大麻二酚--治疗牙痛的有效镇痛剂?

Q3 Dentistry
Siofra Murphy, Ellis Hayes
{"title":"大麻二酚--治疗牙痛的有效镇痛剂?","authors":"Siofra Murphy, Ellis Hayes","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01007-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study by Chrepa et al. is a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple-arm, phase IIA clinical trial with double masking which investigates the effectiveness and safety of Cannabidiol (CBD) as an analgesic for acute dental pain. The intervention drug, Epidiolex is an FDA-approved CBD oral solution (100 mg/ml) derived from the cannabis plant. The psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is not included. The maximum recommended daily dose of Epidiolex is 20 mg/kg. 64 patients with moderate-severe odontogenic pain participated in the study and REDCap software was utilised to randomly assign participants into groups: CBD10 (10 mg/kg), CBD20 (20 mg/kg) and placebo. A single dose of the respective oral solution was administered, and participants monitored for 3 h. Patients remained blinded to group assignment, as did the outcome assessor. The provider was not blinded. The primary outcome measure was VAS (visual analogue scale) pain difference, compared to baseline and recorded at 7 subsequent marked times following administration (15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180 min). Additional outcome measures were also recorded: changes in bite force, pain intensity differences, the onset of significant pain relief, the maximum pain relief, psychoactive effects, mood changes and adverse events. 40 female and 21 male patients with moderate-severe odontogenic pain (defined as ≥30 on a 100 mm VAS) with a diagnosis of irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis were included. Participation required a negative test for recent drug and alcohol use, a negative pregnancy test and no use of analgesics within 6 h of the trial. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, hepatic impairment, recreational cannabis users and patients taking CBD metabolising drugs were excluded along with those with an ASA classification above III. Patient characteristics recorded included: age, gender, race, tooth type affected, weight and BMI. Mixed model analysis was used to compare numerical variables among the cohorts at the marked time intervals. VAS, bite force, Bowdle and Bond/Lader questionnaires were recorded. Inter-group analysis was completed using parametric and non-parametric post-hoc tests, including Holm–Bonferroni adjustment and the Shapiro–Wilk test, to evaluate data normality. NNTs were calculated for both CBD doses- the number of patients needing treatment before one patient experiences a minimum of 50% pain relief. X² tests were used to analyse categorical variables: pain intensity and adverse events. JMP software was used for the statistical analysis. 64 participants had originally enroled in the study, but three were excluded from data analysis due to ‘unrealistic results’, reporting complete pain relief within the first 15 min. 20 participants were given CBD10, 20 were given CBD20 and 21 placebo. 68% of the participants were Hispanic/Latino whilst 11% were white. The average age was 44 +/− 13.7. There was equal distribution of age, sex, race, tooth type, weight and body mass index (p > 0.05). No subject required rescue pain relief during the 3-h observation period. Compared to baseline VAS, significant pain relief was seen 30 min after drug administration for CBD10, versus after 15 min for CBD20 (p < 0.05). Pain reduction reached 50% at 60 min for CBD10 and at 120 min for CBD20. Both reported maximum pain reduction of 73% of baseline at 180 min. 33% pain reduction from baseline was seen in the placebo group, with a median VAS pain of 67% at 180 min. 45.4% of CBD10 and 46.6% of CBD20 required pain relief after 1–6 h, versus 37.5% of placebo (p > 0.05). Bite force increase was seen in both CBD10 and CBD20 