Skip to main content
NCBI home page
BMJ Open logoLink to BMJ Open
. 2024 Jan 3;14(1):e068182. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068182

Cannabis for medical use versus opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Haron M Jeddi 1,✉, Jason W Busse 1,2,3, Behnam Sadeghirad 1,2,3, Mitchell Levine 1,4,5,6,7, Michael J Zoratti 1, Li Wang 2,3, Atefeh Noori 1,8, Rachel J Couban 2, Jean-Eric Tarride 1,6,7
PMCID: PMC10773353  PMID: 38171632

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain.

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources

EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 2021.

Study selection

Randomised trials comparing any type of cannabis for medical use or opioids, against each other or placebo, with patient follow-up ≥4 weeks.

Data extraction and synthesis

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. We used Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and communicate our findings.

Results

Ninety trials involving 22 028 patients were eligible for review, among which the length of follow-up ranged from 28 to 180 days. Moderate certainty evidence showed that opioids provide small improvements in pain, physical functioning and sleep quality versus placebo; low to moderate certainty evidence supported similar effects for cannabis versus placebo. Neither was more effective than placebo for role, social or emotional functioning (all high to moderate certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence showed there is probably little to no difference between cannabis for medical use and opioids for physical functioning (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.47 on the 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey physical component summary score, 95% credible interval (CrI) −1.97 to 2.99), and cannabis resulted in fewer discontinuations due to adverse events versus opioids (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.83). Low certainty evidence suggested little to no difference between cannabis and opioids for pain relief (WMD 0.23 cm on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 95% CrI −0.06 to 0.53) or sleep quality (WMD 0.49 mm on a 100 mm VAS, 95% CrI −4.72 to 5.59).

Conclusions

Cannabis for medical use may be similarly effective and result in fewer discontinuations than opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020185184.

Keywords: Pain management, Neurological pain, Back pain, PAIN MANAGEMENT

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY.

  • A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was used to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of cannabis for medical use and opioids for management of chronic non-cancer pain.

  • We conducted a comprehensive search for eligible trials and used the GRADE approach to appraise the certainty of evidence for treatment effects and focused our analysis on patient-important outcomes.

  • Twenty-four randomised controlled trials evaluating cannabis for medical use were included in our review; however, none of these trials administered inhaled forms of cannabis and the generalisability of our findings to smoked or vaporised cannabis is uncertain.

  • For the comparison of cannabis for medical use and opioids, the majority of our outcomes were informed by indirect evidence since we found only one trial directly comparing both interventions for chronic pain.

Introduction

Chronic non-cancer pain impacts 20% of the global population and is associated with reduced quality of life, disability and considerable socioeconomic burden.1–4 Opioids are commonly prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain and may provide improvement in pain relief, physical functioning and quality of sleep compared with placebo5; however, they are also associated with harms including addiction, overdose and death.6 7 There is a growing interest in cannabis as an alternative to long-term opioid use,8 and countries increasingly permit therapeutic use of cannabis.9 Two-thirds of cannabis for medical use users endorse management of chronic pain as their indication for use.10 Despite the increasing availability of cannabis for medical use, its use for chronic pain remains controversial due, in part, to conflicting recommendations. A 2019 guideline from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence made strong recommendations against the use of cannabis for chronic pain, and in 2021 the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) released a position statement against the use of cannabinoids for pain.11 12 Alternately, a 2021 BMJ Rapid Recommendation made a conditional recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled cannabis for medical use for people living with chronic pain if standard care was insufficient.13 The European Pain Federation also issued a position paper stating that cannabis-based medicines can be used by experienced physicians when guideline recommended first-line and second-line therapies for chronic pain do not provide sufficient benefit.14 We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the comparative benefits and harms of cannabis for medical use and opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

Methods

We adhered to the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension statement for NMA (PRISMA-NMA),15 registered our review on PROSPERO (CRD42020185184)16 and followed Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidance for communicating our findings.17

Data sources and searches

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 2021, without language restrictions, including grey literature from ClinicalTrials.gov. An experienced medical librarian developed database-specific search strategies (online supplemental eAppendix 1). We reviewed reference lists of eligible studies, and relevant reviews and guidelines, to identify additional studies. We included RCTs that enrolled ≥20 patients with chronic non-cancer pain (pain lasting ≥3 months), randomised them to any type of cannabis for therapeutic use, an opioid or placebo and followed them for ≥4 weeks to allow for sufficient time for functional outcomes to manifest among treatment responders.13 Trials including patients with chronic cancer and non-cancer pain were included if outcome data were reported separately. We excluded conference abstracts and trials of combination products (eg, opioids with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or antidepressants).

Supplementary data

bmjopen-2022-068182supp001.pdf (3.1MB, pdf)

Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, and full-text reports, and extracted data using standardised, pilot-tested forms using online systematic review software (DistillerSR, Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada; http://systematic-review.net/). For all eligible trials, we (LW, AN, RC and HMJ) collected information regarding study characteristics, intervention details, patient characteristics and all patient-important outcomes as guided by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials.18 19 Discrepancies were resolved by discussion or, when necessary, by an adjudicator.

Risk of bias assessment

Risk of bias was assessed for eligible studies, independently and in duplicate, by pairs of reviewers using a modified Cochrane risk of bias instrument (RoB 1.0) according to the following domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, caregivers, outcome assessors, and data analysts, and loss to follow-up (≥20% missing data were considered as high risk of bias).20 21

Data analysis

Instruments used in the RCTs mostly consisted of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Numerical Rating Scale for measuring pain intensity and sleep quality, and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) for other important patient outcomes (eg, physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning and social functioning). These instruments are reliable and valid in chronic pain populations.22–24 Online supplemental eTable 1 lists additional instruments that were used to capture patient-important outcomes and references supporting their psychometric properties. We converted continuous measures to common scales on a domain-by-domain basis when different instruments were used to measure the same construct by rescaling the mean and SD of the other instruments: (1) pain relief to a 10 cm VAS; (2) physical functioning to the 100-point SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) score; (3) emotional functioning to the 100-point SF-36 mental component summary (MCS) score; (4) role functioning to the 100-point SF-36 subscale for role limitations due to physical problems; (5) social functioning to the 100-point SF-36 subscale for social functioning and (6) sleep quality to a 100 mm VAS.25

We calculated direct estimates for any comparison reported by two or more studies as the weighted mean difference (WMD) and associated 95% credible interval (95% CrI) using change score from baseline to the end of follow-up to address interpatient variability. When SDs for continuous outcomes were not reported by study authors, they were estimated using confidence intervals or exact p values.26 To optimise interpretability of our findings for statistically significant continuous outcomes, we used the network estimate of treatment effects to model the risk difference (RD) for achieving the minimally important difference (MID) or higher. We used an MID of 1 cm for the 10 cm VAS for pain,27 10 mm for sleep quality, 10 points for SF-36 subscales (role and social functioning) and 5 points for SF-36 PCS and MCS scores.28 29

For discontinuations due to adverse events, we used a binomial likelihood distribution and logit link to generate the pooled OR with corresponding 95% CrI. We constructed separate models for enriched and non-enriched trials, as enriched trials typically exclude patients who report problematic adverse events during an open-label run-in period prior to randomisation.30 For estimating the number of patients expected to discontinue due to adverse events, we calculated the absolute effects for network estimates by multiplying the OR and its 95% CrI with the estimated baseline risk for discontinuations due to adverse events. We used median risk in the placebo group of included randomised trials as the baseline risk.

