Characteristics of People Seeking Prescribed Cannabinoids for the Treatment of Chronic Pain: Evidence From Project Twenty 21.

Background: Prescribed cannabinoids are now legal in the UK and increasingly being used for a variety of conditions, with one of the most frequent conditions being chronic pain. This paper describes the characteristics of individuals seeking prescribed cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain in Project Twenty 21, a UK based real world data registry of prescribed cannabis patients. Method: By 1st November 2021 data were available for 1,782 people who had sought treatment with medical cannabis as part of Project Twenty 21. The most common diagnosis among this cohort was chronic pain with 949 (53.5%) of the cohort reporting a primary condition related to chronic pain. Medical and self-report data on the characteristics of these patients, their health status and type/s of cannabinoid/s prescribed are summarized in this report. Results: Of the 949 people reporting chronic pain as a primary condition 54.7% were male and their average age was 42.0 years (range = 18-84). Patients reported a low quality of life and high levels of comorbidity: people reported an average of 4.6 comorbid conditions with the most common comorbid conditions including anxiety, depression, insomnia and stress. A range of cannabinoid products were prescribed with the most common products being classified as high THC flower (48.5%). The majority of patients also reported using at least one other prescribed medication (68.7%). Conclusions: Consistent with findings in other national and international databases, chronic pain was the most common primary condition in this real world study of prescribed cannabinoids. There was considerable variation in the types of chronic pain, comorbid pathology and in the characteristics of products being prescribed to treat these conditions. Together, this evidence supports the utility of real world evidence, as opposed to clinical trial approaches to studying the potential benefits of prescribed cannabinoids in treating chronic pain.

Lidocaine infusions in chronic pain management: A prospective case series analysis.

Chronic pain conditions are prevalent and cause a significant burden of disease. Intravenous lidocaine infusions have been reported to have an analgesic effect in patients with chronic neuropathic pain, but there is limited data supporting the efficacy of lidocaine across other chronic pain phenotypes. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a single infusion of intravenous lidocaine for pain relief and the impact on quality of life. We evaluated data from 74 patients with chronic pain who were treated with intravenous lidocaine at a specialist pain centre. Participants completed a questionnaire consisting of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Short Form and additional EQ-5D quality of life metrics, before treatment and at follow-up. Data comparing pain severity did not demonstrate a statistically significant change after treatment when averaged across the entire patient cohort (6.15-5.88, p = .106), irrespective of gender or pain phenotype. Scores for pain interference showed statistically significant reductions following treatment (7.05-6.41, p = .023), which may have been driven through improvements in sleep (7.41-6.35, p = .001); however, these reductions are not clinically significant. The patient cohort was stratified into responders and non-responders based on >30% improvement in response to an overall impression of pain reduction question following treatment. In the 'responder' cohort, pain intensity scores showed a statistically significant reduction post-infusion (6.18-5.49, p = .0135), but no change was apparent for non-responders (6.07-6.09, p = .920). There were no differences between responders and non-responders for pain sub-types in our study. This study found no difference in pain outcomes in a cohort of patients with chronic pain, a mean of 63 days following a single lidocaine infusion. However, a specific subgroup of responders may show slight improvements in some pain outcomes that may warrant further exploration.

A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Comparing Pharmacotherapy for Chronic Neuropathic Pain, Including Cannabinoids and Cannabis-Based Medical Products.

Background: Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) still represents a major clinical challenge. Collective harnessing of both the scientific evidence base and clinical experience (of clinicians and patients) can play a key role in informing treatment pathways and contribute to the debate on specific treatments (e.g., cannabinoids). A group of expert clinicians (pain specialists and psychiatrists), scientists, and patient representatives convened to assess the relative benefit-safety balance of 12 pharmacological treatments, including orally administered cannabinoids/cannabis-based medicinal products, for the treatment of CNP in adults. Methods: A decision conference provided the process of creating a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model, in which the group collectively scored the drugs on 17 effect criteria relevant to benefits and safety and then weighted the criteria for their clinical relevance. Findings: Cannabis-based medicinal products consisting of tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD), in a 1:1 ratio, achieved the highest overall score, 79 (out of 100), followed by CBD dominant at 75, then THC dominant at 72. Duloxetine and the gabapentinoids scored in the 60s, amitriptyline, tramadol, and ibuprofen in the 50s, methadone and oxycodone in the 40s, and morphine and fentanyl in the 30s. Sensitivity analyses showed that even if the pain reduction and quality-of-life scores for THC/CBD and THC are halved, their benefit-safety balances remain better than those of the noncannabinoid drugs. Interpretation: The benefit-safety profiles for cannabinoids were higher than for other commonly used medications for CNP largely because they contribute more to quality of life and have a more favorable side effect profile. The results also reflect the shortcomings of alternative pharmacological treatments with respect to safety and mitigation of neuropathic pain symptoms. Further high-quality clinical trials and systematic comprehensive capture of clinical experience with cannabinoids is warranted. These results demonstrate once again the complexity and multimodal mechanisms underlying the clinical experience and impact of chronic pain.

