Adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Guidelines for Reporting Safety Outcomes in Trials of Medical Cannabis and Cannabis-based Medicines for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Current treatments for chronic pain have limited effectiveness and tolerability. With growing interest in the potential of cannabinoids, there is a need to inform risk-benefit considerations. Thus, this focused systematic review assesses the quality of safety assessment and reporting in chronic noncancer pain cannabinoid trials. METHODS: The protocol for this review has been published, and, registered in PROSPERO. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PsychINFO for double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids for chronic pain, with a primary outcome related to pain. The primary review outcome is adherence to the 2004 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Harms extension. Secondary outcomes included type, reporting method, frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs), trial participant withdrawals, and reasons for withdrawals. RESULTS: In total, 43 studies (4436 participants) were included. Type of cannabinoid (number of studies) included nabiximols (12), dronabinol (8), nabilone (7), oral cannabis extract preparations (5), smoked tetrahydrocannabinol (5), vaporized tetrahydrocannabinol (3), novel synthetic cannabinoids (2), sublingual cannabis extract preparations (1). The median CONSORT score was 7. On average, 3 to 4 recommendations of the CONSORT guidelines were not being met in trials. Seventeen trials did not provide their method of AE assessment, 14 trials did not report on serious AEs and, 7 trials provided no quantitative data about AEs. DISCUSSION: Better harms assessment and reporting are needed in chronic pain cannabinoid trials. Improvements may be achieved through: expanded education/knowledge translation increased research regulation by ethics boards, funding agencies and journals, and greater emphasis on safety assessment and reporting throughout research training.

Adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Guidelines for Reporting Safety Outcomes in Trials of Cannabinoids for Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain affects a significant proportion of the population and presents a major challenge to clinicians and pain specialists. Despite the availability of pharmacologic treatment options such as opioids, many patients continue to experience persistent pain. Cannabinoids present an alternative option with some data on efficacy; however, to date, a systematic review of adverse events (AEs) assessment and reporting in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving cannabinoids has not been performed. As a result, it is unclear whether a clear profile of cannabinoid-associated AEs has been accurately detailed in the literature. As cannabinoids are likely to become readily available for patients in the near future, it is important to study how well AEs have been reported in trials so that the safety profile of cannabinoids can be better understood. OBJECTIVE: With a potentially enormous shift toward cannabinoid use for managing chronic pain and spasticity, this study aims to reveal the adequacy of AE reporting and cannabinoid-specific AEs in this setting. Spasticity is a major contributor to chronic pain in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), with a comorbidity of 75%. Many cannabinoid studies have been performed in MS-related painful spasticity with relevant pain outcomes, and these studies will be included in this review for comprehensiveness. The primary outcome will be the quality of AE assessment and reporting by adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. Secondary outcomes will include the type of AE, method of AE reporting, severity of AE, frequency of AEs, patient withdrawals, and reasons for withdrawals. METHODS: We will perform a systematic review by searching for primary reports of double-blind, randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo and any active comparator treatments for chronic pain, with a primary outcome directly related to pain (eg, pain intensity, pain relief, and pain-related interference). We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO. RevMan software will be used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: The protocol has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018100401). The project was funded in 2018 and screening has been completed. Data extraction is under way and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in January or February 2019. CONCLUSIONS: This review will better elucidate the safety of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity through identifying gaps in the literature for AE reporting. Like in any new therapy, it is essential that accurate information surrounding the safety and efficacy of cannabinoids be clearly outlined and identified to balance the benefit and harm described for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018100401; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=100401. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/11637.

Parkinson's pain is more aching and interfering with social life in Caucasians compared to Indians.

Objectives: Although there have been numerous studies conducted to better understand Parkinson's disease (PD), the epidemiology of its debilitating non-motor symptoms across different ethnicities remains understudied. Herein we explore the relationship between depression, anxiety and pain in PD patients of Caucasian or Indian ethnicity (PD Caucasians and PD Indians). Patients and Methods: All patients and healthy age and gender matched controls were assessed via semi-structured interviews for anxiety, pain and depression using structured questionnaires. Results: PD Indians did not differ from PD Caucasians on anxiety or depression. However, PD Caucasians were more likely to report aching pain by 80 times and dull pain by 108 times compared to PD Indians. PD Indians were 82% less likely to have pain interfering with social activities, and 90% less likely to have pain interfering with relations with others compared to PD Caucasians. Conclusion: Although an Indo-Caucasian difference may not be detected from mood dysfunction, important differences may exist from the influence of pain interfering with several dimensions of life.