For studies that reported outcomes at several time points, we used data from the longest follow-up. We performed all conventional pairwise meta-analyses using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Heterogeneity between RCTs for each direct comparison was assessed with visual inspection of forest plots and the I2 statistic.31 For all direct comparisons, we assessed small study effects using funnel plots and Egger’s test when 10 or more trials were available.32

The feasibility of conducting a random-effects Bayesian NMA was assessed for all outcomes—this included assessing homogeneity of included studies, patients, and intervention characteristics, and network connectivity. We used edge-splitting (side-splitting) to evaluate the consistency of relative treatment effects between direct (eg, pairwise meta-analysis) and indirect evidence, and leverage plots to visually inspect model fit.33 Models were programmed with three chains, and the convergence was assessed using the Gelman-Rubin statistic.34 All analyses began with a burn-in phase (1000 iterations), followed by 100 000 iterations with 1000 adaptations. We used non-informative priors with mean 0 and SD 15u, where u is the largest maximum likelihood estimator of treatment differences on the linear scale in single trials.35 Statistical superiority was asserted when the 95% CrI excluded the null effect (ie, 0.0 for WMDs and 1.0 for ORs). All analyses were programmed in R V.3.5.3 (https://www.R-project.org) using BUGSnet.35

We tested the following a priori subgroup hypotheses that treatment effects were associated with: (1) neuropathic versus non-neuropathic pain; (2) shorter versus longer (≤2 months vs >2 months) follow-up; (3) trials at risk of bias (on a criterion-by-criterion basis); (4) enriched enrolment trials versus not enriched and (5) higher opioid doses versus lower opioid doses by evaluating the following morphine milligram equivalent (MME) per day thresholds: (1) high=MME >100 mg; (2) intermediate=MME 50–99 mg and (3) low=MME<50 mg. We assessed the credibility of significant subgroup effects (ie, test of interaction p≤0.05) with the ICEMAN tool.36 We used network meta-regression to explore the association between treatment effects and length of follow-up and sample size. The deviance information criterion (DIC) was used to assess model fit.

Quality of evidence

We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes and effect estimates from NMA.37 Ratings of the certainty of evidence for direct and indirect estimates included assessment of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, publication bias and intransitivity (only for indirect estimates). We judged network estimates as imprecise if the 95% CrI included half the MID for continuous outcomes (eg, 0.5 cm for pain) or the null effect (OR of 1) for discontinuation due to adverse events.

Role of the funding source

The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and the public were not involved in this research.

Results

Of 20 012 citations identified, 90 studies from 89 publications proved eligible for review (figure 1, online supplemental eAppendix 2–3). No trials of inhaled cannabis were eligible for our review due to inadequate duration of follow-up (<4 weeks). Sixty-six trials compared opioids to placebo,38–102 23 trials compared cannabis for medical use to placebo103–125 and 1 trial126 randomised patients to nabilone or dihydrocodeine. The evidence network for all our outcomes is presented in figure 2. Among the included studies, the median of the mean age of participants was 56 years (IQR 50–62), 58% were female, the median of the mean duration of pain was 8.1 years (IQR 5.0–12.7) and the median of the mean pain score at enrolment was 6.05 (IQR 4.65–6.90). Twenty-nine trials enrolled patients with neuropathic pain, 60 with non-neuropathic pain and 1 trial enrolled patients with mixed pain. (Table 1 and online supplemental eTable 2 for details on the pain conditions and other baseline characteristics).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Study selection process for the systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Evidence network for network meta-analysis outcomes.

Table 1.

Summary of study participant characteristics included in eligible randomised controlled trials

No of trials No of patients Age, median of mean (IQR) % female, median of mean
(IQR)		 Baseline pain score, median of mean (min–max) No of studies by pain type* No of studies by intervention dose/format* Follow-up, median days (min–max) Trial type*
Opioids versus placebo
 66 18 401 58
(50–62)		 56
(44.5–62)		 6.01
(1.87–7.83)		 Neuropathic pain,
n=18 (27%)
Non-neuropathic, n=47 (71%)
Mixed,
n=1 (2%)		 MME >90 mg,
n=14 (21%)
MME 50–90 mg,
n=19 (29%)
MME <50 mg,
n=21 (32%)
Dose details not reported
n=12 (18%)		 84
(28–180)		 Enriched
n=20 (30%)
non-enriched
n=46
(70%)
Cannabis for medical use versus placebo
 23 3435 53
(50–58)		 62
(40–70)		 6.28
(2.15–7.80)		 Neuropathic pain,
n=10 (43%)
non-neuropathic,
n=13 (57%)		 PEA,
n=2 (9%)
THC/CBD,
n=11 (48%)
THC,
n=7 (30%)
CBD
n=2 (9%)
CBDV
n=1 (4%)		 51
(28–112)		 Enriched
n=3
(13%)
non-enriched
n=20 (87%)
Cannabis for medical use versus opioids
 1 192 50 26 6.72 Neuropathic pain,
n=1 (100%)		 THC,
n=1
(100%)		 42 Non-enriched
n=1 (100%)
Open in a new tab

*Values in parenthesis are percentage of trials.

CBD, cannabidiol; CBDV, cannibidivarin; MME, morphine milligram equivalent; PEA, palmitoylethanolamide; THC, tetrahydrocannabinol.

Most trials (75 of 90; 83%) were judged to be at high risk of bias for at least one domain. Adequate generation of a randomisation sequence was reported by 53 (59%) trials, 64 (71%) reported concealment of allocation, and almost all trials reported blinding of patients (99%) and healthcare providers and data collectors (98%) (online supplemental eTable 3). Sixty-five (72%) trials reported ≥20% missing outcome data (online supplemental eTable 3). We did not find evidence of incoherence. For closed-loop networks, consistency was met based on DIC values. For open loop networks, direct and indirect estimates are reported separately (online supplemental eTable 4, 5 and online supplemental eFigure 1).

Moderate certainty evidence showed that, compared with placebo, opioids provide small improvements in pain (modelled RD for achieving the MID 15%, 95% CrI 13% to 17%), physical functioning (modelled RD for achieving the MID 5%, 95% CrI 3% to 8%) and sleep quality (modelled RD for achieving the MID 8%, 95% CrI 4% to 13%). Low to moderate certainty evidence supported similar effects for cannabis for medical use versus placebo. Neither was more effective than placebo for role, social or emotional functioning (all high to moderate certainty evidence) (table 2, online supplemental eTable 4 and online supplemental eFigure 2–13).

Table 2.

