Ronald Chow, Anna Basu, Jagdeep Kaur, David Hui, James Im, Elizabeth Prsic, Gabriel Boldt, Michael Lock, Lawson Eng, Terry L Ng, Camilla Zimmermann, Florian Scotte
{"title":"Efficacy of cannabinoids for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting-a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Ronald Chow, Anna Basu, Jagdeep Kaur, David Hui, James Im, Elizabeth Prsic, Gabriel Boldt, Michael Lock, Lawson Eng, Terry L Ng, Camilla Zimmermann, Florian Scotte","doi":"10.1007/s00520-025-09251-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cannabinoids have potential efficacy as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but no recent meta-analysis has reported on their relative efficacy compared to other antiemetics. The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the relative efficacy of cannabinoids for prophylaxis of CINV.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted in OVID Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception up until March 2024. Articles were included if they reported on complete response, no nausea, no vomiting or no use of rescue medications, and were randomized controlled trials with cannabinoids in one arm. Meta-analysis was conducted for each endpoint and for a composite endpoint amalgamating existing endpoints. Subgroup analyses by medication used in control arm and by study design were conducted. Cumulative and leave-one-out analysis was also conducted. Type I error was set at 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis, of which 23 were published before the 2000s. Nearly half of the included studies had some concern for bias. Cannabinoid had superior overall CINV control compared to placebo (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.70-4.12, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.00%). However, there was no difference between cannabinoid and active treatment alternatives (most using dated single-agent regimens) for any outcomes. A recent phase II/III trial demonstrated superior efficacy of THC:CBD for secondary prevention of CINV when used as adjunctive therapy alongside modern antiemetic regimens, albeit mostly without olanzapine.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is scant evidence for efficacy of cannabinoids for CINV in the era of triple and quadruple antiemetics. Although THC:CBD showed promised in a recent trial, further trials should examine its safety and efficacy in the context of regimens containing olanzapine.</p>","PeriodicalId":22046,"journal":{"name":"Supportive Care in Cancer","volume":"33 3","pages":"193"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11828838/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supportive Care in Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-025-09251-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Cannabinoids have potential efficacy as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but no recent meta-analysis has reported on their relative efficacy compared to other antiemetics. The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the relative efficacy of cannabinoids for prophylaxis of CINV.
Methods: A literature search was conducted in OVID Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception up until March 2024. Articles were included if they reported on complete response, no nausea, no vomiting or no use of rescue medications, and were randomized controlled trials with cannabinoids in one arm. Meta-analysis was conducted for each endpoint and for a composite endpoint amalgamating existing endpoints. Subgroup analyses by medication used in control arm and by study design were conducted. Cumulative and leave-one-out analysis was also conducted. Type I error was set at 0.05.
Results: A total of 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis, of which 23 were published before the 2000s. Nearly half of the included studies had some concern for bias. Cannabinoid had superior overall CINV control compared to placebo (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.70-4.12, I2 = 0.00%). However, there was no difference between cannabinoid and active treatment alternatives (most using dated single-agent regimens) for any outcomes. A recent phase II/III trial demonstrated superior efficacy of THC:CBD for secondary prevention of CINV when used as adjunctive therapy alongside modern antiemetic regimens, albeit mostly without olanzapine.
Conclusions: There is scant evidence for efficacy of cannabinoids for CINV in the era of triple and quadruple antiemetics. Although THC:CBD showed promised in a recent trial, further trials should examine its safety and efficacy in the context of regimens containing olanzapine.
背景:大麻素在预防化疗引起的恶心和呕吐(CINV)方面有潜在的疗效,但最近没有meta分析报道大麻素与其他止吐药的相对疗效。本荟萃分析的目的是检查大麻素预防CINV的相对疗效。方法:检索OVID Medline、EMBASE和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials从成立到2024年3月的文献。如果文章报告完全缓解,没有恶心,没有呕吐或没有使用抢救药物,并且是在一只手臂中使用大麻素的随机对照试验,则纳入文章。对每个终点和合并现有终点的复合终点进行meta分析。按对照组用药和研究设计进行亚组分析。并进行了累积分析和遗漏分析。I型误差设为0.05。结果:本荟萃分析共纳入26项研究,其中23项发表于21世纪前。在纳入的研究中,有近一半的研究存在偏倚问题。与安慰剂相比,大麻素具有更好的总体CINV控制(RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.70-4.12, I2 = 0.00%)。然而,对于任何结果,大麻素和积极治疗方案(大多数使用过时的单药方案)之间没有差异。最近的一项II/III期试验表明,当与现代止吐方案一起作为辅助治疗时,THC:CBD对CINV的二级预防具有优越的疗效,尽管大多数情况下不使用奥氮平。结论:在三联和四联止吐药时代,大麻素对CINV的疗效证据不足。虽然THC:CBD在最近的一项试验中显示出了希望,但进一步的试验应该检查其在含有奥氮平的方案中的安全性和有效性。
期刊介绍:
Supportive Care in Cancer provides members of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and all other interested individuals, groups and institutions with the most recent scientific and social information on all aspects of supportive care in cancer patients. It covers primarily medical, technical and surgical topics concerning supportive therapy and care which may supplement or substitute basic cancer treatment at all stages of the disease.
Nursing, rehabilitative, psychosocial and spiritual issues of support are also included.