phillips CJ. Economic burden of chronic pain. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2006;6:591-601. doi:10.1586/14737167.6.5.591.
13 Amato L, Minozzi S, Mitrova Z, et al. [Systematic review of safeness and therapeutic efficacy of cannabis in patients with multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain, and in oncological patients treated with chemotherapy]. Epidemiol Prev 2017;41:279-93. doi:10.19191/ EP17.5-6.AD01.069.
14 Park JY, Wu LT. Prevalence, reasons, perceived effects, and correlates of medical marijuana use: A review. Drug Alcohol Depend 2017;177:1-13. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.03.009.
15 Häuser W, Finn DP, Kalso E, et al. European Pain Federation (EFIC) position paper on appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for chronic pain management. Eur J Pain 2018;22:1547-64. doi:10.1002/ejp.1297.
16 Australian Government Department of Health (Therapeutic Goods Administration). Guidance for the use of medicinal cannabis in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in Australia. 2017. https:// www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/guidance-use-medicinal- cannabis-treatment-chronic-non-cancer-pain-australia.pdf.
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
the bmj | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 13
17 Moulin D, Boulanger A, Clark AJ, et al, Canadian Pain Society. Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain: revised consensus statement from the Canadian Pain Society. Pain Res Manag 2014;19:328-35. doi:10.1155/2014/754693.
18 Allan GM, Ramji J, Perry D, et al. Simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:111-20.
19 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cannabis-based medicinal products (NICE guideline NG144). 2019. https://www.nice. org.uk/guidance/ng144/chapter/Recommendations#chronic-pain.
20 Chang-Douglass S, Mulvihill C, Pilling S, Guideline Committee. Cannabis-based medicinal products: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2020;369:m1108. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1108.
21 Häuser W, Petzke F, Fitzcharles MA. Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management - An overview of systematic reviews. Eur J Pain 2018;22:455-70. doi:10.1002/ejp.1118.
22 Häuser W, Welsch P, Klose P, Radbruch L, Fitzcharles MA. [Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for cancer pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials]. Schmerz 2019;33:424-36. doi:10.1007/s00482-019-0373-3.
23 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cannabis-based medicinal products (NICE guideline NG144): Evidence review for chronic pain. 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng144/ evidence/b-chronic-pain-pdf-6963831759.
24 Allan GM, Finley CR, Ton J, et al. Systematic review of systematic reviews for medical cannabinoids: Pain, nausea and vomiting, spasticity, and harms. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:e78-94.
25 Busse JW, Bartlett SJ, Dougados M, et al. Optimal strategies for reporting pain in clinical trials and systematic reviews: recommendations from an OMERACT 12 workshop. J Rheumatol 2015;42:1962-70. doi:10.3899/jrheum.141440.
26 Busse JW, Vankrunkelsven P, Zeng L, et al. Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ 2021;374:n2040. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2040
27 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8:336-41. doi:10.1016/j. ijsu.2010.02.007.
28 Treede RD, Rief W, Barke A, et al. A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11. Pain 2015;156:1003-7. doi:10.1097/j. pain.0000000000000160.
29 Langford RM, Mares J, Novotna A, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of THC/CBD oromucosal spray in combination with the existing treatment regimen, in the relief of central neuropathic pain in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2013;260:984-97. doi:10.1007/s00415-012-6739-4.
30 Rog DJ, Nurmikko TJ, Friede T, Young CA. Randomized, controlled trial of cannabis-based medicine in central pain in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2005;65:812-9. doi:10.1212/01. wnl.0000176753.45410.8b.
31 Wissel J, Haydn T, Müller J, et al. Low dose treatment with the synthetic cannabinoid Nabilone significantly reduces spasticity- related pain : a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over trial. J Neurol 2006;253:1337-41. doi:10.1007/s00415-006-0218-8.
32 Zajicek JP, Hobart JC, Slade A, Barnes D, Mattison PG, MUSEC Research Group. Multiple sclerosis and extract of cannabis: results of the MUSEC trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012;83:1125-32. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-302468.