Treatment effects and certainty of evidence (GRADE) for opioids and cannabis for medical use in patients with chronic non-cancer pain

Comparison Direct evidence Indirect evidence Network estimate
WMD
(95% CrI)		 RD for achieving the MID
(95% CI)		 GRADE
No of trials (patients) Treatment effect
WMD
(95% CI)		 No of trials (patients) Treatment effect
WMD
(95% CI)
Pain relief: 10 cm VAS for pain; lower is better; MID=1 cm
 Opioids versus placebo 62
(17 431)		 −0.84
(−0.99 to −0.69)		 62
(17 431)		 −0.83
(−0.97 to −0.70)		 −0.83
(−0.97 to −0.70)		 15%
(13% to 17%)		 Moderate
 Cannabis for medical use versus placebo 19
(2116)		 −0.63
(−0.94 to −0.32)		 19
(2116)		 −0.59
(−0.88 to −0.32)		 −0.60
(−0.87 to −0.33)		 11%
(6% to 15%)		 Low
 Cannabis for medical use versus opioids 1
(146)		 0.13
(−0.54 to 0.80)		 81
(19 547)		 0.24
(−0.07 to 0.55)		 0.23
(−0.06 to 0.53)		 – Low
Physical functioning: 0–100 point SF-36 PCS score; higher is better; MID=5 points
 Opioids versus placebo 32
(10 926)		 2.38
(1.05 to 3.72)		 – – 2.05
(1.01, 3.29)		 5%
(3% to 8%)		 Moderate
 Cannabis for medical use versus placebo 12
(1801)		 3.00
(0.08 to 5.91)		 – – 2.52
(0.37, 4.91)		 6%
(1% to 12%)		 Moderate
 Cannabis for medical use versus opioids – – 44
(12 727)		 0.47
(−1.97 to 2.99)		 0.47
(−1.97 to 2.99)		 – Moderate
Emotional functioning: 0–100 point SF-36 MCS score; higher is better; MID=5 points
 Opioids versus placebo 22
(7267)		 −0.00
(−1.09 to 1.09)		 – −0.15
(−1.10 to 0.92)		 High
 Cannabis for medical use versus placebo 8
(1515)		 0.72
(−1.01 to 2.45)		 – 0.70
(−1.42 to 2.84)		 Moderate
 Cannabis for medical use versus opioids – 30
(8782)		 0.85
(−1.55 to 3.18)		 0.85
(−1.55 to 3.18)		 Low
Role functioning: 0–100 point SF-36 subscale for role limitations due to physical problems; higher is better; MID=10 points
 Opioids versus placebo 13
(3661)		 0.91
(−1.17 to 2.98)		 − 0.94
(−1.26 to 3.17)		 Moderate
 Cannabis for medical use versus placebo 5
(528)		 1.27
(−12.39 to 14.93)		 − 0.88
(−3.78 to 6.05)		 Moderate
 Cannabis for medical use versus opioids − 18
(4189)		 −0.05
(−5.16 to 5.60)		 −0.05
(−5.16 to 5.60)		 Moderate
Social functioning: 0–100 point SF-36 subscale for social functioning; higher is better; MID=10 points
 Opioids versus placebo 14
(4075)		 0.47
(−1.47 to 2.41)		 − 1.17
(−1.72 to 4.58)		 Moderate
 Cannabis for medical use versus placebo 6
(795)		 −1.82
(−5.79 to 2.15)		 − 1.70
(−3.28 to 8.13)		 Moderate
 Cannabis for medical use versus opioids − 20
(4870)		 0.55
(−5.34 to 7.41)		 0.55
(−5.34 to 7.41)		 Moderate
Sleep quality: 100 mm VAS for sleep quality; higher is better; MID=10 mm
 Opioids versus placebo 21
(6677)		 5.55
(2.67 to 8.43)		 − 5.46
(2.62 to 8.59)		 8%
(4% to 13%)		 Moderate
 Cannabis for medical use versus placebo 11
(1524)		 6.04
(1.43 to 10.66)		 − 5.95
(1.82 to 10.24)		 9%
(3% to 15%)		 Low
 Cannabis for medical use versus opioids − 32
(8201)		 0.49
(−4.72 to 5.59)		 0.49
(−4.72 to 5.59)		 Low
Discontinuations due to adverse events (enriched trials)
 Opioids versus placebo 20
(6699)		 OR, 1.39
(1.04 to 1.86)		 – OR, 1.25
(0.91, 1.67)		 Low
 Cannabis for medical use versus placebo 2
(132)		 OR, 5.00
(0.25 to 101.7)		 – OR, 0.96
(0.09 to 10.80)		 Low
 Cannabis for medical use versus opioids – 22
(6831)		 OR, 0.77
(0.07, 8.83)		 OR, 0.77
(0.07 to 8.83)		 Low
Discontinuations due to adverse events (non-enriched trials)
 Opioids versus placebo 35
(11 019)		 OR, 3.58
(3.00 to 4.27)		 35
(11 019)		 OR, 3.27
(2.70 to 3.93)		 OR, 3.27
(2.71 to 3.90)		 10%
(8% to 12%)		 Moderate
 Cannabis for medical use versus placebo 15
(1801)		 OR, 2.47
(1.49 to 4.11)		 15
(1801)		 OR, 1.78
(1.15 to 2.63)		 OR, 1.80
(1.19 to 2.63)		 4%
(1% to 7%)		 High
 Cannabis for medical use versus opioids 1
(192)		 OR, 0.50
(0.16, 1.61)		 50
(12 820)		 OR, 0.54
(0.34 to 0.84)		 OR, 0.55
(0.36 to 0.83)		 Moderate
Open in a new tab

CrI, credible interval; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; MCS, mental component summary; MID, minimally important difference; PCS, physical component summary; RD, risk difference; SF36, 36-item Short Form Survey; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; WMD, weighted mean difference.

Low certainty evidence from 82 RCTs involving 19 693 patients suggested that there may be little to no difference in pain relief between cannabis for medical use and opioids (WMD 0.23 cm on a 10 cm VAS, 95% CrI −0.06 to 0.53) (table 2, online supplemental eFigure 1 and online supplemental eTable 4). Moderate certainty evidence from 44 RCTs involving 12 727 patients shows there is probably little to no difference in physical functioning with cannabis for medical use compared with opioids (WMD 0.47 points on the 100-point SF-36 PSC score, 95% CrI −1.97 to 2.99) (table 2, online supplemental eTable 4). Low certainty evidence from 32 RCTs involving 8201 patients suggests that there may be little to no difference in sleep quality between cannabis for medical use and opioids (WMD 0.49 mm on a 100 mm VAS, 95% CrI −4.72 to 5.59) (table 2, online supplemental eTable 4). There were insufficient data to construct networks for health-related quality of life (online supplemental eAppendix 4).

Discontinuations due to adverse events were reported in 22 enrichment trials (6 831 patients) and in 51 non-enrichment trials (13 012 patients). Among enrichment trials, low certainty evidence suggests that there may be little to no difference in discontinuations due to adverse events between cannabis for medical use and opioids (OR 0.77, 95% CrI 0.07 to 8.83). Moderate certainty evidence shows that in non-enriched studies, discontinuations due to adverse events are probably less for cannabis for medical use versus opioids (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.83) (table 2). Moderate and high certainty evidence showed that, compared with placebo, opioids and cannabis for medical use, respectively, probably result in higher discontinuations compared with placebo (modelled RD for achieving the MID for opioids vs placebo, 10%, 95% CrI 8% to 12%; cannabis for medical use vs placebo, 4%, 95% CrI 1% to 7%) (table 2, online supplemental eFigure 14–17).

We found no evidence of credible subgroup effects based on the type of pain condition (neuropathic vs non-neuropathic), length of follow-up, sample size or opioid dose (table 3, online supplemental eTable 6–12).

Table 3.

