Skip to main content

Oral Cannabis Reduces Muscle Stiffness in Patients With MS


July 27, 2012 — Compared with those taking a placebo, almost twice as many patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) prescribed an oral cannabis extract reported relief from muscle stiffness, a new study has found.
The cannabis agent also proved better at relieving symptoms of body pain and muscle spasm, and sleep disturbances.
Results of the phase 3 Multiple Sclerosis and Extract of Cannabis (MUSEC) study confirm the patient-rated benefits of cannabis on MS symptoms that were found in the earlier Cannabinoids in Multiple Sclerosis (CAMS) study, researchers say.
"The evidence behind using cannabinoids for symptom relief is pretty strong now, and the MUSEC study is another piece of evidence to support that view; in fact, it's probably the strongest evidence so far," said study lead author John Peter Zajicek, PhD, professor and chair of clinical neurology at the University of Plymouth, United Kingdom (UK).
Dr. John Peter Zajicek
The study was published online July 12 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.
Titration Phase
The double-blind trial conducted at 22 centers in the UK enrolled 279 patients with MS who were 18 to 64 years of age and had troublesome muscle stiffness. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a standardized oral cannabis extract (CE), which contained tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or a matched placebo capsule.
Before the 10-week maintenance phase, the study included a pretreatment screening period and a dose titration phase. The starting dose for the CE was 2.5 mg (one capsule) twice daily, with doses individually titrated upward by 5 mg/day every 3 days for up to 12 days, with a maximum total daily dose of 25 mg.
At the end of the treatment period, researchers used an 11-point category rating scale (CRS) to evaluate patients' perceived change in muscle stiffness (a rating of 0 indicated very much better; 5 no difference, and 10 very much worse). This numerical tool is clinically relevant, is reproducible, and, compared with another commonly used scale — the Ashworth Scale, is a more patient-oriented measure of efficacy, according to the authors.
A similar rating scale was used to measure secondary outcomes that included perceived relief from body pain, muscle spasms, and sleep disturbances compared with pretreatment.
The analysis of 277 patients found that the proportion of those who reported relief (0 to 3 on the CRS) was 29.4% in the cannabis group and 15.7% in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24 - 4.13; P = .004, 1-sided).
Cannabis Consistently Better
The study showed similar results in rates of relief for body pain, spasms, and sleep quality. At all visits (weeks 4, 8, and 12), rates of self-reported relief from these symptoms were consistently higher with CE than with placebo, and results were generally statistically significant (P < .025).
Responses to a number of MS-specific questionnaires supported these findings. Changes from baseline in symptoms such as effects of spasticity on activities of daily living, ability to walk, physical and psychological impact, and social functioning, as well as muscle stiffness, sleep quality, spasms, pain, and discomfort, were almost always in favor of the CE group.
"The MUSEC study looked at the symptoms of MS and found that from the patient perspective, all the endpoints were positive," said Dr. Zajicek.
At the end of the study, only 24.5% of CE participants were taking the 25.0 mg dose compared with 69.4% of placebo participants.
It is not surprising that central nervous system (CNS) symptoms such as disorientation and confusion occurred at a higher rate in the CE group (24.5% vs 7.5% for placebo), although most of these symptoms were mild. "Like all cannabis derivatives, if you take THC, which is a major active ingredient in the treatment drug, you can get a euphoria, a high, and a sort of clouding of cognition," said Dr. Zajicek.
The greatest between-group difference in adverse event rates was seen during the titration phase of the study, likely because of fast escalation of the dose to the maximum tolerated. "One of the problems of the study was that we pushed up the dose a bit high too quickly, so quite a few people dropped out," noted Dr. Zajicek. "But despite that, we still had evidence of good effects."
In total, 34 patients in the CE group (23.8%) and 20 in the placebo group (14.9%) discontinued study medication before the end of the study.
Researchers continue to search for an agent that does not have this cognitive side effect, but in the meantime, physicians can try to keep the dose low enough to get a benefit without causing this effect, said Dr. Zajicek. "The difficulty is to titrate it to the right dose for each person," he said.
Desperate Need
