16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Journal of Pain Research (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on reporting of high-quality laboratory and clinical findings in all fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Sign up for email alerts here.

      52,235 Monthly downloads/views I 2.832 Impact Factor I 4.5 CiteScore I 1.2 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.655 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness and tolerability of THC:CBD oromucosal spray as add-on measure in patients with severe chronic pain: analysis of 12-week open-label real-world data provided by the German Pain e-Registry

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective: To evaluate effectiveness, tolerability and safety of an oromucosal spray containing Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), as add-on treatment in patients with severe chronic pain (SCP).

          Methods: Exploratory analysis of anonymized 12-week routine/open-label data provided by the German Pain e-Registry (GPR) on adult SCP patients treated with THC:CBD oromucosal spray in 2017.

          Results: Among those 30.228 cases documented in the GPR in 2017, 800 (2.6%; 57% female, mean ± SD age: 46.3±9.7 years) received a treatment with THC:CBD. All patients fulfilled the legislative preconditions for a treatment with cannabis as medicine as defined by the German Act Amending Narcotics and Other Regulations. THC:CBD-treatment was followed by an aggregated nine-factor symptom relief (ASR-9) improvement at end of week 12 vs baseline of 39.0±26.5% (95%-CI: 36.9–41.1, median: 42, range −41 to 85). A full ASR-9 response (ie, a 50%-improvement in all 9 factors) was found for 123 patients (15.4%), while 488 patients (56.0%) presented with an ≥50% improvement in at least 5 of 9 ASR factors. With a 54.9±17.2% (median: 56%, range: −6 to 85) improvement was significantly superior in the neuropathic pain subgroup (n=497, 62.1%) vs those with mixed (n=249, 31.1%; ASR-9: 18.2±12.0, median: 19, range: −12 to 42%) or nociceptive pain (n=54, 6.8%; ASR-9: −11.9±10.5, median: −11, range: −41% to 12%; p<0.001 for each). 159 patients (19.9%) reported at least one of 206 TEAEs, most of them of mild intensity (n=81.6%). Most frequently reported TEAEs were increased appetite (n=50, 6.3%) and dysgeusia (n=23, 2.9%). TEAE-related discontinuations were reported for 32 patients (4.0%). 113 (14.1%) patients discontinued due to inadequate pain relief, most of them with nociceptive pain (n=40, 74.1%), least with neuropathic pain (n=1, 0.2%; p<0.001).

          Conclusion: THC:CBD oromucosal spray proved to be an effective and well-tolerated add-on treatment for patients with elsewhere refractory chronic pain – especially of neuropathic origin.

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Neuropathic pain: diagnosis, pathophysiological mechanisms, and treatment.

          Neuropathic pain develops as a result of lesions or disease affecting the somatosensory nervous system either in the periphery or centrally. Examples of neuropathic pain include painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, trigeminal neuralgia, and post-stroke pain. Clinically, neuropathic pain is characterised by spontaneous ongoing or shooting pain and evoked amplified pain responses after noxious or non-noxious stimuli. Methods such as questionnaires for screening and assessment focus on the presence and quality of neuropathic pain. Basic research is enabling the identification of different pathophysiological mechanisms, and clinical assessment of symptoms and signs can help to determine which mechanisms are involved in specific neuropathic pain disorders. Management of neuropathic pain requires an interdisciplinary approach, centred around pharmacological treatment. A better understanding of neuropathic pain and, in particular, of the translation of pathophysiological mechanisms into sensory signs will lead to a more effective and specific mechanism-based treatment approach. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mechanisms of neuropathic pain.

            Neuropathic pain refers to pain that originates from pathology of the nervous system. Diabetes, infection (herpes zoster), nerve compression, nerve trauma, "channelopathies," and autoimmune disease are examples of diseases that may cause neuropathic pain. The development of both animal models and newer pharmacological strategies has led to an explosion of interest in the underlying mechanisms. Neuropathic pain reflects both peripheral and central sensitization mechanisms. Abnormal signals arise not only from injured axons but also from the intact nociceptors that share the innervation territory of the injured nerve. This review focuses on how both human studies and animal models are helping to elucidate the mechanisms underlying these surprisingly common disorders. The rapid gain in knowledge about abnormal signaling promises breakthroughs in the treatment of these often debilitating disorders.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty?

              Composite outcomes, in which multiple end points are combined, are frequently used as primary outcome measures in randomized trials and are often associated with increased statistical efficiency. However, such measures may prove challenging for the interpretation of results. In this article, we examine the use of composite outcomes in major clinical trials, assess the arguments for and against them, and provide guidance on their application and reporting. To assess incidence and quality of reporting, we systematically reviewed the use of composite end points in clinical trials in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and Stroke from 1997 through 2001 using a sensitive search strategy. We selected for review 167 original reports of randomized trials (with a total of 300 276 patients) that included a composite primary outcome that incorporated all-cause mortality. Sixty-three trials (38%) were neutral both for the primary end point and the mortality component. Sixty trials (36%) reported significant results for the primary outcome measure but not for the mortality component. Only 6 trials (4%) were significant for the mortality component but not for the primary composite outcome, whereas 19 trials (11%) were significant for both. Twenty-two trials (13%) were inadequately reported. Our review suggests that reporting of composite outcomes is generally inadequate, implying that the results apply to the individual components of the composite outcome rather than only to the overall composite. Current guidelines for the undertaking and reporting of clinical trials could be revised to reflect the common use of composite outcomes in clinical trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                JPR
                jpainres
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove
                1178-7090
                20 May 2019
                2019
                : 12
                : 1577-1604
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Neurological Sciences , 90411 Nuernberg, Germany
                [2 ]O.Meany Consultancy , 22339 Hamburg, Germany
                [3 ]Interdisciplinary Centre for Pain and Palliative Care Medicine , 73033 Goeppingen, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Michael A UeberallInstitute of Neurological Sciences Nordostpark 51, 90411Nuernberg, GermanyTel +499 112 177 3760Fax +499 112 177 3761Email michael.ueberall@ 123456ifnap.de
                Article
                192174
                10.2147/JPR.S192174
                6535492
                31190969
                7bbbf80b-c834-4606-aaec-8f69238c4e17
                © 2019 Ueberall et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 25 October 2018
                : 18 February 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 11, Tables: 4, References: 87, Pages: 28
                Categories
                Original Research

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                thc:cbd spray,add-on treatment,severe chronic pain,neuropathic pain,retrospective analysis,german pain e-registry

                Comments

                Comment on this article