Subgroup analysis for pain and secondary outcomes with moderate to high certainty evidence

Subgroup factors Pain relief Physical functioning Role functioning Social functioning Discontinuations due to adverse events (non-enriched)
WMD
95% CrI		 WMD
95% CrI		 WMD
95% CrI		 WMD
95% CrI		 OR
95% CrI
Clinical condition Neuropathic 0.74
(0.30,1.12) 		−0.67
(−4.46, 3.28)		 −4.66
(−21.16,5.49)		 −8.09
(−16.89,–0.69) 		0.91
(0.48, 1.76)
Non-neuropathic −0.12
(−0.55,0.30)		 0.97
(−2.67, 4.72)		 9.81
(−1.55,21.10)		 1.01
(−3.01,4.75)		 *0.34*
(0.15, 0.67)
Length of follow-up ≤2 months 0.04
(−0.36,0.45)		 2.35
(−2.72,6.56)		 8.59
(−3.64,20.37)		 −0.31
(−8.27,7.79)		 *0.42* (0.20, 0.79)
>2 months 0.41
(−0.04,0.85)		 −0.75
(−3.83, 2.38)		 −2.48
(−11.89, 5.23)		 −2.26
(−9.50,2.29)		 0.65
(0.37, 1.16)
Adequate randomisation Yes 0.14
(−0.25,0.53)		 0.36
(−2.14, 3.03)		 2.92
(−9.96,15.78)		 0.07
(−4.45,4.34)		 *0.48*
(0.27, 0.79)
No 0.37
(−0.19,0.92)		 0.01
(−10.42, 9.03)		 −4.55
(−26.29,14.71)		 −6.93
(−21.75,6.27)		 0.77
(0.31, 1.86)
Adequate concealment Yes 0.25
(−0.08,0.58)		 0.87
(−1.43, 3.37)		 −0.81
(−6.88,5.75)		 −2.02
(−6.75,1.60)		 *0.51*
(0.31, 0.79)
No NA NA NA NA NA
Industry funded trials Yes 0.23
(−0.13,0.58)		 0.72
(−2.02, 3.52)		 −0.71
(−6.86,5.72)		 −0.62
(−4.94,2.69)		 *0.55*
(0.33, 0.92)
No 0.32
(−0.78,1.39)		 −4.57
(−15.20, 6.66)		 −4.59
(−18.01,14.04)		 −0.62
(−10.78,10.11)		 0.77
(0.09, 3.75)
Loss to follow-up High (≥20%) *0.53*
(0.08,0.98)		 −0.39
(−5.45, 4.52)		 1.40
(−3.77, 8.21)		 −3.31
(−8.10,1.48)		 0.63
(0.36, 1.11)
Low (<20%) −0.09
(−0.64,0.38)		 0.86
(−3.74, 6.97)		 −18.49
(−51.56,8.85)		 0.32
(−17.97,13.13)		 0.79
(0.13, 2.97)
Study design Enrichment −0.65
(−1.65,0.35)		 NA −22.92
(−61.99,16.11)		 −14.19
(−40.56,12.39)		 NA
Non-enrichment 0.25
(−0.07,0.57)		 0.37
(−2.57, 3.19)		 0.55
(−5.34, 7.41)		 −1.54
(−6.21,2.32)
Open in a new tab

All values in bold are statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level.

*Unless otherwise indicated. Results are cannabis for medical use versus opioids. Pain relief for neuropathic pain versus non-neuropathic p=0.004. Social functioning for neuropathic pain versus non-neuropathic p=0.047. P value based on test of interaction. Number of studies and p values for all comparisons are available in online supplemental eTable 7.

CrI, credible interval; NA, not available; WMD, weighted mean difference.

Discussion

This NMA of 90 trials that enrolled 22 028 people living with chronic non-cancer pain provides low certainty evidence that cannabis for medical use is similarly effective to opioids for pain relief and sleep quality, and moderate certainty evidence for similar effects on physical functioning. The magnitude of effects versus placebo for cannabis for medical use or opioids was modest, with the modelled RD for achieving the MID for pain, physical functioning and sleep ranging from 5% to 15%. Moderate certainty evidence also suggests that the use of cannabis for medical use versus opioids resulted in fewer discontinuations due to adverse events. Moderate to high certainty evidence showed that neither opioids nor cannabis for medical use were effective for improving emotional, social or role functioning among people living with chronic pain.

Our study, which is the first NMA exploring the comparative effectiveness of cannabis for medical use and opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, has several strengths. We conducted a comprehensive search strategy, including grey literature from ClinicalTrials.gov, used the GRADE approach to appraise the certainty of evidence for treatment effects and followed GRADE guidance for communicate our findings. We evaluated harms using discontinuations due to adverse events to facilitate pooling across trials. Further, we explored subgroup effects and assessed their credibility according to current best practices.

Clinical guidelines for chronic non-cancer pain recommend optimisation of non-opioid-based pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies prior to initiating opioids.127–129 However, approximately one-third of all patients living with chronic non-cancer pain are prescribed opioids130; and increasing concerns regarding harms of long-term opioid therapy has generated enthusiasm for alternatives, including cannabis for medical use.131 In part, because some observational studies (but not others132 133) have shown an association between legalisation of cannabis for medical use and reduced prevalence of opioid use disorder and opioid overdose.134 135 Although prone to measured and unmeasured confounding bias, recent observational studies and studies using registry data have also shown favourable improvements in pain and health-related quality of life outcomes for cannabis for medical use when compared with opioids.136–139 Moreover, users of cannabis for medical use acknowledge substitution of prescription medication, particularly opioids, as a common motive.140 141 This issue is controversial,142 however, and recent guidelines have provided conflicting recommendations regarding the effectiveness of cannabis for medical use for chronic pain and whether the use of cannabis reduces opioid consumption.11–13 143 An important limitation of prior evidence syntheses is the scarcity of trials directly comparing cannabis for medical use against opioids for chronic pain. These treatment options are mostly trialled against placebo, and NMA can, therefore, establish comparative effectiveness by virtue of this common compactor. Our findings suggest that both opioids and cannabis for medical use may provide benefits for a minority of chronic pain patients (eg, compared with placebo, 10%–15% of patients experience a 1 cm or greater relief in pain on a 10 cm scale). However, reviews of patient values and preferences show that people living with chronic pain place a high value on the possibility of achieving small but important pain relief.144 145 Furthermore, cannabis does not cause respiratory depression which can result from opioids consumption and lead to non-fatal or fatal overdose.146

Future research should directly compare the effectiveness of opioids versus cannabis for chronic pain, and follow patients sufficiently to inform long-term benefits and harms. Trials should report all outcome measures of importance to people who live with chronic pain.18 19 147 Randomised trials are also needed to establish the opioid-substitution effects of cannabis for chronic pain, and observational studies to inform long-term and infrequent harms of both cannabis for medical use and opioids for chronic pain (eg, overdose and addiction).

There are some limitations associated with our study. None of the trials eligible for our review explored inhaled cannabis, and our results may not be generalisable to this method of administration. We excluded trials with combination drugs because results may be confounded by the additional drugs. As such, our results may not reflect outcomes where opioids or cannabis are used in combination with other drugs (eg, tramadol and acetaminophen). The cannabis plant contains over 500 chemical substances and the main cannabinoids included in most RCTs are tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) or THC/CBD and not the full plant. We pooled different opioids and types of cannabis for medical use that may not be common forms of products used in the real world; however, subgroup analysis suggests that effects for chronic pain are similar across different opioids and cannabis for medical use products.148 149 Further, an NMA found no evidence to support important differences in pain relief, functional improvement or gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of opioids.148 In order to facilitate pooling, we reported harms as discontinuations due to adverse events instead of reporting specific adverse events experienced by trial participants. In other meta-analyses of RCTs, cannabis for medical use was associated with greater central nervous system and gastrointestinal adverse events versus placebo.149 150 Both opioids and cannabis for medical use can result in use disorders151 152 while opioids can also result in fatal and non-fatal overdose; however, we were unable to construct a network to explore the comparative risk of these important harms as RCTs are poorly suited to detect rare harms or harms that take a while to manifest. We do not feel our analysis suffers from serious intransitivity as the distribution of potential effect modifiers were well balanced across the included studies.153 Our results for opioids may be overestimated due to small study effects from the included RCTs for pain relief, physical functioning and sleep and for pain relief in the cannabis RCTs.