33 Schimrigk S, Marziniak M, Neubauer C, Kugler EM, Werner G, Abramov-Sommariva D. Dronabinol is a safe long-term treatment option for neuropathic pain patients. Eur Neurol 2017;78:320-9. doi:10.1159/000481089.
34 van Amerongen G, Kanhai K, Baakman AC, et al. Effects on spasticity and neuropathic pain of an oral formulation of δ9- tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther 2018;40:1467-82. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.01.016.
35 Novotna A, Mares J, Ratcliffe S, et al, Sativex Spasticity Study Group. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, enriched-design study of nabiximols (Sativex), as add-on therapy, in subjects with refractory spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol 2011;18:1122-31. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03328.x.
36 Zajicek J, Fox P, Sanders H, et al, UK MS Research Group. Cannabinoids for treatment of spasticity and other symptoms related to multiple sclerosis (CAMS study): multicentre randomised placebo- controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:1517-26. doi:10.1016/S0140- 6736(03)14738-1.
37 Zajicek JP, Sanders HP, Wright DE, et al. Cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis (CAMS) study: safety and efficacy data for 12 months follow up. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;76:1664-9. doi:10.1136/ jnnp.2005.070136.
38 Markovà J, Essner U, Akmaz B, et al. Sativex as add-on therapy vs. further optimized first-line ANTispastics (SAVANT) in resistant multiple sclerosis spasticity: a double-blind, placebo-controlled
randomised clinical trial. Int J Neurosci 2019;129:119-28. doi:10.10 80/00207454.2018.1481066.
39 Hackshaw A. Small studies: strengths and limitations. Eur Respir J 2008;32:1141-3. doi:10.1183/09031936.00136408.
40 Debray TPA, Moons KGM, Riley RD. Detecting small-study effects and funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analysis of survival data: A comparison of new and existing tests. Res Synth Methods 2018;9:41-50. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1266.
41 Raja SN, Carr DB, Cohen M, et al. The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain 2020;161:1976-82. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001939.
42 Treede RD, Rief W, Barke A, et al. Chronic pain as a symptom or a disease: the IASP Classification of Chronic Pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Pain 2019;160:19-27. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001384.
43 Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2003;106:337-45. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2003.08.001.
44 Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Revicki D, et al. Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: an IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain 2008;137:276-85. doi:10.1016/j. pain.2007.09.002.
45 Akl EA, Sun X, Busse JW, et al. Specific instructions for estimating unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:262-7. doi:10.1016/j. jclinepi.2011.04.015.
46 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al, Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928.
47 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74. doi:10.2307/2529310
48 Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis-a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods 2011;2:188-203. doi:10.1002/jrsm.46.
49 Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.
50 Busse JW, Wang L, Kamaleldin M, et al. Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2018;320:2448- 60. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.18472.
51 Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Commentary--goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from?. Health Serv Res 2005;40:593-7. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.0k375.x.
52 Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008;9:105-21. doi:10.1016/j. jpain.2007.09.005.
53 Zisapel N, Nir T. Determination of the minimal clinically significant difference on a patient visual analog sleep quality scale. J Sleep Res 2003;12:291-8. doi:10.1046/j.0962- 1105.2003.00365.x.
54 Ward MM, Guthrie LC, Alba MI. Clinically important changes in short form 36 health survey scales for use in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: the impact of low responsiveness. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014;66:1783-9. doi:10.1002/acr.22392.
55 Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Fixed-effects and random-effects models. In: Guyatt GR, Meade M, Cook D, eds. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. 3rd ed. JAMA Evidence, 2015: 507-14.
56 Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/ or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:135. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135.
57 Baker WL, White CM, Cappelleri JC, Kluger J, Coleman CI, Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (HOPE) Collaborative Group. Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: the role of meta- regression. Int J Clin Pract 2009;63:1426-34. doi:10.1111/j.1742- 1241.2009.02168.x.
