A double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, parallel group study of <scp>THC</scp>/<scp>CBD</scp> spray in peripheral neuropathic pain treatment

Serpell, Michael; Ratcliffe, S.; Hovorka, J.; Schofield, Mark; Taylor, Lloyd A.; Lauder, Heather; Ehler, E

doi:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00445.x

Cited by 164 publications

(158 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

149

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, such traditional use does not constitute valid evidence for the modern medical use of the plant, its extracts or components, and licensed clinical use of cannabis-based medicines remains limited to a small number of disorders such as pain in multiple sclerosis (MS), appetite stimulation in HIV/ AIDS, and cancer chemotherapy [10][11][12]. Moreover, the therapeutic effects of currently licensed cannabis-based treatments rely for the most part upon the pharmacological effects of the principal psychoactive component derived from the C. sativa plant, Δ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ 9 -THC) [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular Targets of Cannabidiol in Neurological Disorders

Bih

Chen

Nunn³

et al. 2015

Neurotherapeutics

462

323

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cannabis has a long history of anecdotal medicinal use and limited licensed medicinal use. Until recently, alleged clinical effects from anecdotal reports and the use of licensed cannabinoid medicines are most likely mediated by tetrahydrocannabinol by virtue of: 1) this cannabinoid being present in the most significant quantities in these preparations; and b) the proportion:potency relationship between tetrahydrocannabinol and other plant cannabinoids derived from cannabis. However, there has recently been considerable interest in the therapeutic potential for the plant cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), in neurological disorders but the current evidence suggests that CBD does not directly interact with the endocannabinoid system except in vitro at supraphysiological concentrations. Thus, as further evidence for CBD's beneficial effects in neurological disease emerges, there remains an urgent need to establish the molecular targets through which it exerts its therapeutic effects. Here, we conducted a systematic search of the extant literature for original articles describing the molecular pharmacology of CBD. We critically appraised the results for the validity of the molecular targets proposed. Thereafter, we considered whether the molecular targets of CBD identified hold therapeutic potential in relevant neurological diseases. The molecular targets identified include numerous classical ion channels, receptors, transporters, and enzymes. Some CBD effects at these targets in in vitro assays only manifest at high concentrations, which may be difficult to achieve in vivo, particularly given CBD's relatively poor bioavailability. Moreover, several targets were asserted through experimental designs that demonstrate only correlation with a given target rather than a causal proof. When the molecular targets of CBD that were physiologically plausible were considered for their potential for exploitation in neurological therapeutics, the results were variable. In some cases, the targets identified had little or no established link to the diseases considered. In others, molecular targets of CBD were entirely consistent with those already actively exploited in relevant, clinically used, neurological treatments. Finally, CBD was found to act upon a number of targets that are linked to neurological therapeutics but that its actions were not consistent withmodulation of such targets that would derive a therapeutically beneficial outcome. Overall, we find that while >65 discrete molecular targets have been reported in the literature for CBD, a relatively limited number represent plausible targets for the drug's action in neurological disorders when judged by the criteria we set. We conclude that CBD is very unlikely to exert effects in neurological diseases through modulation of the endocannabinoid system. Moreover, a number of other molecular targets of CBD reported in the literature are unlikely to be of relevance owing to effects only being observed at supraphysiological concentrations. Of interest and after excludin...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular Targets of Cannabidiol in Neurological Disorders

Bih

Chen

Nunn³

et al. 2015

Neurotherapeutics

462

323

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 6 of the 7 cases, at least 1 record met the inclusion criteria of the systematic review [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Reviewer screening time took on average between 30 and 40 minutes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some cases, it appears that the time-lag can be considerable, as was the case with one study [14], which took more than six months to move from entry into PubMed to in process status and a further year to be finally indexed for MEDLINE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid

