Of these five reviews, Whiting et al. it was the most comprehensive, both in terms of the medical target conditions and in terms of the cannabinoids tested. In: Snedecor et al. it focused heavily on pain associated with spinal cord injury, did not include studies with cannabis, and identified only one study that examined cannabinoids. Two reviews on pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis did not contribute to clear studies or findings (Fitzcharles et al., 2016, and Richards et al., 2012).
Both proved to be superior to placebo and equivalent to the antiemetics available at the time of the original studies. Recent research suggests that dronabinol is equivalent to ondansetron in delayed nausea and vomiting, although no comparison has been made with the currently most widely used neurokinin-1 inhibitors. In the previous studies, patients reported a preference for cannabinoids over available active ingredients. Despite the abundance of anecdotal reports of the benefits of the cannabis plant, whether inhaled or taken orally, as an effective treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, there are no high-quality randomized trials investigating this option. This is partly due to the existing obstacles in the study of the potential therapeutic benefits of the cannabis plant. None of the reviewed studies have investigated the efficacy of cannabidiol or cannabidiol-enriched cannabis in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
This information was supplemented by a research in the primary literature from April 2015 to August 2016 as well as by additional context from Andreae et al. this was specific to the effect of inhaled cannabinoids. In both systematic reviews, only randomized placebo-controlled studies were examined. Whiting et al. they excluded studies from their primary analysis that did not use a parallel group design (i.e. excluded crossover studies) and performed quantitative grouping of the results. In contrast, Koppel et al. crossover studies were included, but quantitative grouping of results was not carried out. Oral THC preparations, nabilone and dronabinol, have been available for more than 30 years for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (Grotenhermen and Müller-Vahl, 2012).
As a reminder to the reader, some of the priority health endpoints discussed here in Part II are also reviewed in the chapters of Part III; however, the research findings in these chapters may differ. This is partly due to differences in the study design from the reviewed evidence (e.g. randomized controlled trials compared to epidemiological studies), differences in the characteristics of exposure to cannabis or cannabinoids (e.g. form, dose, frequency of use) and the populations studied. Therefore, it is important for the reader to know that this report was not intended to reconcile the proposed harms and benefits of using cannabis or cannabinoids in all chapters. CBD has been touted for a variety of health problems, but the strongest scientific evidence is its effectiveness in treating some of the most cruel childhood epilepsy syndromes, such as Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, which generally do not respond to antiseptics. In numerous studies, CBD has been able to reduce the number of seizures, and in some cases completely stop them. Epidiolex, which contains CBD, is the first drug from cannabis approved by the FDA for these diseases.
Patients with pain also use topical forms (for example, transdermal patches and creams). Therefore, while the use of cannabis to treat pain is supported by clinical trials that are well controlled, as described above, very little is known about the efficacy, dose, routes of administration or side effects of cannabis products that are commonly used and commercially available in the United States. Given the ubiquitous availability of cannabis products in large parts of the country, further research is needed on the various forms, routes of administration and combinations of cannabinoids. When those who did not use cannabis at the time of our first survey started using cannabis, they showed improvements in the same health measures that reflected the differences between cannabis users and non-users at the beginning.
They did not identify high-quality randomized trials and concluded that the existing data are not sufficient to support or refute the effectiveness of cannabinoids in reducing seizure frequency. The committee did not identify a good or high-quality systematic review reporting on medical cannabis as an effective treatment for symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. These types of studies are the gold standard in medicine, where participants are randomly divided and neither Green Roads CBD Review the subject nor the researcher knows which group is taking the placebo or the drug. The committee did not identify a good or high-quality systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of cannabinoids for the treatment or prevention of traumatic brain injury or intracranial hemorrhage. We identified two case series that reported the experiences of patients treated with cannabidiol for epilepsy, which were published according to the systematic reviews described above.
In its review, the committee noted that only a handful of studies have evaluated cannabis use in the United States, and all evaluated flower-shaped cannabis provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse that was vaporized or smoked. In contrast, many of the cannabis products sold on state-regulated markets bear little resemblance to the products available for research at the federal level in the United States. For example, between 498,170 and 721,599 units of medical and recreational cannabis edibles were sold monthly in Colorado in 2015 (Colorado DOR, 2016, p. 12).