Conclusions

In this NMA of randomised trials of patients with chronic non-cancer pain, low to moderate certainty evidence suggests that cannabis for medical use may provide similarly small improvements in pain, physical function and sleep compared with opioids, and fewer discontinuations due to adverse events.

Supplementary Material

Reviewer comments
bmjopen-2022-068182.reviewer_comments.pdf (401.1KB, pdf)
Author's manuscript
bmjopen-2022-068182.draft_revisions.pdf (12MB, pdf)

Footnotes

Twitter: @JasonWBusse

Contributors: HMJ, JWB, BS, ML and JET conceived and designed the study. HMJ, LW, AN and RJC acquired the data. HMJ, JWB, BS and MJZ contributed to the statistical analyses. HMJ performed the statistical analyses. All authors interpreted the data and could access data included in the study. HMJ, JWB and JET drafted the manuscript. All authors made critical revisions to the article for important intellectual content and gave final approval for the article. HMJ guarantor of work.

Funding: Parts of this study were supported by grant 119801 and FRN 147994, Co-PIs: JWB and MA Ware from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and grant 1516-HQ-000017 from Health Canada. JWB is supported, in part, by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Canada Research Chair in Prevention & Management of Chronic Pain.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

References

  • 1.Dahlhamer J, Lucas J, Zelaya, C, et al. Prevalence of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain among adults - United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67:1001–6. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6736a2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.van Hecke O, Torrance N, Smith BH. Chronic pain epidemiology and its clinical relevance. Br J Anaesth 2013;111:13–8. 10.1093/bja/aet123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, et al. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain 2006;10:287–333. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sá KN, Moreira L, Baptista AF, et al. Prevalence of chronic pain in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Rep 2019;4:e779. 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Busse JW, Wang L, Kamaleldin M, et al. Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2018;320:2448–60. 10.1001/jama.2018.18472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain—United States, 2016. JAMA 2016;315:1624–45. 10.1001/jama.2016.1464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Humphreys K, Shover CL, Andrews CM, et al. Responding to the opioid crisis in North America and beyond: recommendations of the Stanford-lancet commission. Lancet 2022;399:555–604. 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02252-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.The lancet rheumatology . Medical cannabis: bridging the evidence gap. Lancet Rheumatol 2019;1:e195. 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30099-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Abuhasira R, Shbiro L, Landschaft Y. Medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids containing products - regulations in Europe and North America. Eur J Intern Med 2018;49:2–6. 10.1016/j.ejim.2018.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Boehnke KF, Gangopadhyay S, Clauw DJ, et al. Qualifying conditions of medical cannabis license holders in the United States. Health Affairs 2019;38:295–302. 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05266 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Evidence review for chronic pain: cannabis-based medicinal products: evidence review B. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), 2019. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK577083/ [accessed 5 Dec 2021]. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.IASP Presidential Task Force on Cannabis and Cannabinoid Analgesia . International association for the study of pain presidential task force on cannabis and cannabinoid analgesia position statement. Pain 2021;162:S1–2. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Busse JW, Vankrunkelsven P, Zeng L, et al. Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ 2021;374:2040. 10.1136/bmj.n2040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Häuser W, Finn DP, Kalso E, et al. European pain federation (EFIC) position paper on appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for chronic pain management. Eur J Pain 2018;22:1547–64. 10.1002/ejp.1297 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:777–84. 10.7326/M14-2385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jeddi M, Levine M, Busse JW, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of cannabis versus opioids for the treatment of chronic non cancer pain [CRD42020185184]. PROSPERO; 2020. Available: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020185184 [Accessed 1 Dec 2020]. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Santesso N, Glenton C, Dahm P, et al. GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;119:126–35. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2003;106:337–45. 10.1016/j.pain.2003.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Revicki D, et al. Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: an IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain 2008;137:276–85. 10.1016/j.pain.2007.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Akl EA, Sun X, Busse JW, et al. Specific instructions for estimating unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:262–7. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. 10.1136/bmj.d5928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Patel KV, Amtmann D, Jensen MP, et al. Clinical outcome assessment in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Pain Rep 2021;6:e784. 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000784 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, et al. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011;41:1073–93. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Safikhani S, Gries KS, Trudeau JJ, et al. Response scale selection in adult pain measures: results from a literature review. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2017;2:40. 10.1186/s41687-018-0053-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, et al. Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis-a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability: enhancing interpretability in continuous meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2011;2:188–203. 10.1002/jrsm.46 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 1st ed. Wiley, 2019. 10.1002/9781119536604 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008;9:105–21. 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zisapel N, Nir T. Determination of the minimal clinically significant difference on a patient visual analog sleep quality scale: minimal important difference in sleep quality. J Sleep Res 2003;12:291–8. 10.1046/j.0962-1105.2003.00365.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ward MM, Guthrie LC, Alba MI. Clinically important changes in short form 36 health survey scales for use in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: the impact of low responsiveness: minimum clinically important improvements for SF-36 scales. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014;66:1783–9. 10.1002/acr.22392 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Furlan A, Chaparro LE, Irvin E, et al. A comparison between enriched and nonenriched enrollment randomized withdrawal trials of opioids for chronic noncancer pain. Pain Res Manag 2011;16:337–51. 10.1155/2011/465281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, et al., eds. Chapter 10: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3.cochrane. 2022. Available: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JAC. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 2006;25:3443–57. 10.1002/sim.2380 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, et al. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 2010;29:932–44. 10.1002/sim.3767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gelman A, Rubin DB. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statist Sci 1992;7. 10.1214/ss/1177011136 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Béliveau A, Boyne DJ, Slater J, et al. BUGSnet: an R package to facilitate the conduct and reporting of Bayesian network meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:196. 10.1186/s12874-019-0829-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Schandelmaier S, Briel M, Varadhan R, et al. Development of the instrument to assess the credibility of effect modification analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. CMAJ 2020;192:E901–6. 10.1503/cmaj.200077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, et al. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998;316:690–3. 10.1136/bmj.316.7132.690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Afilalo M, Etropolski MS, Kuperwasser B, et al. Efficacy and safety of tapentadol extended release compared with oxycodone controlled release for the management of moderate to severe chronic pain related to osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase III study. Clin Drug Investig 2010;30:489–505. 10.2165/11533440-000000000-00000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Arai T, Kashimoto Y, Ukyo Y, et al. Two placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal studies to evaluate the fentanyl 1 day patch in opioid-naïve patients with chronic pain. Curr Med Res Opin 2015;31:2207–18. 10.1185/03007995.2015.1092127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Babul N, Noveck R, Chipman H, et al. Efficacy and safety of extended-release, once-daily tramadol in chronic pain: a randomized 12-week clinical trial in osteoarthritis of the knee. J Pain Symptom Manage 2004;28:59–71. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Boureau F, Legallicier P, Kabir-Ahmadi M. Tramadol in post-herpetic neuralgia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Pain 2003;104:323–31. 10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00020-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Breivik H, Ljosaa TM, Stengaard-Pedersen K, et al. A 6-months, randomised, placebo-controlled evaluation of efficacy and tolerability of a low-dose 7-day buprenorphine transdermal patch in osteoarthritis patients naïve to potent opioids. Scand J Pain 2010;1:235. 