MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events

Newly discovered true (non-null) associations often have inflated effects compared with the true effect sizes. I discuss here the main reasons for this inflation. First, theoretical considerations prove that when true discovery is claimed based on crossing a threshold of statistical significance and the discovery study is underpowered, the observed effects are expected to be inflated. This has been demonstrated in various fields ranging from early stopped clinical trials to genome-wide associations. Second, flexible analyses coupled with selective reporting may inflate the published discovered effects. The vibration ratio (the ratio of the largest vs. smallest effect on the same association approached with different analytic choices) can be very large. Third, effects may be inflated at the stage of interpretation due to diverse conflicts of interest. Discovered effects are not always inflated, and under some circumstances may be deflated-for example, in the setting of late discovery of associations in sequentially accumulated overpowered evidence, in some types of misclassification from measurement error, and in conflicts causing reverse biases. Finally, I discuss potential approaches to this problem. These include being cautious about newly discovered effect sizes, considering some rational down-adjustment, using analytical methods that correct for the anticipated inflation, ignoring the magnitude of the effect (if not necessary), conducting large studies in the discovery phase, using strict protocols for analyses, pursuing complete and transparent reporting of all results, placing emphasis on replication, and being fair with interpretation of results.

Patients with advanced cancer who have pain that responds poorly to opioid therapy pose a clinical challenge. Nabiximols (Nabiximols is the U.S. Adopted Name [USAN] for Sativex [GW Pharma Ltd, Wiltshire, U.K.], which does not yet have an INN), a novel cannabinoid formulation, is undergoing investigation as add-on therapy for this population. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, graded-dose study, patients with advanced cancer and opioid-refractory pain received placebo or nabiximols at a low dose (1-4 sprays/day), medium dose (6-10 sprays/day), or high dose (11-16 sprays/day). Average pain, worst pain and sleep disruption were measured daily during 5 weeks of treatment; other questionnaires measured quality of life and mood. A total of 360 patients were randomized; 263 completed. There were no baseline differences across groups. The 30% responder rate primary analysis was not significant for nabiximols versus placebo (overall P = .59). A secondary continuous responder analysis of average daily pain from baseline to end of study demonstrated that the proportion of patients reporting analgesia was greater for nabiximols than placebo overall (P = .035), and specifically in the low-dose (P = .008) and medium-dose (P = .039) groups. In the low-dose group, results were similar for mean average pain (P = .006), mean worst pain (P = .011), and mean sleep disruption (P = .003). Other questionnaires showed no significant group differences. Adverse events were dose-related and only the high-dose group compared unfavorably with placebo. This study supports the efficacy and safety of nabiximols at the 2 lower-dose levels and provides important dose information for future trials. Nabiximols, a novel cannabinoid formulation, may be a useful add-on analgesic for patients with opioid-refractory cancer pain. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, graded-dose study demonstrated efficacy and safety at low and medium doses. Copyright © 2012 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.