Studienlage · Detail
Kein Nutzen nachgewiesen
GRADE
Hoch
66 Zitate
Stichproben = 144 Pat.
Dauer28 Tage
KontrolleMatched Placebo über 28 Tage
EndpunktESAS-TSDS
Verblindungdoppelblind
DesignRCT
Cannabinoidcbd
Max. Dosis600.0 mg
Applikationoral
Kernaussage
CBD-Öl erbrachte gegenüber Placebo keinen zusätzlichen Nutzen bei der Symptombelastung von Palliativpatienten mit fortgeschrittenem Krebs.
Zusammenfassung
n=144 fortgeschrittene Krebspatienten unter Palliativversorgung, CBD-Öl (100 mg/mL titriert bis 600 mg/Tag) vs. Placebo über 28 Tage. Primärer Endpunkt ESAS Total Symptom Distress Score (TSDS) Tag 14: CBD -3.0 vs. Placebo -6.2, kein signifikanter Unterschied (p=0.24). Response-Rate (TSDS-Reduktion ≥6): CBD 44.8% vs. Placebo 58.7% (p=0.13). CBD zeigte keinen Zusatznutzen zur spezialisierten Palliativversorgung; Dyspnoe häufiger unter CBD.
P
PopulationErwachsene mit fortgeschrittenem Krebs und Symptomlast (ESAS-Gesamtscore ≥10/90) unter Palliativversorgung, n=144 randomisiert (58 CBD, 63 Placebo zur Primäranalyse)
I
InterventionTitriertes CBD-Öl 100 mg/mL, 0,5 mL einmal täglich bis 2 mL dreimal täglich (max. ~600 mg/Tag) über 28 Tage
C
KontrolleMatched Placebo über 28 Tage
O
OutcomeESAS-Gesamtscore (TSDS) an Tag 14: Veränderung −3,0 (CBD) vs. −6,2 (Placebo), kein signifikanter Unterschied (p=0,24); Responderrate: 44,8% (CBD) vs. 58,7% (Placebo, p=0,13)
Vertrauen in die Evidenz
Hoch
Höchste von vier GRADE-Stufen, die Effektschätzung ist sehr verlässlich.
Qualitätsprofil
Größe
★★★★★
Verblindung
Doppelblind
Effektstärke
Kein Nutzen
Zitate / Jahr
★★★★★
Autoren
Teilen
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether cannabidiol (CBD) oil can improve symptom distress in patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care.
Methods: Participants were adults with advanced cancer and symptom distress (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS] total score of >/= 10/90) who received titrated CBD oil 100 mg/mL, 0.5 mL once daily to 2 mL three times a day, or matched placebo for 28 days. The primary outcome was ESAS total symptom distress score (TSDS) at day 14. Response was defined as a decrease in TSDS by >/= 6 at day 14. Secondary outcomes were ESAS TSDS over time, individual symptom scores, patient-determined effective dose, opioid use, Global Impression of Change, depression, anxiety, quality of life, and adverse events.
Results: Of the 144 patients randomly assigned, the planned sample size of 58 participants on CBD and 63 on placebo reached the primary analysis point (day 14). The unadjusted change in TSDS from baseline to day 14 was -6.2 (standard deviation, 14.5) for placebo and -3.0 (standard deviation, 15.2) for CBD with no significant difference between arms (P = .24). Similarly, there was no detected difference in proportion of responders (placebo: 37 of 63 [58.7%],
Cbd: 26 of 58 [44.8%], P = .13). All components of ESAS improved (fell) over time with no difference between arms. The median dose of participant-selected CBD was 400 mg per day with no correlation with opioid dose. There was no detectable effect of CBD on quality of life, depression, or anxiety. Adverse events did not differ significantly between arms apart from dyspnea that was more common with CBD. Most participants reported feeling better or much better at days 14 (53% CBD and 65% placebo) and 28 (70% CBD and 64% placebo).
Conclusion: CBD oil did not add value to the reduction in symptom distress provided by specialist palliative care alone.
„Was dem Handeln im Weg steht, wird zum Weg.“