58 Schandelmaier S, Briel M, Varadhan R, et al. Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. CMAJ 2020;192:E901-6. doi:10.1503/cmaj.200077.
59 IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:25. doi:10.1186/1471-2288- 14-25.
60 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta- analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-34. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
14 doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1034 | BMJ 2021;373:n1034 | the bmj
61 Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 2006;25:3443-57. doi:10.1002/sim.2380.
62 Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Griffith LE, Goldstein RS. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998;316:690-3. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7132.690.
63 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1283-93. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012.
64 Santesso N, Glenton C, Dahm P, et al, GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;119:126-35. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.014.
65 Blake DR, Robson P, Ho M, Jubb RW, McCabe CS. Preliminary assessment of the efficacy, tolerability and safety of a cannabis- based medicine (Sativex) in the treatment of pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45:50-2. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kei183.
66 Cobellis L, Castaldi MA, Giordano V, et al. Effectiveness of the association micronized N-palmitoylethanolamine (PEA)-transpolydatin in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain related to endometriosis after laparoscopic assessment: a pilot study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;158:82-6. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.04.011.
67 Frank B, Serpell MG, Hughes J, Matthews JN, Kapur D. Comparison of analgesic effects and patient tolerability of nabilone and dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain: randomised, crossover, double blind study. BMJ 2008;336:199-201. doi:10.1136/ bmj.39429.619653.80.
68 Murina F, Graziottin A, Felice R, Radici G, Tognocchi C. Vestibulodynia: synergy between palmitoylethanolamide + transpolydatin and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17:111-6. doi:10.1097/LGT.0b013e3182652316.
69 Nurmikko TJ, Serpell MG, Hoggart B, Toomey PJ, Morlion BJ, Haines D. Sativex successfully treats neuropathic pain characterised by allodynia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Pain 2007;133:210-20. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.08.028.
70 Pini LA, Guerzoni S, Cainazzo MM, et al. Nabilone for the treatment of medication overuse headache: results of a preliminary double-blind, active-controlled, randomized trial. J Headache Pain 2012;13:677- 84. doi:10.1007/s10194-012-0490-1.
71 Selvarajah D, Gandhi R, Emery CJ, Tesfaye S. Randomized placebo- controlled double-blind clinical trial of cannabis-based medicinal product (Sativex) in painful diabetic neuropathy: depression is a major confounding factor. Diabetes Care 2010;33:128-30. doi:10.2337/dc09-1029.
72 Serpell M, Ratcliffe S, Hovorka J, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group study of THC/CBD spray in peripheral neuropathic pain treatment. Eur J Pain 2014;18:999- 1012. doi:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00445.x.
73 Skrabek RQ, Galimova L, Ethans K, Perry D. Nabilone for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. J Pain 2008;9:164-73. doi:10.1016/j. jpain.2007.09.002.
74 Toth C, Mawani S, Brady S, et al. An enriched-enrolment, randomized withdrawal, flexible-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel assignment efficacy study of nabilone as adjuvant in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Pain 2012;153:2073-82. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2012.06.024.
75 de Vries M, van Rijckevorsel DCM, Vissers KCP, Wilder-Smith OHG, van Goor H, Pain and Nociception Neuroscience Research Group. Tetrahydrocannabinol does not reduce pain in patients with chronic abdominal pain in a phase 2 placebo-controlled study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15:1079-1086.e4. doi:10.1016/j. cgh.2016.09.147
76 Germini F, Coerezza A, Andreinetti L, et al. N-of-1 randomized trials of ultra-micronized palmitoylethanolamide in older patients with chronic pain. Drugs Aging 2017;34:941-52. doi:10.1007/s40266- 017-0506-2.
77 Giammusso B, Di Mauro R, Bernardini R. The efficacy of an association of palmitoylethanolamide and alpha-lipoic acid in patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: A randomized clinical trial. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2017;89:17-21. doi:10.4081/aiua.2017.1.17.
