MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 18% of patients with cancer use cannabis at one time as palliation or treatment for their cancer. We performed a systematic review of randomized cannabis cancer trials to establish a guideline for its use in pain and to summarize the risk of harm and adverse events when used for any indication in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized trials with or without meta-analysis was carried out from MEDLINE, CCTR, Embase, and PsychINFO. The search involved randomized trials of cannabis in cancer patients. The search ended on November 12, 2021. The Jadad grading system was used for grading quality. Inclusion criteria for articles were randomized trials or systematic reviews of randomized trials of cannabinoids versus either placebo or active comparator explicitly in adult patients with cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-four systematic reviews and randomized trials met the eligibility criteria for cancer pain. Seven were randomized trials involving patients with cancer pain. Two trials had positive primary endpoints, which could not be reproduced in similarly designed trials. High-quality systematic reviews with meta-analyses found little evidence that cannabinoids are an effective adjuvant or analgesic to cancer pain. Seven systematic reviews and randomized trials related to harms and adverse events were included. There was inconsistent evidence about the types and levels of harm patients may experience when using cannabinoids. CONCLUSION: The MASCC panel recommends against the use of cannabinoids as an adjuvant analgesic for cancer pain and suggests that the potential risk of harm and adverse events be carefully considered for all cancer patients, particularly with treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) guidelines: cannabis for psychological symptoms including insomnia, anxiety, and depression.

PURPOSE: During the treatment of cancer, 18% of patients use cannabis for symptom management. Anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances are common symptoms in cancer. A systematic review of the evidence for cannabis use for psychological symptoms in cancer patients was undertaken to develop a guideline. METHODS: A literature search of randomized trials and systematic reviews was undertaken up to November 12, 2021. Studies were independently assessed for evidence by two authors and then evaluated by all authors for approval. The literature search involved MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, and PsychINFO databases. Inclusion criteria included randomized control trials and systematic reviews on cannabis versus placebo or active comparator in patients with cancer and psychological symptom management (anxiety, depression, and insomnia). RESULTS: The search yielded 829 articles; 145 from Medline, 419 from Embase, 62 from PsychINFO, and 203 from CCTR. Two systematic reviews and 15 randomized trials (4 on sleep, 5 on mood, 6 on both) met eligibility criteria. However, no studies specifically assessed the efficacy of cannabis on psychological symptoms as primary outcomes in cancer patients. The studies varied widely in terms of interventions, control, duration, and outcome measures. Six of 15 RCTs suggested benefits (five for sleep, one for mood). CONCLUSION: There is no high-quality evidence to recommend the use of cannabis as an intervention for psychological symptoms in patients with cancer until more high-quality research demonstrates benefit.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) expert opinion/consensus guidance on the use of cannabinoids for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in patients with cancer, whether related to treatment or a direct effect of the disease itself. Patients may choose to access cannabinoids outside of their formal medical prescriptions to palliate such symptoms. However, clinical guidelines are lacking in relation to the use of such medicines for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the evidence for the use of cannabinoids for symptom control in patients with cancer was undertaken. Search strategies were developed for Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, including all publications from 1975 up to 12 November 2021. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo or active comparator in adult patients with cancer, regardless of type, stage, or treatment status. Articles for inclusion were agreed by all authors, and data extracted and summarized by two authors. Each study was scored according to the Jadad scale. This review was specifically for the purpose of developing guidelines for the use of cannabis for gastrointestinal symptoms, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), chronic nausea, anorexia-cachexia syndrome, and taste disturbance. RESULTS: Thirty-six randomized controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria for this review of gastrointestinal symptoms: 31 relating to CINV, one to radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and the remaining four to anorexia-cachexia and altered chemosensory disturbance. The populations for the randomized controlled trials were heterogeneous, and many studies were of poor quality, lacking clarity regarding method of randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. For CINV, eleven RCTs showed improvement with cannabis compared to placebo, but out of 21 trials where cannabis was compared to other antiemetics for CINV, only 11 favoured cannabis. CONCLUSION: Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and nabilone were more effective in preventing CINV when compared to placebo but are not more effective than other antiemetics. For refractory CINV, one study of THC:CBD demonstrated reduced nausea as an add-on treatment to guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy without olanzapine. The MASCC Guideline Committee found insufficient evidence to recommend cannabinoids for the management of CINV, nausea from advanced cancer, cancer-associated anorexia-cachexia, and taste disturbance. High-quality studies are needed to inform practice.

Reporting Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Related to the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: The Presence of Spin in the Abstract.

BACKGROUND: Spin is a form of reporting bias which suggests a treatment is beneficial despite a statistically nonsignificant difference in outcomes. Our purpose was to define the prevalence of spin within the abstracts of distal radius fracture (DRF) systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA). We also sought to identify article characteristics that were more likely to contain spin. METHODS: We performed a SR of multiple databases to identify DRF SRs and MAs. Articles were screened and analyzed by 3 reviewers. We recorded article and journal characteristics including adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, funding disclosures, methodologic quality (AMSTAR 2 instrument), impact factor, and country of origin. Presence of the 9 most severe types of spin in abstracts were recorded. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to analyze the association between article characteristics and the presence of spin. RESULTS: A total of 112 articles were included. Spin was present in 46% of abstracts, with type 1 spin ("conclusions not supported by findings") most frequent (19%). Spin was present in 43% of abstracts in PRISMA-adhering journals compared to 49% in journals that did not (OR = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37-1.68). For articles originating from China, spin was present in 61% of abstracts compared to 39% of abstracts from other countries (OR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.13-5.75). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to low article quality, there are high rates of spin within the abstracts of SRs and MAs related to treatment of DRF. Articles within journals that adhere to PRISMA do not appear to contain less spin.

Biocompatibility evaluation of a thermoplastic rubber for wireless telemetric intracranial pressure sensor coating.

This study investigated the biocompatibility of the experimental thermoplastic rubber Arbomatrix(™) that will be used as the protective coating on a novel intracranial pressure (ICP) sensor silicon chip. Arbomatrix(™) was benchmarked against biocompatible commercial silicone rubber shunt tubing in the brain via a rat model with 60-day implant duration. A bare silicon chip was also implanted. The results showed similar cellular distribution in the brain-implant boundary and surrounding tissues. Quantitative analysis of neuron and glia density did not show significant difference between implants. Through histological and immunohistochemical evaluation we conclude that Arbomatrix(™) is well tolerated by the brain. Due to its exceptional barrier properties Arbomatrix(™) has already been shown to be an excellent protective coating for new ICP monitoring chip.