Trial reportWiener klinische Wochenschrift2006
[Benefits of an add-on treatment with the synthetic cannabinomimetic nabilone on patients with chronic pain--a randomized controlled trial].
Trial report in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Medical cannabinoids: a pharmacology-based systematic review and meta-analysis for all relevant medical indications.BMC medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Cys-loop receptors on cannabinoids: All high?Frontiers in physiology · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids in chronic pain associated with rheumatic diseases (fibromyalgia syndrome, back pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis): A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2016Pooled it
- Cannabinoids for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain; a systematic review of randomized trials.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011Pooled it
- Nabilone for the treatment of medication overuse headache: results of a preliminary double-blind, active-controlled, randomized trial.The journal of headache and pain · 2012Trial
- Article
- Review
- Review
- Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol for Pain Treatment-An Update on the Evidence.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Functionally-selective inhibition of threshold sodium currents and excitability in dorsal root ganglion neurons by cannabinol.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Cannabinoids and the Endocannabinoid System in Early SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Long COVID-19-A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Inhibition of sodium conductance by cannabigerol contributes to a reduction of dorsal root ganglion neuron excitability.British journal of pharmacology · 2022Article
- The Efficacy of Cannabis in Reducing Back Pain: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid interactions with voltage-gated sodium channels: An update on cannabidiol and cannabigerol.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Review
- What Is New in Classification, Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Narrative Review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review
- [Cannabis medicines in pain management : Interim analysis of the survey accompanying the prescription of cannabis-based medicines in Germany with regard to pain as primarily treated symptom].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2019Article
- Understanding the evidence for medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2019Review
- Patterns of medicinal cannabis use, strain analysis, and substitution effect among patients with migraine, headache, arthritis, and chronic pain in a medicinal cannabis cohort.The journal of headache and pain · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and efficiency of an add-on treatment with the synthetic cannabinomimetic nabilone on patients with chronic pain. Of major interest were the evaluation of the influence the treatment had on pain and on quality of life as well as the subjective assessment of positive effects and side effects by the study participants.
methodsThe placebo-controlled double-blinded pilot study was divided into a 14 week cross-over period (two 4 week medication phases plus wash-out phases) followed by a 16 week medication switch period with free choice of the study drugs (drug A and drug B) by the study participants. The principal inclusion criterion was chronic therapy-resistant pain in causal relationship with a pathologic status of the skeletal and locomotor system. The study participants chose the dosage of the study drug themselves (between 1 und 4 capsules/day, in the case of nabilone this corresponds to (1/4)-1 mg/day). Pain intensity was assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS), quality of life by the Mezzich and Cohen QOL-score.
resultsAltogether, 30 patients were included and analyzed. From the results, it is obvious that throughout the cross-over periods the nabilone treatment was superior (medians [25%-; 75%-percentiles]: nabilone/placebo): decrease of the average spinal pain intensity within the last 4 weeks (DeltaVAS) 0.9 [0.0; 2.0] / 0.5 [0.0; 1.7], decrease of the current spinal pain intensity (DeltaVAS) 0.6 [0.0; 2.5] / 0.0 [-1.0, 1.0] (p = .006), decrease of the average headache intensity within the last 4 weeks (DeltaVAS) 1.0 [-1.0; 2.4] / 0.2 [-0.9; 1.0], increase of the number of days without headache within the last 4 weeks 2.0 [0.0; 6.5] / 0.0 [-5.0; 4.0], increase of the quality of life (DeltaQOL-Score) 5.0 [0.8; 10.8] / 2.0 [-2.3; 8.0]. In the medication switch period, the number of study participants who favoured nabilone (nabilone intake > or =85% of all medication days) was more than 4 times higher than those who favoured placebo. The number of days with nabilone intake was clearly higher than the number with placebo intake (medians: 89% vs. 11% of all medication days, p = .003).
conclusionIn summary, the study results allow the conclusion that a majority of patients with chronic pain classify nabilone intake in addition to the standard treatment as a measure with a positive individual benefit-riskratio. Thus, this kind of treatment may be an interesting and attractive enrichment of analgetic therapy concepts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.