78 Hunter D, Oldfield G, Tich N, et al. Synthetic transdermal cannabidiol for the treatment of knee pain due to osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018;26(Supplement 1):S26. doi:10.1016/j. joca.2018.02.067.
79 Portenoy RK, Ganae-Motan ED, Allende S, et al. Nabiximols for opioid-treated cancer patients with poorly-controlled chronic pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled, graded-dose trial. J Pain 2012;13:438-49. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2012.01.003.
80 Fallon MT, Albert Lux E, McQuade R, et al. Sativex oromucosal spray as adjunctive therapy in advanced cancer patients with chronic pain unalleviated by optimized opioid therapy: two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies. Br J Pain 2017;11:119-33. doi:10.1177/2049463717710042.
81 Lichtman AH, Lux EA, McQuade R, et al. Results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of nabiximols oromucosal spray as an adjunctive therapy in advanced cancer patients with chronic uncontrolled pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2018;55:179- 188.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.09.001
82 Andresen SR, Bing J, Hansen RM, et al. Ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide in spinal cord injury neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Pain 2016;157:2097-103. doi:10.1097/j. pain.0000000000000623.
83 Xu DH, Cullen BD, Tang M, Fang Y. The effectiveness of topical cannabidiol oil in symptomatic relief of peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2020;21:390-402. doi:10. 2174/1389201020666191202111534.
84 ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT00710424: A study of Sativex for pain relief due to diabetic neuropathy. 2006. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/ NCT00710424.
85 Eibach L, Scheffel S, Cardebring M, et al. Cannabidivarin for HIV- associated neuropathic pain: a randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2021;109:1055-62. doi:10.1002/ cpt.2016.
86 Pinsger M, Schimetta W, Volc D, Hiermann E, Riederer F, Pölz W. [Benefits of an add-on treatment with the synthetic cannabinomimetic nabilone on patients with chronic pain--a randomized controlled trial]. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2006;118:327- 35. doi:10.1007/s00508-006-0611-4.
87 Corey-Bloom J, Wolfson T, Gamst A, et al. Smoked cannabis for spasticity in multiple sclerosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. CMAJ 2012;184:1143-50. doi:10.1503/cmaj.110837
88 EUCTR2004-002509-63-GB. A double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, parallel group study of Sativex, in subjects with symptoms of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis - N/A. 2005. http://www.who. int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=EUCTR2004-002509-63-GB.
89 EUCTR2006-005910-11-DE. A two-phase Phase 3 study of the safety and efficacy of Sativex®, in the symptomatic relief of spasticity in subjects with spasticity due to multiple sclerosis: phase A – single blind response assessment; Phase B - double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, parallel group study. 2008. http://www.who.int/ trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=EUCTR2006-005910-11-DE.
90 EUCTR2007-002138-13-GB. A placebo controlled, parallel group, randomised withdrawal study of subjects with symptoms of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis who are receiving long-term GW-1000- 02 (Sativex®). 2007. http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2. aspx?TrialID=EUCTR2007-002138-13-GB.
91 EUCTR2011-000926-31-CZ. A long term, 50 week, Phase IV multi-centre study to determine if Sativex has an effect on cognition (thinking ability) when prescribed to patients with spasticity due to MS. 2011. http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2. aspx?TrialID=EUCTR2011-000926-31-CZ.
92 Faig-Martí J, Martínez-Catassús A. Measuring the placebo effect in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Orthop Traumatol 2020;21:1. doi:10.1186/s10195-019-0540-4.
93 Haupts M, Vila C, Jonas A, Witte K, Álvarez-Ossorio L. Influence of previous failed antispasticity therapy on the efficacy and tolerability of THC:CBD oromucosal spray for multiple sclerosis spasticity. Eur Neurol 2016;75:236-43. doi:10.1159/000445943.
94 Johnson JR, Burnell-Nugent M, Lossignol D, Ganae-Motan ED, Potts R, Fallon MT. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of THC:CBD extract and THC extract in patients with intractable cancer-related pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2010;39:167-79. doi:10.1016/j. jpainsymman.2009.06.008.
