Anees Bahji1, Arthi Chinna Meyyappan2, Emily R Hawken2, Philip G Tibbo3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. Electronic address: anees.bahji1@ucalgary.ca. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Centre for Neurosciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Providence Care Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada; Nova Scotia Early Psychosis Program, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis, searching five electronic databases for randomized placebo-controlled trials of individuals diagnosed with CUD receiving pharmacotherapy with or without concomitant psychotherapy. Primary outcomes were the reduction in cannabis use and retention in treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, discontinuation due to adverse events, total abstinence, withdrawal symptoms, cravings, and CUD severity. We applied a frequentist, random-effects Network Meta-Analysis model to pool effect sizes across trials using standardized mean differences (SMD, g) and rate ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: We identified a total of 24 trials (n=1912, 74.9% male, mean age 30.2 years). Nabilone (d=-4.47 [-8.15; -0.79]), topiramate (d=-3.80 [-7.06; -0.54]), and fatty-acid amyl hydroxylase inhibitors (d=-2.30 [-4.75; 0.15]) reduced cannabis use relative to placebo. Dronabinol improved retention in treatment (RR=1.27 [1.02; 1.57]), while topiramate worsened treatment retention (RR=0.62 [0.42; 0.91]). Gabapentin reduced cannabis cravings (d=-2.42 [-3.53; -1.32], while vilazodone worsened craving severity (d=1.69 [0.71; 2.66]. Buspirone (RR=1.14 [1.00; 1.29]), venlafaxine (RR=1.78 [1.40; 2.26]), and topiramate (RR=9.10 [1.27; 65.11]) caused more adverse events, while topiramate caused more dropouts due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review, some medications appeared to show promise for treating individual aspects of CUD. However, there is a lack of robust evidence to support any particular pharmacological treatment. There is a need for additional studies to expand the evidence base for CUD pharmacotherapy. While medication strategies may become an integral component for CUD treatment one day, psychosocial interventions should remain the first line given the limitations in the available evidence.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis, searching five electronic databases for randomized placebo-controlled trials of individuals diagnosed with CUD receiving pharmacotherapy with or without concomitant psychotherapy. Primary outcomes were the reduction in cannabis use and retention in treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, discontinuation due to adverse events, total abstinence, withdrawal symptoms, cravings, and CUD severity. We applied a frequentist, random-effects Network Meta-Analysis model to pool effect sizes across trials using standardized mean differences (SMD, g) and rate ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: We identified a total of 24 trials (n=1912, 74.9% male, mean age 30.2 years). Nabilone (d=-4.47 [-8.15; -0.79]), topiramate (d=-3.80 [-7.06; -0.54]), and fatty-acid amyl hydroxylase inhibitors (d=-2.30 [-4.75; 0.15]) reduced cannabis use relative to placebo. Dronabinol improved retention in treatment (RR=1.27 [1.02; 1.57]), while topiramate worsened treatment retention (RR=0.62 [0.42; 0.91]). Gabapentin reduced cannabis cravings (d=-2.42 [-3.53; -1.32], while vilazodone worsened craving severity (d=1.69 [0.71; 2.66]. Buspirone (RR=1.14 [1.00; 1.29]), venlafaxine (RR=1.78 [1.40; 2.26]), and topiramate (RR=9.10 [1.27; 65.11]) caused more adverse events, while topiramate caused more dropouts due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review, some medications appeared to show promise for treating individual aspects of CUD. However, there is a lack of robust evidence to support any particular pharmacological treatment. There is a need for additional studies to expand the evidence base for CUD pharmacotherapy. While medication strategies may become an integral component for CUD treatment one day, psychosocial interventions should remain the first line given the limitations in the available evidence.
Authors: Frances R Levin; John J Mariani; Martina Pavlicova; Daniel Brooks; Andrew Glass; Amy Mahony; Edward V Nunes; Adam Bisaga; Elias Dakwar; Kenneth M Carpenter; Maria A Sullivan; Jean C Choi Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Aimee L McRae-Clark; Nathaniel L Baker; Kevin M Gray; Therese Killeen; Karen J Hartwell; Susan J Simonian Journal: Am J Addict Date: 2015-12-20
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Louisa Degenhardt; Alize J Ferrari; Bianca Calabria; Wayne D Hall; Rosana E Norman; John McGrath; Abraham D Flaxman; Rebecca E Engell; Greg D Freedman; Harvey A Whiteford; Theo Vos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jose M Trigo; Alexandra Soliman; Lena C Quilty; Benedikt Fischer; Jürgen Rehm; Peter Selby; Allan J Barnes; Marilyn A Huestis; Tony P George; David L Streiner; Gregory Staios; Bernard Le Foll Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Catherine A Dennen; Kenneth Blum; Abdalla Bowirrat; Jag Khalsa; Panayotis K Thanos; David Baron; Rajendra D Badgaiyan; Ashim Gupta; Eric R Braverman; Mark S Gold Journal: Epigenomes Date: 2022-08-26