Oral and parenteral anti-neuropathic agents for the management of pain and discomfort in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a highly prevalent and economically burdensome condition; and pain is often the most unpleasant, disruptive, and difficult-to-treat symptom. Visceral hypersensitivity is a common feature driving pain in IBS, suggesting that neuropathic mechanisms may be implicated. We conducted a systematic review of available evidence to examine the role of anti-neuropathic medicines in the management of pain in IBS. METHODS: We systematically searched scientific repositories for trials investigating conventional oral, and/or parenteral, pharmaceutical antineuropathic treatments in patients with IBS. We summarized key participant characteristics, outcomes related to pain (primary outcome), and selected secondary outcomes. KEY RESULTS: We included 13 studies (n = 629 participants): six investigated amitriptyline, three duloxetine, three pregabalin, and one gabapentin. There was considerable methodological and statistical heterogeneity, so we performed a narrative synthesis and limited meta-analysis. Amitriptyline was most extensively studied, though only in diarrhea-predominant patients. In individual trials, amitriptyline, pregabalin and gabapentin generally appeared beneficial for pain outcomes. While duloxetine studies tended to report improvements in pain, all were un-controlled trials with high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of three studies (n = 278) yielded a pooled relative-risk of 0.50 (95%CI 0.38-0.66) for not improving with anti-neuropathic agent vs control. We did not identify any eligible studies investigating the role of parenteral anti-neuropathics. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Anti-neuropathic analgesics may improve pain in IBS, and deserve further, high-quality investigation, potentially considering parenteral administration and agents with minimal gastrointestinal motility effects. Investigation of amitriptyline's efficacy in non-diarrhea-predominant subtypes is currently lacking, and we recommend particular caution for its use in IBS-C.

The Association Between Chronic Pain and Cardiac Disease: A Cross-sectional Population Study.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain may increase the risk of cardiac disease, but the extent to which confounding variables account for this association has yet to be satisfactorily established. This study aims to examine the possibility of an independent association between these 2 variables. METHODS: We applied logistic regression analysis to data from 8596 adults surveyed in a population study of the health of the population of England. The association between cardiac disease (angina and/or myocardial infarction) and chronic pain (pain lasting >3 months) was explored, taking account of 10 potentially confounding variables including the regular use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. RESULTS: Participants reporting chronic pain (n=3023) were more likely to experience cardiac disease than those without pain: odds ratio (OR), 1.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15-2.07. Subsets of participants fulfilling various criteria for high-intensity chronic pain demonstrated stronger associations with cardiac disease suggesting a "dose-response" element to the relationship: chronic widespread pain (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.42-7.68); higher-disability chronic pain (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.71-3.23); and higher average chronic pain score (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.40-2.71). Adjustment for regular prescription of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs did not reduce the association of chronic pain with cardiac disease. DISCUSSION: Patients reporting chronic pain, in particular those most severely affected, may be at significantly increased risk of cardiac disease. Future studies should focus on determining whether reducing the impact of chronic pain can improve cardiac health.

Assessing the relationship between chronic pain and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chronic pain is a potentially disabling condition affecting one in three people through impaired physical function and quality of life. While the psychosocial impact of chronic pain is already well established, little is known about the potential biological consequences. Chronic pain may be associated with an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease, an effect that has been demonstrated across a spectrum of chronic pain conditions including low back pain, pelvic pain, neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. The aim of this study was to review and summarize the evidence for a link between chronic pain and cardiovascular disease. We sought to clarify the nature of the relationship by examining the basis for a dose-response gradient (whereby increasing pain severity would result in greater cardiovascular disease), and by evaluating the extent to which potentially confounding variables may contribute to this association. METHODS: Major electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, Cochrane, ProQuest and Web of Science were searched for articles reporting strengths of association between chronic pain (pain in one or more body regions, present for three months or longer) and cardiovascular outcomes (cardiovascular mortality, cardiac disease, and cerebrovascular disease). Meta-analysis was used to pool data analysing the association between chronic pain and the three principal cardiovascular outcomes. The impact of pain severity, and the role of potentially confounding variables were explored narratively. RESULTS: The searches generated 11,141 studies, of which 25 matched our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Meta-analysis (of unadjusted study outcomes) demonstrated statistically significant associations between chronic pain and mortality from cardiovascular diseases: pooled odds ratio 1.20, (95% confidence intervals 1.05-1.36); chronic pain and cardiac disease: pooled odds ratio 1.73 (95% confidence intervals 1.42-2.04); and chronic pain and cerebrovascular disease: pooled odds ratio 1.81 (95% confidence intervals 1.51-2.10). The systematic review also found evidence supporting a dose-response relationship, with greater pain intensity and distribution producing a stronger association with cardiovascular outcomes. All of the included studies were based on observational data with considerable variation in chronic pain taxonomy, methodology and study populations. The studies took an inconsistent and incomplete approach in their adjustment for potentially confounding variables, making it impossible to pool data after adjustments for confounding variables, so it cannot be concluded that these associations are causal. CONCLUSIONS: Our review supports a possible dose-response type of association between chronic pain and cardiovascular disease, supported by a range of observational studies originating from different countries. Such research has so far failed to satisfactorily rule out that the association is due to confounding variables. What is now needed are further population based longitudinal studies that are designed to allow more robust exploration of a cause and effect relationship. IMPLICATIONS: Given the high prevalence of chronic pain in developed and developing countries our results highlight a significant, but underpublicized, public health concern. Greater acknowledgement of the potentially harmful biological consequences of chronic pain may help to support regional, national and global initiatives aimed at reducing the burden of chronic pain.