Although results of this study confirm the ability of cannabinoid agents to manage MS symptoms, it is probably more important to people with MS — and all neurodegenerative diseases — to have access to a drug that actually works on the disease itself, said Dr. Zajicek. "There's a desperate need for more treatments that help to slow down the course of these diseases."
The Cannabinoid Use in Progressive brain Disease (CUPID) trial, a 3-year trial of almost 500 patients with progressive MS, on which Dr. Zajicek was lead investigator, did investigate this aspect with this agent, but initial results, presented at the Association of British Neurologists' Annual Meeting in May of this year, showed that the THC agent was no better than placebo in reducing disease progression.
No significant effect was seen on disability, as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale, or on patient report, assessed using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale 29.
However, results did show evidence of a significant effect for patients at lower levels of disability, said Dr. Zajicek. Overall, progression of disease in this group of progressive MS patients was less than expected, making measuring a drug effect more challenging.
CUPID was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and was managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC-NIHR partnership, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Multiple Sclerosis Trust.
In a statement issued May 24, Doug Brown, MD, head of biomedical research at the MS Society, pointed out that currently no treatments are available for patients with progressive MS to slow or stop worsening disability.
"The MS Society is committed to supporting research in this area, and this was an important study for us to fund," he said. "While this study sadly suggests THC is ineffective at slowing the course of progressive MS, we will not stop our search for effective treatments. We are encouraged by the possibility shown by this study that THC may have potential benefits for some people with MS, and we welcome further investigation in this area."
Full results of the CUPID trial are expected later this year.
Still, Dr. Zajicek is convinced that drugs containing THC can work to curb progression of MS, and that future studies will further bear this out.
"There are multiple theoretical reasons for why this kind of drug should help," he said. "Firstly, it's anti-apoptotic, so it prevents cell death. Secondly, it reduces the release of excitatory neurotransmitters, so it reduces glutamate release, which is implicated with cell death in nerve cells. Thirdly, it's an antioxidant, so it reduces free radical damage. Then there are other theoretical reasons why it might be helpful, for example, it might interfere with protein folding, it has anti-inflammatory action, and it reduces migration of inflammatory cells."
Sacrificing Cognitive Function?
Invited to comment on this study, MS expert Lily Jung Henson, MD, neurologist and chief of staff at Issaquah Hospital, Swedish Medical Center, in Seattle, Washington, said it was "very nicely done."
However, she noted that the study was limited by the side effects that the authors discussed in the paper, and by the subjective nature of the rating scales used by researchers.
"I worry that patients will sacrifice cognitive functioning for pain relief," Dr. Jung Henson told Medscape Medical News. "I also wonder if the high dropout rate in the CE group is adequately explained."
Dr. Zajicek has received consultancy fees from IKF and Bayer-Schering. He has received funding from the Medical Research Council and from the National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) program to conduct studies using cannabinoids. He is a named inventor in two patents regarding cannabinoid use in multiple sclerosis. Dr. Jung Henson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

EHR Work Measures Proposed to Address Burnout

Electronic health record (EHR) vendors should imbed metrics into their systems to measure how EHRs affect clinicians' work, experts write in a commentary  published online  October 10 in the  Annals of Internal Medicine . Yumi T. DiAngi, MD, a fellow in clinical informatics at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, and colleagues propose six areas metrics should cover and recommended the creation of a "national council of clinicians" to design measures and create guidelines to address privacy and other issues. "The EHR, which was intended to improve patient care, has had the ironic and unintended consequence of impairing practice efficiency, largely because of poor design, a focus on regulatory reporting, and the burden placed on clinicians by data entry," they write. EHRs have also led to high levels of burnout as physicians' satisfaction in their work has declined, they note. To gain insight into the stresses that have pro...