Duffy

Kock

Misso

et al. 2017

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The research investigated whether conducting a supplementary search of PubMed in addition to the main MEDLINE (Ovid) search for a systematic review is worthwhile and to ascertain whether this PubMed search can be conducted quickly and if it retrieves unique, recently published, and ahead-of-print studies that are subsequently considered for inclusion in the final systematic review.Methods: Searches of PubMed were conducted after MEDLINE (Ovid) and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid) searches had been completed for seven recent reviews. The searches were limited to records not in MEDLINE or MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid).Results: Additional unique records were identified for all of the investigated reviews. Search strategies were adapted quickly to run in PubMed, and reviewer screening of the results was not time consuming. For each of the investigated reviews, studies were ordered for full screening; in six cases, studies retrieved from the supplementary PubMed searches were included in the final systematic review.Conclusion: Supplementary searching of PubMed for studies unavailable elsewhere is worthwhile and improves the currency of the systematic reviews. When conducting comprehensive literature searches for systematic reviews of health care interventions, searchers almost always include one bibliographic database, MEDLINE. MEDLINE content can be searched via several search interfaces, the majority of which are provided by fee-based subscription services (e.g., Ovid, EBSCO, or ProQuest), although it can be accessed for free using PubMed. When searching for systematic reviews, PubMed has been shown to have a higher retrieval rate than fee-based versions of MEDLINE, such as Ovid [1]. PubMed enables users to search MEDLINE, PubMed citations that will never be indexed on MEDLINE, and other sources, such as online books. Despite this and the fact that PubMed is freely available, many information specialists prefer to search using sophisticated interfaces (usually fee-based) that enable the design of complex search strategies.PubMed has relatively limited search capabilities. For example, proximity searching is not possible and truncation is limited to the first 600 variations. The lack of proximity search operators can be a significant hindrance when attempting to conduct searches for systematic reviews in PubMed, as phrase searching or use of the Boolean ''AND'' to combine terms are the only alternatives. This can produce a search strategy that is either too precise when using phrases or too sensitive when using the Boolean ''AND.'' Searching MEDLINE via more sophisticated interfaces enables much greater flexibility when conducting searches for systematic reviews, allowing information specialists to find a better balance between precision and sensitivity that is not possible in PubMed.Migration of records from PubMed into fee-based subscription services is usually quite timely. Studies indicate that indexed MEDLINE records and

show abstract

“…Their therapeutic potential has been demonstrated in the treatment of many disorders including pain, inflammation, cancer, asthma, glaucoma, spinal cord injury, epilepsy, hypertension, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, depression or feeding-related disorders, and many others (e.g. Porcella et al 2001;Robson 2001;Rog et al 2005;Blake et al 2006;Pacher et al 2006;Russo 2008;Scheen and Paquot 2009;Karst et al 2010;Lynch and Campbell 2011;Caffarel et al 2012;Grotenhermen and Muller-Vahl 2012;Hill et al 2012;Maione et al 2013;Lynch et al 2014;Serpell et al 2014;Lynch and Ware 2015).…”

Section: The Use Of Cannabinoids In Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of cannabinoids in animals and therapeutic implications for veterinary medicine: a review

Landa¹,

Šulcová²,

Gbelec³

2016

Vet. Med. - Czech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cannabinoids/medical marijuana and their possible therapeutic use have received increased attention in human medicine during the last years. This increased attention is also an issue for veterinarians because particularly companion animal owners now show an increased interest in the use of these compounds in veterinary medicine. This review sets out to comprehensively summarise well known facts concerning properties of cannabinoids, their mechanisms of action, role of cannabinoid receptors and their classification. It outlines the main pharmacological effects of cannabinoids in laboratory rodents and it also discusses examples of possible beneficial use in other animal species (ferrets, cats, dogs, monkeys) that have been reported in the scientific literature. Finally, the article deals with the prospective use of cannabinoids in veterinary medicine. We have not intended to review the topic of cannabinoids in an exhaustive manner; rather, our aim was to provide both the scientific community and clinical veterinarians with a brief, concise and understandable overview of the use of cannabinoids in veterinary medicine.

show abstract

A double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, parallel group study of THC/CBD spray in peripheral neuropathic pain treatment

Cited by 164 publications

References 40 publications

Molecular Targets of Cannabidiol in Neurological Disorders

Molecular Targets of Cannabidiol in Neurological Disorders

Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid

The use of cannabinoids in animals and therapeutic implications for veterinary medicine: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About