groups at 90 and 180 min, versus no significant differences between time points in the placebo group. On assessing pain intensity, pain reduction was significantly associated with increasing time in the CBD groups (p < 0.001), versus no significant association with the placebo group (p = 0.0521). No statistically significant differences were seen between and within the groups for Bowdle or Bond/Lader questions (p > 0.05). In the 3 h observation period, CBD10 experienced 14 times more sedation symptoms versus placebo (p < 0.05), whilst CBD20 experienced this 8 times more (p < 0.05). Within the 3 h, CBD20 were 10-fold more likely to have diarrhoea and abdominal pain (p < 0.05), with some experiencing pain beyond the 3 h but resolving within the day. Based on this randomised clinical trial, pure CBD drug Epidiolex demonstrates effective analgesia against acute toothache.","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":"25 2","pages":"100-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cannabidiol - an effective analgesic for toothache?\",\"authors\":\"Siofra Murphy, Ellis Hayes\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41432-024-01007-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The study by Chrepa et al. is a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple-arm, phase IIA clinical trial with double masking which investigates the effectiveness and safety of Cannabidiol (CBD) as an analgesic for acute dental pain. The intervention drug, Epidiolex is an FDA-approved CBD oral solution (100 mg/ml) derived from the cannabis plant. The psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is not included. The maximum recommended daily dose of Epidiolex is 20 mg/kg. 64 patients with moderate-severe odontogenic pain participated in the study and REDCap software was utilised to randomly assign participants into groups: CBD10 (10 mg/kg), CBD20 (20 mg/kg) and placebo. A single dose of the respective oral solution was administered, and participants monitored for 3 h. Patients remained blinded to group assignment, as did the outcome assessor. The provider was not blinded. The primary outcome measure was VAS (visual analogue scale) pain difference, compared to baseline and recorded at 7 subsequent marked times following administration (15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180 min). Additional outcome measures were also recorded: changes in bite force, pain intensity differences, the onset of significant pain relief, the maximum pain relief, psychoactive effects, mood changes and adverse events. 40 female and 21 male patients with moderate-severe odontogenic pain (defined as ≥30 on a 100 mm VAS) with a diagnosis of irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis were included. Participation required a negative test for recent drug and alcohol use, a negative pregnancy test and no use of analgesics within 6 h of the trial. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, hepatic impairment, recreational cannabis users and patients taking CBD metabolising drugs were excluded along with those with an ASA classification above III. Patient characteristics recorded included: age, gender, race, tooth type affected, weight and BMI. Mixed model analysis was used to compare numerical variables among the cohorts at the marked time intervals. VAS, bite force, Bowdle and Bond/Lader questionnaires were recorded. Inter-group analysis was completed using parametric and non-parametric post-hoc tests, including Holm–Bonferroni adjustment and the Shapiro–Wilk test, to evaluate data normality. NNTs were calculated for both CBD doses- the number of patients needing treatment before one patient experiences a minimum of 50% pain relief. X² tests were used to analyse categorical variables: pain intensity and adverse events. JMP software was used for the statistical analysis. 