10.1016/j.sjpain.2010.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Burch F, Fishman R, Messina N, et al. A comparison of the analgesic efficacy of tramadol contramid OAD versus placebo in patients with pain due to osteoarthritis. J Pain Symptom Manage 2007;34:328–38. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.11.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Buynak R, Shapiro DY, Okamoto A, et al. Efficacy and safety of tapentadol extended release for the management of chronic low back pain: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase III study. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2010;11:1787–804. 10.1517/14656566.2010.497720 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Caldwell JR, Hale ME, Boyd RE, et al. Treatment of osteoarthritis pain with controlled release oxycodone or fixed combination oxycodone plus acetaminophen added to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: a double blind, randomized, multicenter, placebo controlled trial. J Rheumatol 1999;26:862–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Caldwell JR, Rapoport RJ, Davis JC, et al. Efficacy and safety of a once-daily morphine formulation in chronic, moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis pain: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial and an open-label extension trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002;23:278–91. 10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00383-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Christoph A, Eerdekens MH, Kok M, et al. Cebranopadol, a novel first-in-class analgesic drug candidate: first experience in patients with chronic low back pain in a randomized clinical trial. Pain 2017;158:1813–24. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000986 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chu LF, D’Arcy N, Brady C, et al. Analgesic tolerance without demonstrable opioid-induced hyperalgesia: a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of sustained-release morphine for treatment of chronic nonradicular low-back pain. Pain 2012;153:1583–92. 10.1016/j.pain.2012.02.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.DeLemos BP, Xiang J, Benson C, et al. Tramadol hydrochloride extended-release once-daily in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee and/or hip: a double-blind, randomized, dose-ranging trial. Am J Ther 2011;18:216–26. 10.1097/MJT.0b013e3181cec307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Fishman RL, Kistler CJ, Ellerbusch MT, et al. Efficacy and safety of 12 weeks of osteoarthritic pain therapy with once-daily tramadol (tramadol contramid OAD). J Opioid Manag 2007;3:273–80. 10.5055/jom.2007.0015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Fleischmann RM, Caldwell JR, Roth SH, et al. Tramadol for the treatment of joint pain associated with osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Curr Ther Res 2001;62:113–28. 10.1016/S0011-393X(01)80021-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Friedmann N, Klutzaritz V, Webster L. Efficacy and safety of an extended-release oxycodone (Remoxy) formulation in patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritic pain. J Opioid Manag 2011;7:193–202. 10.5055/jom.2011.0062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gana TJ, Pascual MLG, Fleming RRB, et al. Extended-release tramadol in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:1391–401. 10.1185/030079906X115595 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gilron I, Bailey JM, Tu D, et al. Morphine, gabapentin, or their combination for neuropathic pain. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1324–34. 10.1056/NEJMoa042580 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Gimbel J, Spierings ELH, Katz N, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of buccal buprenorphine in opioid-experienced patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain: results of a phase 3, enriched enrollment, randomized withdrawal study. Pain 2016;157:2517–26. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000670 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Gimbel JS, Richards P, Portenoy RK. Controlled-release oxycodone for pain in diabetic neuropathy: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology 2003;60:927–34. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000057720.36503.2c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Gordon A, Callaghan D, Spink D, et al. Buprenorphine transdermal system in adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study, followed by an open-label extension phase. Clin Ther 2010;32:844–60. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.04.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Gordon A, Rashiq S, Moulin DE, et al. Buprenorphine transdermal system for opioid therapy in patients with chronic low back pain. Pain Res Manag 2010;15:169–78. 10.1155/2010/216725 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Hale M, Khan A, Kutch M, et al. Once-daily OROS hydromorphone ER compared with placebo in opioid-tolerant patients with chronic low back pain. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26:1505–18. 10.1185/03007995.2010.484723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hale ME, Ahdieh H, Ma T, et al. Efficacy and safety of OPANA ER (oxymorphone extended release) for relief of moderate to severe chronic low back pain in opioid-experienced patients: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Pain 2007;8:175–84. 10.1016/j.jpain.2006.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Hale ME, Zimmerman TR, Eyal E, et al. Efficacy and safety of a hydrocodone extended-release tablet formulated with abuse-deterrence technology in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain. J Opioid Manag 2015;11:507–18. 10.5055/jom.2015.0304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Harati Y, Gooch C, Swenson M, et al. Double-blind randomized trial of tramadol for the treatment of the pain of diabetic neuropathy. Neurology 1998;50:1842–6. 10.1212/wnl.50.6.1842 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Huse E, Larbig W, Flor H, et al. The effect of opioids on phantom limb pain and cortical reorganization. Pain 2001;90:47–55. 10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00385-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Katz N, Kopecky EA, O’Connor M, et al. A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, safety, tolerability, and efficacy study of Xtampza ER in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain. Pain 2015;156:2458–67. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Katz N, Rauck R, Ahdieh H, et al. A 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessing the safety and efficacy of oxymorphone extended release for opioid-naive patients with chronic low back pain. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:117–28. 10.1185/030079906x162692 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kawamata M, Iseki M, Kawakami M, et al. Efficacy and safety of controlled-release oxycodone for the management of moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain in Japan: results of an enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal study followed by an open-label extension study. J Pain Res 2019;12:363–75. 10.2147/JPR.S179110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Khoromi S, Cui L, Nackers L, et al. Morphine, nortriptyline and their combination vs. placebo in patients with chronic lumbar root pain. Pain 2007;130:66–75. 10.1016/j.pain.2006.10.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Langford R, McKenna F, Ratcliffe S, et al. Transdermal fentanyl for improvement of pain and functioning in osteoarthritis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:1829–37. 10.1002/art.21884 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Lin JC, Chu LF, Stringer EA, et al. One month of oral morphine decreases gray matter volume in the right amygdala of individuals with low back pain: confirmation of previously reported magnetic resonance imaging results. Pain Med 2016;17:1497–504. 10.1093/pm/pnv047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Ma K, Jiang W, Zhou Q, et al. The efficacy of oxycodone for management of acute pain episodes in chronic neck pain patients. Int J Clin Pract 2008;62:241–7. 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01567.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Markenson JA, Croft J, Zhang PG, et al. Treatment of persistent pain associated with osteoarthritis with controlled-release oxycodone tablets in a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin J Pain 2005;21:524–35. 10.1097/01.ajp.0000146215.86038.38 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Matsumoto AK, Babul N, Ahdieh H. Oxymorphone extended-release tablets relieve moderate to severe pain and improve physical function in osteoarthritis: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase III trial. Pain Med 2005;6:357–66. 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2005.00057.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Mayorga AJ, Wang S, Kelly KM, et al. Efficacy and safety of fulranumab as monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe, chronic knee pain of primary osteoarthritis: a randomised, placebo- and active-controlled trial. Int J Clin Pract 2016;70:493–505. 10.1111/ijcp.12807 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Moran C. MST continus tablets and pain control in severe rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Clin Res 1991;32:436–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Moulin DE, Iezzi A, Amireh R, et al. Randomised trial of oral morphine for chronic non-cancer pain. Lancet 1996;347:143–7. 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90339-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Munera, PhD C, Drehobl, MD M, Sessler, PharmD NE, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, parallel-group, 5-week study of buprenorphine transdermal system in adults with osteoarthritis. J Opioid Management 2010;6:193–202. 10.5055/jom.2010.0017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Niesters M, Proto PL, Aarts L, et al. Tapentadol potentiates descending pain inhibition in chronic pain patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. Br J Anaesth 2014;113:148–56. 10.1093/bja/aeu056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Norrbrink C, Lundeberg T. Tramadol in neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Clin J Pain 2009;25:177–84. 