A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, enriched-design study of nabiximols (Sativex (R)), as add-on therapy, in subjects with refractory spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis
ABSTRACT Spasticity is a disabling complication of multiple sclerosis, affecting many patients with the condition. We report the first Phase 3 placebo-controlled study of an oral antispasticity agent to use an enriched study design.
A 19-week follow-up, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in subjects with multiple sclerosis spasticity not fully relieved with current antispasticity therapy. Subjects were treated with nabiximols, as add-on therapy, in a single-blind manner for 4weeks, after which those achieving an improvement in spasticity of ≥20% progressed to a 12-week randomized, placebo-controlled phase.
Of the 572 subjects enrolled, 272 achieved a ≥20% improvement after 4weeks of single-blind treatment, and 241 were randomized. The primary end-point was the difference between treatments in the mean spasticity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) in the randomized, controlled phase of the study. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed a highly significant difference in favour of nabiximols (P=0.0002). Secondary end-points of responder analysis, Spasm Frequency Score, Sleep Disturbance NRS Patient, Carer and Clinician Global Impression of Change were all significant in favour of nabiximols.
The enriched study design provides a method of determining the efficacy and safety of nabiximols in a way that more closely reflects proposed clinical practice, by limiting exposure to those patients who are likely to benefit from it. Hence, the difference between active and placebo should be a reflection of efficacy and safety in the population intended for treatment.
- SourceAvailable from: Juan Perucho
Dataset: CannabinoidsJAD Perucho
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the efficacy of medical marijuana in several neurologic conditions. We performed a systematic review of medical marijuana (1948-November 2013) to address treatment of symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), epilepsy, and movement disorders. We graded the studies according to the American Academy of Neurology classification scheme for therapeutic articles. Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria; 8 were rated as Class I. The following were studied in patients with MS: (1) Spasticity: oral cannabis extract (OCE) is effective, and nabiximols and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are probably effective, for reducing patient-centered measures; it is possible both OCE and THC are effective for reducing both patient-centered and objective measures at 1 year. (2) Central pain or painful spasms (including spasticity-related pain, excluding neuropathic pain): OCE is effective; THC and nabiximols are probably effective. (3) Urinary dysfunction: nabiximols is probably effective for reducing bladder voids/day; THC and OCE are probably ineffective for reducing bladder complaints. (4) Tremor: THC and OCE are probably ineffective; nabiximols is possibly ineffective. (5) Other neurologic conditions: OCE is probably ineffective for treating levodopa-induced dyskinesias in patients with Parkinson disease. Oral cannabinoids are of unknown efficacy in non-chorea-related symptoms of Huntington disease, Tourette syndrome, cervical dystonia, and epilepsy. The risks and benefits of medical marijuana should be weighed carefully. Risk of serious adverse psychopathologic effects was nearly 1%. Comparative effectiveness of medical marijuana vs other therapies is unknown for these indications.Neurology 04/2014; 82(17):1556-63. DOI:10.1212/WNL.0000000000000363 · 8.30 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Cannabinoid Use in Progressive Inflammatory brain Disease (CUPID) trial aimed to determine whether or not oral Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ(9)-THC) slowed the course of progressive multiple sclerosis (MS); evaluate safety of cannabinoid administration; and, improve methods for testing treatments in progressive MS. There were three objectives in the CUPID study: (1) to evaluate whether or not Δ(9)-THC could slow the course of progressive MS; (2) to assess the long-term safety of Δ(9)-THC; and (3) to explore newer ways of conducting clinical trials in progressive MS. The CUPID trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Patients were randomised in a 2 : 1 ratio to Δ(9)-THC or placebo. Randomisation was balanced according to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, study site and disease type. Analyses were by intention to treat, following a pre-specified statistical analysis plan. A cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) substudy, Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analyses and an economic evaluation were undertaken. Twenty-seven UK sites. Adults aged 18-65 years with primary or secondary progressive MS, 1-year evidence of disease progression and baseline EDSS 4.0-6.5. Oral Δ(9)-THC (maximum 28 mg/day) or matching placebo. Three and 6 months, and then 6-monthly up to 36 or 42 months. Primary outcomes were time to EDSS progression, and change in Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 version 2 (MSIS-29v2) 20-point physical subscale (MSIS-29phys) score. Various secondary patient- and clinician-reported outcomes and MRI outcomes were assessed. RMT analyses examined performance of MS-specific rating scales as measurement instruments and tested for a symptomatic or disease-modifying treatment effect. Economic evaluation estimated mean incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Effectiveness - recruitment targets were achieved. Of the 498 randomised patients (332 to active and 166 to placebo), 493 (329 active and 164 placebo) were analysed. Primary outcomes: no significant treatment effect; hazard ratio EDSS score progression (active : placebo) 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.23]; and estimated between-group difference in MSIS-29phys score (active-placebo) -0.9 points (95% CI -2.0 to 0.2 points). Secondary clinical and MRI outcomes: no significant treatment effects. Safety - at least one serious adverse event: 35% and 28% of active and placebo patients, respectively. RMT analyses - scale evaluation: MSIS-29 version 2, MS Walking Scale-12 version 2 and MS Spasticity Scale-88 were robust measurement instruments. There was no clear symptomatic or disease-modifying treatment effect. Economic evaluation - estimated mean incremental cost to NHS over usual care, over 3 years £27,443.20 per patient. No between-group difference in QALYs. The CUPID trial failed to demonstrate a significant treatment effect in primary or secondary outcomes. There were no major safety concerns, but unwanted side effects seemed to affect compliance. Participants were more disabled than in previous studies and deteriorated less than expected, possibly reducing our ability to detect treatment effects. RMT analyses supported performance of MS-specific rating scales as measures, enabled group- and individual person-level examination of treatment effects, but did not influence study inferences. The intervention had significant additional costs with no improvement in health outcomes; therefore, it was dominated by usual care and not cost-effective. Future work should focus on determining further factors to predict clinical deterioration, to inform the development of new studies, and modifying treatments in order to minimise side effects and improve study compliance. The absence of disease-modifying treatments in progressive MS warrants further studies of the cannabinoid pathway in potential neuroprotection. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62942668. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, the Medical Research Council Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, Multiple Sclerosis Society and Multiple Sclerosis Trust. The report will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 02/2015; 19(12):1-188. DOI:10.3310/hta19120 · 5.12 Impact Factor