64 participants had originally enroled in the study, but three were excluded from data analysis due to ‘unrealistic results’, reporting complete pain relief within the first 15 min. 20 participants were given CBD10, 20 were given CBD20 and 21 placebo. 68% of the participants were Hispanic/Latino whilst 11% were white. The average age was 44 +/− 13.7. There was equal distribution of age, sex, race, tooth type, weight and body mass index (p > 0.05). No subject required rescue pain relief during the 3-h observation period. Compared to baseline VAS, significant pain relief was seen 30 min after drug administration for CBD10, versus after 15 min for CBD20 (p < 0.05). Pain reduction reached 50% at 60 min for CBD10 and at 120 min for CBD20. Both reported maximum pain reduction of 73% of baseline at 180 min. 33% pain reduction from baseline was seen in the placebo group, with a median VAS pain of 67% at 180 min. 45.4% of CBD10 and 46.6% of CBD20 required pain relief after 1–6 h, versus 37.5% of placebo (p > 0.05). Bite force increase was seen in both CBD10 and CBD20 groups at 90 and 180 min, versus no significant differences between time points in the placebo group. On assessing pain intensity, pain reduction was significantly associated with increasing time in the CBD groups (p < 0.001), versus no significant association with the placebo group (p = 0.0521). No statistically significant differences were seen between and within the groups for Bowdle or Bond/Lader questions (p > 0.05). In the 3 h observation period, CBD10 experienced 14 times more sedation symptoms versus placebo (p < 0.05), whilst CBD20 experienced this 8 times more (p < 0.05). Within the 3 h, CBD20 were 10-fold more likely to have diarrhoea and abdominal pain (p < 0.05), with some experiencing pain beyond the 3 h but resolving within the day. Based on this randomised clinical trial, pure CBD drug Epidiolex demonstrates effective analgesia against acute toothache.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"100-101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01007-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01007-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Chrepa 等人的研究是一项随机、安慰剂对照、三臂、IIA 期临床试验,采用双重掩蔽,调查大麻二酚 (CBD) 作为急性牙痛镇痛剂的有效性和安全性。干预药物 Epidiolex 是一种经 FDA 批准的 CBD 口服液(100 毫克/毫升),提取自大麻植物。其中不含精神活性成分四氢大麻酚(THC)。Epidiolex 的最大推荐日剂量为 20 毫克/千克。64 名中度-重度牙源性疼痛患者参加了研究,研究人员利用 REDCap 软件将参与者随机分配到不同的组别:CBD10 组(10 毫克/千克)、CBD20 组(20 毫克/千克)和安慰剂组。患者和结果评估者对分组分配均无知情权。提供者不设盲法。主要结果指标是 VAS(视觉模拟量表)疼痛差异,与基线进行比较,并在给药后的 7 个标记时间(15、30、45、60、90、120 和 180 分钟)进行记录。此外,还记录了其他结果指标:咬合力变化、疼痛强度差异、疼痛明显缓解开始时间、最大疼痛缓解时间、精神作用、情绪变化和不良反应。40 名女性和 21 名男性患者患有中度-重度牙源性疼痛(定义为 100 毫米 VAS 值≥30),诊断为不可逆牙髓炎或牙髓坏死以及有症状的根尖牙周炎。参试者必须通过近期吸毒和酗酒检测,妊娠检测呈阴性,且在试验开始前 6 小时内未使用镇痛剂。妊娠、母乳喂养、肝功能受损、使用大麻娱乐和服用 CBD 代谢药物的患者以及 ASA 分级高于 III 级的患者均被排除在外。记录的患者特征包括:年龄、性别、种族、患牙类型、体重和体重指数。混合模型分析用于比较各组患者在标记时间间隔内的数值变量。记录了 VAS、咬合力、Bowdle 和 Bond/Lader 问卷。使用参数和非参数事后检验完成了组间分析,包括 Holm-Bonferroni 调整和 Shapiro-Wilk 检验,以评估数据的正态性。计算了两种 CBD 剂量的 NNT--在一名患者疼痛缓解至少 50%之前需要接受治疗的患者人数。X²检验用于分析分类变量:疼痛强度和不良事件。统计分析使用了 JMP 软件。最初有 64 名参与者报名参加研究,但有 3 人因 "不切实际的结果 "而被排除在数据分析之外,他们报告说在最初 15 分钟内疼痛完全缓解。20 名参与者服用了 CBD10,20 名服用了 CBD20,21 名服用了安慰剂。68%的参与者为西班牙/拉丁美洲人,11%为白人。平均年龄为 44 +/- 13.7 岁。年龄、性别、种族、牙齿类型、体重和体重指数的分布均等(p > 0.05)。在 3 小时的观察期内,没有受试者需要止痛治疗。与基线 VAS 相比,CBD10 在用药 30 分钟后疼痛明显缓解,而 CBD20 在用药 15 分钟后疼痛明显缓解(p < 0.05)。服用 CBD10 60 分钟和 CBD20 120 分钟后,疼痛缓解率分别达到 50%。据报道,两者在 180 分钟时的疼痛最大减轻幅度均为基线的 73%。安慰剂组的疼痛较基线减轻 33%,180 分钟时 VAS 疼痛中位数为 67%。45.4% 的 CBD10 和 46.6% 的 CBD20 在 1-6 小时后需要止痛,而安慰剂组为 37.5% (p > 0.05)。在 90 分钟和 180 分钟时,CBD10 和 CBD20 组的咬合力都有所提高,而安慰剂组在不同时间点之间没有显著差异。在评估疼痛强度时,CBD 组的疼痛减轻与时间的延长有明显相关性(p < 0.001),而安慰剂组则无明显相关性(p = 0.0521)。在 Bowdle 或 Bond/Lader 问题上,组间和组内差异无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。在 3 小时的观察期内,CBD10 的镇静症状是安慰剂的 14 倍(p < 0.05),而 CBD20 的镇静症状是安慰剂的 8 倍(p < 0.05)。在 3 小时内,CBD20 出现腹泻和腹痛的几率是安慰剂的 10 倍(p < 0.05),有些人的疼痛超过了 3 小时,但在一天内就缓解了。根据这项随机临床试验,纯 CBD 药物 Epidiolex 可有效镇痛急性牙痛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cannabidiol - an effective analgesic for toothache?
