Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33203469›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Clinical trials with cannabis medicines-guidance for ethics committees, governance officers and researchers to streamline ethics applications and ensuring patient safety: considerations from the Australian experience.

Jennifer H Martin, Courtney Hill, Anna Walsh, Daryl Efron, Kaitlyn Taylor, Michael Kennedy, Rachel Galettis, Paul Lightfoot, Julie Hanson, Helen Irving and 2 more

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Role of the Endocannabinoid System in Fibromyalgia.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025
    Review
  4. Medicinal Cannabis for Paediatric Developmental, Behavioural and Mental Health Disorders.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  5. 'What price do you put on your health?': Medical cannabis, financial toxicity and patient perspectives on medication access in advanced cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Cannabis and Athletic Performance.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Jennifer H MartinAustralian Centre for Cannabinoid Clinical and Research Excellence (ACRE), Division of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. jen.martin@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8614-0199
Courtney HillAustralian Centre for Cannabinoid Clinical and Research Excellence (ACRE), Division of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Anna WalshNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Daryl EfronMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Kaitlyn TaylorMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Michael KennedySt Vincent's Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, UNSW Sydney and Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rachel GalettisAustralian Centre for Cannabinoid Clinical and Research Excellence (ACRE), Division of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Paul LightfootDepartment of Neurology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Julie HansonSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia.
Helen IrvingChildren's Health Queensland, Hospital and Health Service, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Meera AgarIMPACCT, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Judith LaceyChris O'Brien Lifehouse Comprehensive Cancer Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence 2017-22
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With cannabis medicines now obtaining legal status in many international jurisdictions (generally on the authorisation of a medical professional), a rapid increase in consumer demand for access to cannabis as a therapeutic option in the treatment and management of a range of indications is being noted. Despite this accessibility, knowledge on optimal use is lacking. Further drug development and clinical trials at regulatory standards are necessary both if a better understanding of the efficacy of cannabis medicines, optimal product formulation and indication-specific dosing is needed and to ensure the broader quality and safety of cannabis medicines in the clinical setting.To enable this, clinical, academic and public calls for the undertaking of rigorous clinical trials to establish an evidence base for the therapeutic use of cannabis medicines have been made internationally. While this commitment to undertake human studies with cannabis medicines is welcomed, it has highlighted unique challenges, notably in the review stages of ethics and governance. This often results in lengthy delays to approval by Human Research Ethics Committees (herein 'HREC', Australia's nomenclature for Institutional Review Boards) and trial commencement. A principal concern in these cases is that in contrast to clinical trials using other more conventional pharmaceutical products, trials of cannabis medicines in humans often involve the use of an investigational product prior to some (or any) of the preclinical and pharmaceutical safety issues being established. This paucity of data around product safety, potential drug interactions, continuity of supply, shelf life and product storage results in apprehension by HRECs and governance bodies to endorse trials using cannabis medicines.This manuscript draws from the experiences of Australian researchers and staff involved in clinical trials of cannabis medicines to describe some of the common difficulties that may be faced in the HREC approval process. It also presents practical advice aimed to assist researchers, HRECs and governance officers navigate this complex terrain. While the authors' experiences are situated within the Australian setting, many of the barriers described are applicable within the international context and thus, the solutions that have been proposed are typically adaptive for use within other jurisdictions.

Indexed as

CannabisAustraliaEthics Committees, ResearchHumansResearch DesignCannabinoidsCannabis medicinesCannabis medicines researchClinical trialsGovernanceHuman research ethicsInvestigational medicinal product

Identifiers

PMID33203469
PMCPMC7673085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.