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31818a744d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Peloso PM, Bellamy N, Bensen W, et al. Double blind randomized placebo control trial of controlled release codeine in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 2000;27:764–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Raja SN, Haythornthwaite JA, Pappagallo M, et al. Opioids versus antidepressants in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 2002;59:1015–21. 10.1212/wnl.59.7.1015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Rauck R, Rapoport R, Thipphawong J. Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose assessment of once-daily OROS® hydromorphone ER in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with chronic osteoarthritis. Pain Pract 2013;13:18–29. 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2012.00555.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Rauck RL, Nalamachu S, Wild JE, et al. Single-entity hydrocodone extended-release capsules in opioid-tolerant subjects with moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Pain Med 2014;15:975–85. 10.1111/pme.12377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Rauck RL, Potts J, Xiang Q, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of buccal buprenorphine in opioid-naive patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain. Postgrad Med 2016;128:1–11. 10.1080/00325481.2016.1128307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Russell IJ, Kamin M, Bennett RM, et al. Efficacy of tramadol in treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. J Clin Rheumatol 2000;6:250–7. 10.1097/00124743-200010000-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Schimrigk S, Marziniak M, Neubauer C, et al. Dronabinol is a safe long-term treatment option for neuropathic pain patients. Eur Neurol 2017;78:320–9. 10.1159/000481089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Schnitzer TJ, Gray WL, Paster RZ, et al. Efficacy of tramadol in treatment of chronic low back pain. J Rheumatol 2000;27:772–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Schwartz S, Etropolski M, Shapiro DY, et al. Safety and efficacy of tapentadol ER in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: results of a randomized-withdrawal, placebo-controlled trial. Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27:151–62. 10.1185/03007995.2010.537589 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Serrie A, Lange B, Steup A. Tapentadol prolonged-release for moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis knee pain: a double-blind, randomized, placebo- and oxycodone controlled release-controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin 2017;33:1423–32. 10.1080/03007995.2017.1335189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Simpson RW, Wlodarczyk JH. Transdermal buprenorphine relieves neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Diabetes Care 2016;39:1493–500. 10.2337/dc16-0123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Sindrup SH, Konder R, Lehmann R, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the combined monoaminergic and opioid investigational compound GRT9906 in painful polyneuropathy. Eur J Pain 2012;16:849–59. 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2011.00069.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Sindrup SH, Madsen C, Brøsen K, et al. The effect of tramadol in painful polyneuropathy in relation to serum drug and metabolite levels. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999;66:636–41. 10.1053/cp.1999.v66.103171001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Steiner DJ, Sitar S, Wen W, et al. Efficacy and safety of the seven-day buprenorphine transdermal system in opioid-naïve patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain: an enriched, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011;42:903–17. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.04.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Thorne C, Beaulieu AD, Callaghan DJ, et al. A randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of the efficacy and safety of oral controlled-release tramadol and placebo in patients with painful osteoarthritis. Pain Res Manag 2008;13:93–102. 10.1155/2008/165421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Tominaga Y, Koga H, Uchida N, et al. Methodological issues in conducting pilot trials in chronic pain as randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Drug Res (Stuttg) 2016;66:363–70. 10.1055/s-0042-107669 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Uberall MA, Mueller-Schwefe GHH, Terhaag B. Efficacy and safety of flupirtine modified release for the management of moderate to severe chronic low back pain: results of SUPREME, a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled parallel-group phase IV study. Curr Med Res Opin 2012;28:1617–34. 10.1185/03007995.2012.726216 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Vinik AI, Shapiro DY, Rauschkolb C, et al. A randomized withdrawal, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol extended release in patients with chronic painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Diabetes Care 2014;37:2302–9. 10.2337/dc13-2291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Vojtaššák J, Vojtaššák J, Jacobs A, et al. A phase IIIB, multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind study to investigate the efficacy and safety of OROS hydromorphone in subjects with moderate-to-severe chronic pain induced by osteoarthritis of the hip or the knee. Pain Res Treat 2011;2011:239501. 10.1155/2011/239501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Vorsanger GJ, Xiang J, Gana TJ, et al. Extended-release tramadol (tramadol ER) in the treatment of chronic low back pain. J Opioid Manag 2008;4:87–97. 10.5055/jom.2008.0013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Watson CP, Babul N. Efficacy of oxycodone in neuropathic pain: a randomized trial in postherpetic neuralgia. Neurology 1998;50:1837–41. 10.1212/wnl.50.6.1837 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Webster LR, Butera PG, Moran LV, et al. Oxytrex minimizes physical dependence while providing effective analgesia: a randomized controlled trial in low back pain. J Pain 2006;7:937–46. 10.1016/j.jpain.2006.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Wen W, Sitar S, Lynch SY, et al. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of single-entity, once-daily hydrocodone tablets in patients with uncontrolled moderate to severe chronic low back pain. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2015;16:1593–606. 10.1517/14656566.2015.1060221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Wu CL, Agarwal S, Tella PK, et al. Morphine versus mexiletine for treatment of postamputation pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Anesthesiology 2008;109:289–96. 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31817f4523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Andresen SR, Bing J, Hansen RM, et al. Ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide in spinal cord injury neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Pain 2016;157:2097–103. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000623 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Blake DR, Robson P, Ho M, et al. Preliminary assessment of the efficacy, tolerability and safety of a cannabis-based medicine (Sativex) in the treatment of pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45:50–2. 10.1093/rheumatology/kei183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.de Vries M, van Rijckevorsel DCM, Vissers KCP, et al. Tetrahydrocannabinol does not reduce pain in patients with chronic abdominal pain in a phase 2 placebo-controlled study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15:1079–86. 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.09.147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Eibach L, Scheffel S, Cardebring M, et al. Cannabidivarin for HIV-associated neuropathic pain: a randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2021;109:1055–62. 10.1002/cpt.2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Germini F, Coerezza A, Andreinetti L, et al. N-of-1 randomized trials of ultra-micronized palmitoylethanolamide in older patients with chronic pain. Drugs Aging 2017;34:941–52. 10.1007/s40266-017-0506-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Hunter D, Oldfield G, Tich N, et al. Synthetic transdermal cannabidiol for the treatment of knee pain due to osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018;26:S26. 10.1016/j.joca.2018.02.067 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Langford RM, Mares J, Novotna A, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel- group study of THC/CBD oromucosal spray in combination with the existing treatment regimen, in the relief of central neuropathic pain in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2013;260:984–97. 10.1007/s00415-012-6739-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Markovà J, Essner U, Akmaz B, et al. Sativex((R)) as add-on therapy vs. further optimized first-line ANTispastics (SAVANT) in resistant multiple sclerosis spasticity: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial. Int J Neurosci 2019;129:119–28. 10.1080/00207454.2018.1481066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111. NCT00710424 . A study of Sativex® for pain relief due to diabetic neuropathy. 2006. Available: https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT00710424