The study by Chrepa et al. is a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple-arm, phase IIA clinical trial with double masking which investigates the effectiveness and safety of Cannabidiol (CBD) as an analgesic for acute dental pain. The intervention drug, Epidiolex is an FDA-approved CBD oral solution (100 mg/ml) derived from the cannabis plant. The psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is not included. The maximum recommended daily dose of Epidiolex is 20 mg/kg. 64 patients with moderate-severe odontogenic pain participated in the study and REDCap software was utilised to randomly assign participants into groups: CBD10 (10 mg/kg), CBD20 (20 mg/kg) and placebo. A single dose of the respective oral solution was administered, and participants monitored for 3 h. Patients remained blinded to group assignment, as did the outcome assessor. The provider was not blinded. The primary outcome measure was VAS (visual analogue scale) pain difference, compared to baseline and recorded at 7 subsequent marked times following administration (15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180 min). Additional outcome measures were also recorded: changes in bite force, pain intensity differences, the onset of significant pain relief, the maximum pain relief, psychoactive effects, mood changes and adverse events. 40 female and 21 male patients with moderate-severe odontogenic pain (defined as ≥30 on a 100 mm VAS) with a diagnosis of irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis were included. Participation required a negative test for recent drug and alcohol use, a negative pregnancy test and no use of analgesics within 6 h of the trial. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, hepatic impairment, recreational cannabis users and patients taking CBD metabolising drugs were excluded along with those with an ASA classification above III. Patient characteristics recorded included: age, gender, race, tooth type affected, weight and BMI. Mixed model analysis was used to compare numerical variables among the cohorts at the marked time intervals. VAS, bite force, Bowdle and Bond/Lader questionnaires were recorded. Inter-group analysis was completed using parametric and non-parametric post-hoc tests, including Holm–Bonferroni adjustment and the Shapiro–Wilk test, to evaluate data normality. NNTs were calculated for both CBD doses- the number of patients needing treatment before one patient experiences a minimum of 50% pain relief. X² tests were used to analyse categorical variables: pain intensity and adverse events. JMP software was used for the statistical analysis. 64 participants had originally enroled in the study, but three were excluded from data analysis due to ‘unrealistic results’, reporting complete pain relief within the first 15 min. 20 participants were given CBD10, 20 were given CBD20 and 21 placebo. 68% of the participants were Hispanic/Latino whilst 11% were white. The average age was 44 +/− 13.7. There was equal distribution of age, sex, race, tooth type, weight and body mass index (p > 0.05). No subject required rescue pain relief during the 3-h observation period. Compared to baseline VAS, significant pain relief was seen 30 min after drug administration for CBD10, versus after 15 min for CBD20 (p < 0.05). Pain reduction reached 50% at 60 min for CBD10 and at 120 min for CBD20. Both reported maximum pain reduction of 73% of baseline at 180 min. 33% pain reduction from baseline was seen in the placebo group, with a median VAS pain of 67% at 180 min. 45.4% of CBD10 and 46.6% of CBD20 required pain relief after 1–6 h, versus 37.5% of placebo (p > 0.05). Bite force increase was seen in both CBD10 and CBD20 groups at 90 and 180 min, versus no significant differences between time points in the placebo group. On assessing pain intensity, pain reduction was significantly associated with increasing time in the CBD groups (p < 0.001), versus no significant association with the placebo group (p = 0.0521). No statistically significant differences were seen between and within the groups for Bowdle or Bond/Lader questions (p > 0.05). In the 3 h observation period, CBD10 experienced 14 times more sedation symptoms versus placebo (p < 0.05), whilst CBD20 experienced this 8 times more (p < 0.05). Within the 3 h, CBD20 were 10-fold more likely to have diarrhoea and abdominal pain (p < 0.05), with some experiencing pain beyond the 3 h but resolving within the day. Based on this randomised clinical trial, pure CBD drug Epidiolex demonstrates effective analgesia against acute toothache.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信