Can Medical Cannabis Therapies be Cost-Effective in the Non-Surgical Management of Chronic Knee Pain?

INTRODUCTION: Chronic knee pain is a common musculoskeletal condition, which usually leads to decreased quality of life and a substantial financial burden. Various non-surgical treatments have been developed to relieve pain, restore function and delay surgical intervention. Research on the benefits of medical cannabis (MC) is emerging supporting its use for chronic pain conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MC compared to current non-surgical therapies for chronic knee pain conditions. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian, single payer perspective and compared various MC therapies (oils, soft gels and dried flowers at different daily doses) to bracing, glucosamine, pharmaceutical-grade chondroitin oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids. We estimated the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with each treatment over 1 year and calculated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) using both the mean and median estimates for costs and utilities gained across the range of reported values. The final ICURs were compared to willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $66 714, $133 428 and $200 141 Canadian dollars (CAD) per QALY gained. RESULTS: Regardless of the estimates used (mean or median), both MC oils and soft gels at both the minimal and maximal recommended daily doses were cost-effective compared to all current knee pain therapies at the lowest WTP threshold. Dried flowers were only cost-effective up to a certain dosage (0.75 and 1 g/day based on mean and median estimates, respectively), but all dosages were cost-effective when the WTP was increased to $133 428/QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that MC may be a cost-effective strategy in the management of chronic knee pain; however, the evidence on the medical use of cannabis is limited and predominantly low-quality. Additional trials on MC are definitely needed, specifically in patients with chronic knee pain.

Comprehensive Examination of Therapies for Pain in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Pain in Parkinson's disease (PD) is a debilitating symptom with a prevalence of 68%, yet is untreated 50% of the time. What is unclear, however, is which treatment is optimal for minimizing pain severity in PD. Thus, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of a variety of novel, complimentary, and conventional treatments for pain in PD and elucidate which therapy is the most effective. A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. To identify additional articles, manual searches of reference lists of included trials were also searched. Major neurology conference proceedings occurring between January 2014 and February 2018 were also searched to identify unpublished studies that may be potentially eligible. Twenty-five randomized controlled trials that encompassed medical, surgical, and complementary therapies met our inclusion criteria and exhibited moderate quality evidence. Two reviewers conducted assessments for study eligibility, risk of bias, data extraction, and quality of evidence rating. A conservative random-effects model was used to pool effect estimates of pain severity. The greatest reductions in pain were found with safinamide (Standardized mean difference = -4.83, 95% CI [-5.07 to -4.59], p < 0.0001), followed by cannabinoids and opioids, multidisciplinary team care, catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors, and electrical and Chinese therapies. Moderate effects in reducing pain were in pardoprunox and surgery, while the weakest effects were in dopaminergic agonists and miscellaneous therapies. Safinamide is an important adjunct to standard parkinsonian medication for alleviating pain in PD.

Nonoperative Treatments for Knee Osteoarthritis: An Evaluation of Treatment Characteristics and the Intra-Articular Placebo Effect: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommending various nonoperative treatments for patients with knee osteoarthritis remain inconsistent. Much of this controversy relates to what constitutes a clinically important effect. The purposes of the present study were to compare treatment effect sizes from recent meta-analyses evaluating pharmacological or medical device interventions for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis and to further assess the clinical impact that the intra-articular placebo effect may have on intra-articular injection therapies. METHODS: A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase from the inception date of each database through May 30, 2017 was conducted for all articles involving meta-analyses of pharmacological or medical device knee osteoarthritis treatments compared with controls. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility and extracted data for analysis. We present effect estimates on a standardized mean difference (SMD) scale and compare them all against a threshold for clinical importance of 0.50 standard deviation (SD) unit. RESULTS: Ten meta-analyses (sample size range, 110 to 39,814) providing a total of 19 different effect sizes for pain were included in this review. SMD estimates ranged from 0.08 to 0.79 for various electrical modalities, orthotic devices, topical and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), dietary supplements, and intra-articular injection therapies. Seventeen treatments demonstrated significant improvements in terms of pain when patients who had received treatment were compared with controls. After accounting for the intra-articular placebo effect, the greatest effect estimates were those of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma and high molecular weight hyaluronic acid. When these were judged according to our threshold for clinical importance, high molecular weight intra-articular hyaluronic acid was found to have the most precise effect estimate that surpassed this threshold. Platelet-rich plasma was found to provide the greatest point estimate of the treatment effect, but the precision around this estimate had the largest amount of uncertainty across all treatments. CONCLUSIONS: While many nonoperative treatments demonstrated significant improvements in pain, we found the greatest effect estimates for intra-articular treatments. While platelet-rich plasma provided the greatest point estimate of the treatment effect, variability among studies suggests that future research into optimal formulations is required. The strongest current evidence supports clinically important and significant treatment effects with intra-articular hyaluronic acid formulations between 1,500 and >6,000 kDa. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.