  • 112.Novotna A, Mares J, Ratcliffe S, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, enriched-design study of nabiximols* (Sativex(®)), as add-on therapy, in subjects with refractory spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol 2011;18:1122–31. 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03328.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Nurmikko TJ, Serpell MG, Hoggart B, et al. Sativex successfully treats neuropathic pain characterised by allodynia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Pain 2007;133:210–20. 10.1016/j.pain.2007.08.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Pinsger M, Schimetta W, Volc D, et al. [Benefits of an add-on treatment with the synthetic cannabinomimetic nabilone on patients with chronic pain--a randomized controlled trial]. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2006;118:327–35. 10.1007/s00508-006-0611-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Rog DJ, Nurmikko TJ, Friede T, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of cannabis-based medicine in central pain in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2005;65:812–9. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000176753.45410.8b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Selvarajah D, Gandhi R, Emery CJ, et al. Randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial of cannabis-based medicinal product (Sativex) in painful diabetic neuropathy: depression is a major confounding factor. Diabetes Care 2010;33:128–30. 10.2337/dc09-1029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Serpell M, Ratcliffe S, Hovorka J, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group study of THC/CBD spray in peripheral neuropathic pain treatment. Eur J Pain 2014;18:999–1012. 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00445.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Skrabek RQ, Galimova L, Ethans K, et al. Nabilone for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. J Pain 2008;9:164–73. 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Toth C, Mawani S, Brady S, et al. An enriched-enrolment, randomized withdrawal, flexible-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel assignment efficacy study of nabilone as adjuvant in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Pain 2012;153:2073–82. 10.1016/j.pain.2012.06.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.van Amerongen G, Kanhai K, Baakman AC, et al. Effects on spasticity and neuropathic pain of an oral formulation of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients withprogressive multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther 2018;40:1467–82. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.01.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Wissel J, Haydn T, Müller J, et al. Low dose treatment with the synthetic cannabinoid nabilone significantly reduces spasticity-related pain : a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over trial. J Neurol 2006;253:1337–41. 10.1007/s00415-006-0218-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Xu DH, Cullen BD, Tang M, et al. The effectiveness of topical cannabidiol oil in symptomatic relief of peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2020;21:390–402. 10.2174/1389201020666191202111534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Zajicek J, Fox P, Sanders H, et al. Cannabinoids for treatment of spasticity and other symptoms related to multiple sclerosis (CAMS study): multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:1517–26. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14738-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Zajicek JP, Sanders HP, Wright DE, et al. Cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis (CAMS) study: safety and efficacy data for 12 months follow up. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;76:1664–9. 10.1136/jnnp.2005.070136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Zajicek JP, Hobart JC, Slade A, et al. Multiple sclerosis and extract of cannabis: results of the MUSEC trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012;83:1125–32. 10.1136/jnnp-2012-302468 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Frank B, Serpell MG, Hughes J, et al. Comparison of analgesic effects and patient tolerability of nabilone and dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain: randomised, crossover, double blind study. BMJ 2008;336:199–201. 10.1136/bmj.39429.619653.80 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Busse JW, Craigie S, Juurlink DN, et al. Guideline for opioid therapy and chronic noncancer pain. CMAJ 2017;189:E659–66. 10.1503/cmaj.170363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain - United States, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65:1–49. 10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) . Chronic pain (primary and secondary) in over 16s: assessment of all chronic pain and management of chronic primary pain. 2021. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK569960/ [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Mathieson S, Wertheimer G, Maher CG, et al. What proportion of patients with chronic noncancer pain are prescribed an opioid medicine? Systematic review and meta-regression of observational studies. J Intern Med 2020;287:458–74. 10.1111/joim.13026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Choo EK, Feldstein Ewing SW, Lovejoy TI. Opioids out, cannabis in: negotiating the unknowns in patient care for chronic pain. JAMA 2016;316:1763. 10.1001/jama.2016.13677 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Kaufman DE, Nihal AM, Leppo JD, et al. Opioid mortality following implementation of medical cannabis programs in the United States. Pharmacopsychiatry 2021;54:91–5. 10.1055/a-1353-6509 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Kim JH, Martins SS, Shmulewitz D, et al. Association between fatal opioid overdose and state medical cannabis laws in US national survey data, 2000-2011. Int J Drug Policy 2022;99:103449. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103449 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Powell D, Pacula RL, Jacobson M. Do medical marijuana laws reduce addiction and deaths related to pain killers? In: RAND working paper. 2015. 10.7249/WR1130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Hayes MJ, Brown MS. Legalization of medical marijuana and incidence of opioid mortality. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:1673. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.2716 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Harris M, Erridge S, Ergisi M, et al. UK medical cannabis registry: an analysis of clinical outcomes of medicinal cannabis therapy for chronic pain conditions. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2022;15:473–85. 10.1080/17512433.2022.2017771 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Tait J, Erridge S, Holvey C, et al. Clinical outcome data of chronic pain patients treated with cannabis-based oils and dried flower from the UK medical cannabis registry. Expert Rev Neurother 2023;23:413–23. 10.1080/14737175.2023.2195551 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Meng H, Page MG, Ajrawat P, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in those consuming medical cannabis: a prospective longitudinal observational study in chronic pain patients. Can J Anaesth 2021;68:633–44. 10.1007/s12630-020-01903-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Vickery AW, Roth S, Ernenwein T, et al. A large Australian longitudinal cohort registry demonstrates sustained safety and efficacy of oral medicinal cannabis for at least two years. PLoS One 2022;17:e0272241. 10.1371/journal.pone.0272241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Kvamme SL, Pedersen MM, Rømer Thomsen K, et al. Exploring the use of cannabis as a substitute for prescription drugs in a convenience sample. Harm Reduct J 2021;18:72. 10.1186/s12954-021-00520-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Reiman A, Welty M, Solomon P. Cannabis as a substitute for opioid-based pain medication: patient self-report. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res 2017;2:160–6. 10.1089/can.2017.0012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Humphreys K, Saitz R. Should physicians recommend replacing opioids with cannabis? JAMA 2019;321:639. 10.1001/jama.2019.0077 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Noori A, Miroshnychenko A, Shergill Y, et al. Opioid-sparing effects of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies. BMJ Open 2021;11:e047717. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Goshua A, Craigie S, Guyatt GH, et al. Patient values and preferences regarding opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review. Pain Med 2018;19:2469–80. 10.1093/pm/pnx274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Zeng L, Lytvyn L, Wang X, et al. Values and preferences towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain: a mixed-methods systematic review. BMJ Open 2021;11:e050831. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Ray WA, Chung CP, Murray KT, et al. Prescription of long-acting opioids and mortality in patients with chronic noncancer pain. JAMA 2016;315:2415–23. 10.1001/jama.2016.7789 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Mulla SM, Maqbool A, Sivananthan L, et al. Reporting of IMMPACT-recommended core outcome domains among trials assessing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Pain 2015;156:1615–9. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000241 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Noori A, Sadeghirad B, Wang L, et al. Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. Br J Anaesth 2022;129:394–406. 10.1016/j.bja.2022.05.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Wang L, Hong PJ, May C, et al. Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic non-cancer and cancer related pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 2021;374:1034. 10.1136/bmj.n1034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Aviram J, Samuelly-Leichtag G. Efficacy of cannabis-based medicines for pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain Phys 2017;6:E755–96. 10.36076/ppj.20.5.E755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Connor JP, Stjepanović D, Le Foll B, et al. Cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2021;7:16. 10.1038/s41572-021-00247-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Boscarino JA, Rukstalis MR, Hoffman SN, et al. Prevalence of prescription opioid-use disorder among chronic pain patients: comparison of the DSM-5 vs. DSM-4 diagnostic criteria. J Addict Dis 2011;30:185–94. 10.1080/10550887.2011.581961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Brignardello-Petersen R, Tomlinson G, Florez I, et al. Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation concept article 5: addressing intransitivity in a network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2023;160:151–9. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary data

bmjopen-2022-068182supp001.pdf (3.1MB, pdf)

Reviewer comments
bmjopen-2022-068182.reviewer_comments.pdf (401.1KB, pdf)
Author's manuscript
bmjopen-2022-068182.draft_revisions.pdf (12MB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Articles from BMJ Open are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES