Chronischer Schmerz
Studienlage · Detail Systematische Review + Meta-Analyse · Chronischer Schmerz · 2017

Selective Cannabinoids for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Gemischt GRADE Hoch 163 Zitate
Stichprobek = 11 Studien
n = 1.219 Pat.
Dauerunklar
KontrollePlacebo oder konventionelle Therapie
EndpunktNRS
Verblindungdoppelblind
DesignSystematische Review + Meta-Analyse
Kernaussage

Selective Cannabinoide zeigten eine statistisch signifikante, aber klinisch kleine Schmerzreduktion (−0,65 Punkte auf 0-10-Skala) verglichen mit Vergleichsgruppen, mit verbesserter Lebensqualität und Schlaf, aber hohe Heterogenität zwischen Studien.

Zusammenfassung

Systematische Review über k=11 RCTs (n=1.219) zu selektiven Cannabinoiden (Dronabinol, Nabilone, Nabiximols) bei chronischem neuropathischem Schmerz vs. Placebo/konventionelle Therapie. NRS-Reduktion -0.65 Punkte (95% CI -1.06 bis -0.23, p=0.002, I²=60%); statistisch signifikant aber klinisch klein. Verbesserung von Lebensqualität und Schlaf ohne schwere Nebenwirkungen. GRADE: schwache Empfehlung, moderate Evidenzqualität.

P
PopulationErwachsene mit chronischem neuropathischen Schmerzen (zentral und peripher), gepoolt n=1219
I
InterventionSelektive Cannabinoide (Dronabinol, Nabilon, Nabiximols) verschiedener Dosierungen
C
KontrollePlacebo oder konventionelle Therapie (Pharmakotherapie, Physiotherapie oder Kombination)
O
OutcomeSignifikante, aber klinisch geringe Schmerzreduktion auf der NRS: -0,65 Punkte (95%-KI: -1,06 bis -0,23; p=0,002; I²=60%; GRADE: schwache Empfehlung, moderate Evidenzqualität)
Vertrauen in die Evidenz
Hoch

Höchste von vier GRADE-Stufen, die Effektschätzung ist sehr verlässlich.

Qualitätsprofil
Größe
Verblindung Doppelblind
Effektstärke Gemischt
Zitate / Jahr
Autoren
Meng H, Johnston B, Englesakis M et al.
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000002110
Design: Systematische Review + Meta-Analyse
Teilen
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of consensus on the role of selective cannabinoids for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP). Guidelines from national and international pain societies have provided contradictory recommendations. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SR-MA) was to determine the analgesic efficacy and safety of selective cannabinoids compared to conventional management or placebo for chronic Np. Methods: We reviewed randomized controlled trials that compared selective cannabinoids (dronabinol, nabilone, nabiximols) with conventional treatments (eg, pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, or a combination of these) or placebo in patients with chronic NP because patients with NP may be on any of these therapies or none if all standard treatments have failed to provide analgesia and or if these treatments have been associated with adverse effects. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other major databases up to March 11, 2016, were searched. Data on scores of numerical rating scale for NP and its subtypes, central and peripheral, were meta-analyzed. The certainty of evidence was classified using the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: Eleven randomized controlled trials including 1219 patients (614 in selective cannabinoid and 605 in comparator groups) were included in this SR-MA. There was variability in the studies in quality of reporting, etiology of NP, type and dose of selective cannabinoids. Patients who received selective cannabinoids reported a significant, but clinically small, reduction in mean numerical rating scale pain scores (0-10 scale) compared with comparator groups (-0.65 points; 95% confidence interval, -1.06 to -0.23 points; P = .002, I = 60%; Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation: weak recommendation and moderate-quality evidence). Use of selective cannabinoids was also associated with improvements in quality of life and sleep with no major adverse effects. Conclusions: Selective cannabinoids provide a small analgesic benefit in patients with chronic NP. There was a high degree of heterogeneity among publications included in this SR-MA. Well-designed, large, randomized studies are required to better evaluate specific dosage, duration of intervention, and the effect of this intervention on physical and psychologic function.

„Was dem Handeln im Weg steht, wird zum Weg.“ — Marc Aurel