What is the clinical effectiveness and safety of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol for the treatment of adult patients with chronic non-cancer pain or neuropathic pain?
The clinical effectiveness and safety of THC:CBD (Sativex®) for the treatment of chronic neuropathic or non-cancer pain in adults is summarized below based on outcomes relating to patient-related benefits and harms, as reported by the original study authors. A detailed synthesis of the results of each included study is presented in Appendix 5.
Pain relief
Patient-reported pain relief following treatment with THC:CBD in comparison with placebo therapy was reported across all included reviews. In general, the review authors’ conclusions regarding the direction and magnitude of the analgesic effect related to THC:CBD, as compared with placebo, are conflicting. Disagreements between the published reviews are summarized below.
In the SR by Lynch et al.2 which evaluated the effect of THC:CBD against placebo in patients with chronic non-cancer pain, the authors reported that findings from five RCTs revealed a statistically significant reduction in pain on validated patient-reported pain measures (i.e. NmRS, VAS, NPS, PDI, SF-MPQ) when comparing THC:CBD with placebo; however, Lynch et al. also found evidence from two RCTs which did not support a statistically significant difference in pain scores between the active treatment and placebo. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that cannabinoids, including THC:CBD, are modestly effective in reducing pain among patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Furthermore, in their updated review,15 Lynch et al. identified an additional two placebo-controlled RCTs concerning the effect of THC:CBD on chronic non-cancer pain. Despite the lack of a statistically significant reduction in pain observed at the last follow-up in a 14-week RCT cited by the review authors, it was suggested that the updated review adds further support to the available evidence showing that cannabinoids (including THC:CBD) are modestly effective analgesic products for the management of chronic non-cancer pain.
In contrast to the reviews by Lynch et al.,2,15 Jawahar et al.17 drew the conclusion that nabiximols, the main drug class to which THC:CBD belongs, are not effective agents for relieving chronic pain. However, this finding relates specifically to the management of multiple sclerosis patients who are experiencing non-spastic and non-trigeminal neuralgic pain, and the conclusion elicited in this review is based on a pooled effect size derived using data from three placebo-controlled RCTs which did not reach statistical significance for pain reduction.
In the SR by Boychuk et al.14 which assessed the therapeutic effect of THC:CBD among patients with chronic non-malignant neuropathic pain, the authors identified three 3 placebo-controlled RCTs which found a statistically significant reduction in mean pain intensity following treatment with THC:CBD. However, the review authors also found evidence from two other placebo-controlled RCTs which found no significant difference in pain at the last follow-up between patients treated with THC:CBD and placebo. As a result, Boychuk et al. concluded that THC:CBD may provide an effective analgesic effect in chronic neuropathic pain conditions that are unresponsive to other treatments.
Whiting et al.16 statistically combined the results from a number of placebo-controlled RCTs relating to the effect of THC:CBD in alleviating chronic pain resulting from malignant and non-malignant causes. While the authors found that the average number of patients reporting a 30% or greater reduction in pain was greater with cannabinoids (THC and THC:CBD), the results of the pooled analyses were not statistically significant. Given that the pooled analysis was conducted using one RCT evaluating the effectiveness of THC alone and two RCTs conducted among cancer patients in addition to five RCTs relating to the use of THC:CBD for non-cancer pain, the pooled analgesic effect of THC:CBD for non-cancer pain was not reported. The authors concluded that there was moderate quality evidence supporting the use of cannabinoids in the management of chronic pain.
Adverse events
The rate of adverse events following treatment with THC:CBD, as compared with placebo, was reported across all included SRs. Similarly to findings regarding the effect of THC:CBD in alleviating chronic neuropathic and non-cancer pain, evidence regarding the comparative safety of THC:CBD in patients experiencing chronic pain is not consistent across all included SRs. Inconsistencies in the published literature are summarized below.
Based on the SR and updated review by Lynch et al.,2,15 the authors drew the conclusion that cannabinoids, and THC:CBD in particular, are a safe treatment option for chronic non-cancer (mainly neuropathic) pain. This conclusion was made on the basis of no serious (life-threatening) adverse events observed across all RCTs included in the initial SR,2 and two serious adverse events noted in patients who received THC:CBD in one RCT identified in the updated review.15 While the authors listed a number of common drug-related adverse events reported in the published RCTs, these adverse events were considered to be minor in nature and did not impact the authors’ conclusions regarding the safety of THC:CBD. Similarly to the conclusions made by Lynch et al., Boychuk et al.14 found that very few risks were associated with the use of cannabinoid products such as THC:CBD in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. The authors drew this conclusion based on a review of five placebo-controlled RCTs relating to THC:CBD, three of which suggested an increased incidence of mouth ulcers, dysgeusia (alteration in taste), and sore throat following use of THC:CBD oromucosal spray. Much like Lynch et al., Boychuk et al. did not consider the observed adverse event to be major.
In contrast to these SRs, Whiting et al.16 combined data on adverse events in a meta-analysis and drew the conclusion that cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term adverse events. However, this conclusion was made based on the pooling of studies on different types of cannabinoid products across several clinical conditions. Pooled effect size estimates relating to adverse events among patients receiving THC:CBD in the treatment of chronic neuropathic or non-cancer pain were not reported separately; therefore, the pooled effect of THC:CBD on the rate of adverse events in not clear. Nevertheless, when examining the individual effect sizes of RCTs evaluating the safety of THC:CBD in patients with chronic non-cancer pain, more adverse events were associated with the use of THC:CBD than placebo. The findings from this meta-analysis warrant further study.
While the review by Jawahar et al.17 made no specific conclusion regarding the comparative safety of THC:CBD observed across the included studies in the review, the most frequently reported adverse event in patients treated with THC:CBD was dizziness, followed by drowsiness or fatigue, vertigo, and headaches. This finding was reflected in across the other four SRs selected for inclusion in this report.
What are the evidence-based guidelines relating to the use of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol for adult patients with chronic non-cancer pain or neuropathic pain?
The evidence-based guideline by Moulin et al.,18 produced in support with the Canadian Pain Society, recommends that cannabinoids, including THC:CBD, be used as third-line agents in the management of chronic neuropathic pain, following non-response to antidepressant or anticonvulsant agents (first-line therapy), or opioid products (second-line therapy). This recommendation was made based on the SR by Lynch et al.2, which assessed the effectiveness of smoked cannabis, THC:CBD buccal spray, and synthetic cannabinoids in comparison with placebo.
Evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with other chronic non-cancer pain in the Canadian context were not identified in the published literature.