95 ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT00384410: Use of the cannabinoid nabilone for the promotion of sleep in chronic, non-malignant pain patients. 2006. https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00384410.
96 ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT00711646: A study of Sativex® for relief of spasticity in subjects with multiple sclerosis. 2008. https:// clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00711646.
97 ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01599234: A study to evaluate the efficacy of Sativex in relieving symptoms of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. 2012. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01599234.
98 Riva N, Mora G, Sorarù G, et al, CANALS Study Group. Safety and efficacy of nabiximols on spasticity symptoms in patients with motor neuron disease (CANALS): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol 2019;18:155-64. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30406-X.
99 Fairhurst C, Kumar R, Checketts D, Tayo B, Turner S. Efficacy and safety of nabiximols cannabinoid medicine for paediatric spasticity in cerebral palsy or traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial. Dev Med Child Neurol 2020;62:1031-9. doi:10.1111/dmcn.14548.
100 Karst M, Salim K, Burstein S, Conrad I, Hoy L, Schneider U. Analgesic effect of the synthetic cannabinoid CT-3 on chronic neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003;290:1757-62. doi:10.1001/jama.290.13.1757.
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from
RESEARCH
No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe
101 Killestein J, Hoogervorst EL, Reif M, et al. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of orally administered cannabinoids in MS. Neurology 2002;58:1404-7. doi:10.1212/WNL.58.9.1404.
102 Notcutt W, Price M, Miller R, et al. Initial experiences with medicinal extracts of cannabis for chronic pain: results from 34 ‘N of 1’ studies. Anaesthesia 2004;59:440-52. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2044.2004.03674.x.
103 Nitecka-Buchta A, Nowak-Wachol A, Wachol K, et al. Myorelaxant effect of transdermal cannabidiol application in patients with TMD: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Clin Med 2019;8:E1886. doi:10.3390/jcm8111886.
104 van de Donk T, Niesters M, Kowal MA, Olofsen E, Dahan A, van Velzen M. An experimental randomized study on the analgesic effects of pharmaceutical-grade cannabis in chronic pain patients with fibromyalgia. Pain 2019;160:860-9. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001464.
105 de Vries M, Van Rijckevorsel DC, Vissers KC, Wilder-Smith OH, Van Goor H. Single dose delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in chronic pancreatitis patients: analgesic efficacy, pharmacokinetics and tolerability. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2016;81:525-37. doi:10.1111/bcp.12811.
106 Svendsen KB, Jensen TS, Bach FW. Does the cannabinoid dronabinol reduce central pain in multiple sclerosis? Randomised double blind placebo controlled crossover trial. BMJ 2004;329:253. doi:10.1136/ bmj.38149.566979.AE.
107 Lynch ME, Cesar-Rittenberg P, Hohmann AG. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot trial with extension using an oral mucosal cannabinoid extract for treatment of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2014;47:166-73. doi:10.1016/j. jpainsymman.2013.02.018.
108 Weber M, Goldman B, Truniger S. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) for cramps in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a randomised, double-blind crossover trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010;81:1135-40. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2009.200642.
109 Malik Z, Bayman L, Valestin J, Rizvi-Toner A, Hashmi S, Schey R. Dronabinol increases pain threshold in patients with functional chest pain: a pilot double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Dis Esophagus 2017;30:1-8. doi:10.1111/dote.12455
110 Wade DT, Makela P, Robson P, House H, Bateman C. Do cannabis-based medicinal extracts have general or specific effects on symptoms in multiple sclerosis? A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on 160 patients. Mult Scler 2004;10:434-41. doi:10.1191/1352458504ms1082oa.
Supplementary material: eTables 1-19, eFigures 1-12, eAppendices 1-4
on 14 O ctober 2022 by guest. P
rotected by copyright. http://w
w w
.bm j.com
/ B
M J: first published as 10.1136/bm
j.n1034 on 8 S eptem
ber 2021. D ow
nloaded from