Cannabinoids in rheumatology: Friend, foe or a bystander?

OBJECTIVES: Cannabinoids have gained popularity recently with special emphasis on their use for chronic pain. Although NICE guidelines advise against their usage for management of chronic pain, almost all rheumatologists encounter a few patients in their daily practice who either use them or are curious about them. We reviewed the mechanism of action of cannabinoids, current knowledge about their role in rheumatology and potential drug interactions with common drugs used in Rheumatology. We attempted to answer the question "If cannabinoids are friend, foe or just a mere bystander?" METHODS: We adhered to a search strategy for writing narrative reviews as per available guidelines. We searched PubMed with the search terms "Cannabinoids", "Rheumatology" and "Chronic pain" for published articles and retrieved 613 articles. The abstracts and titles of these articles were screened to identify relevant studies focusing on mechanism of actions, adverse effects and drug interactions. We also availed the services of a musculoskeletal librarian. RESULTS: Despite the NHS guidelines against the usage of cannabinoids and associated significant stigma, cannabinoids are increasingly used for the management of pain in rheumatology without prescription. Cannabinoids act through two major receptors CB1 and CB2, which are important modulators of the stress response with potential analgesic effects. Their role in various rheumatological diseases including Rheumatoid arthritis, Osteoarthritis and Fibromyalgia have been explored with some benefits. However, in addition to the adverse effects, cannabinoids also have some potential interactions with common drugs used in rheumatology, which many users are unaware of. CONCLUSION: While the current studies and patient reported outcomes suggest cannabinoids to be a "friend" of rheumatology, their adverse events and drug interactions prove to be a "Foe". We were unable to arrive at a definite answer for our question posed, however on the balance of probabilities we can conclude cannabinoids to be a "foe". Under these circumstances, a disease and drug focussed research is need of the hour to answer the unresolved question.

Is There a Correlation Between Patient-Reported Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Score and MRI Findings in Axial Spondyloarthropathy in Routine Clinical Practice?

Background The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) is the patient-reported outcome (PRO) that is routinely used in clinical practice to monitor and measure disease activity in axial spondyloarthropathy (axSpA). BASDAI scores greater than four are thought to indicate active disease and require better control. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most objective measure of disease activity in axSpA with its ability to pick up active inflammation both in the spine and sacroiliac joints. Previous studies have shown conflicting correlations between BASDAI and MRI, and therefore, there is the question of whether BASDAI is the best tool to monitor disease activity when it is subjective and potentially influenced by other patient factors. We, therefore, conducted a retrospective study to investigate the correlation between BASDAI and MRI in axSpA patients. Methodology Data were collected by retrospective analysis of axSpA patients attending University of Leicester (UHL) axSpA services. BASDAI scores were done within a year and closest to the time of MRI spine + sacroiliac joints were collected. The results prior to the initiation of biologic therapy were used. Data of one hundred and forty-nine patients were collected on their MRI results and BASDAI scores. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software and Pearson's chi-squared applied to assess the correlation between BASDAI and MRI findings. Results Out of one hundred and forty-nine patients, 61.7% had active sacroiliitis on their MRI, 57.7% had chronic sacroiliitis, 53% had active spinal inflammation, and 17.4% had other MRI findings of active disease. There was a significant correlation between active sacroiliitis and BASDAI (p=0.014), but similar results were not found with other radiological features. A significant correlation was also found with males having higher BASDAI scores compared to females (p=0.027). Conclusion This study demonstrates a statistically significant correlation between BASDAI and active sacroiliitis with those having higher scores more likely to have active disease on their MRI.

Perception and Belief on Cannabinoids: A Comparative Study of Rheumatology Patients and Primary Care Physicians on the Use of Cannabinoids for Pain Management.

Introduction With the recent increase in popularity of cannabinoids in the management of chronic pain, the inquisitiveness among our patients and health care professionals are probably now at its peak. Many treating health care professionals in their clinical practice come across patients who either use cannabinoids or are interested in their efficacy and side effects. As there is paucity of data and research about their use in rheumatology, patient's self-reported responses and experience of primary care physicians (General Practitioners [GPs]) can guide in expanding our knowledge. Methods Ours was an observational, cross-sectional study among rheumatology patients and GPs in the Leicestershire area. Initial questionnaire was designed by authors addressing demographics, knowledge, experience and perception. This was piloted among patients and GPs and improvised, redesigned and used for the study. The study design consisted of two arms: first arm including GPs and second arm rheumatology patients. Results Arm 1 consisted of 100 GPs with median age group of 30-40 years. 34% GPs experienced their patients inquiring about cannabinoids. 78% did not believe cannabinoids benefited the patients. On a scale of 0-10, the mean benefit in managing pain 3.2 + 2.5. Arm 2 consisted of 102 patients. 16% reported using cannabinoids for managing their chronic pain. The users reported significant improvement in pain compared to non-users (p=0.002). On comparing the perception of cannabinoids between GPs and patients, there was a statistically significant difference regarding awareness and effectiveness (p<0.001). Conclusion With the paucity of data and research about the use of cannabinoids in rheumatology, the patient self-reported responses provided an estimate as to their efficacy. This was significantly different from the GP perception. Disease and drug-focused research is need of the hour. To our knowledge, this is the First Single Centre study in the UK evaluating GP and rheumatology patient perception on cannabinoids.