Study register · detail
No benefit demonstrated
GRADE
High
66 citations
Samplen = 144 Pat.
Duration28 days
ControlMatched placebo over 28 days
EndpointESAS-TSDS
Blindingdoppelblind
DesignRCT
Cannabinoidcbd
Max. dose600.0 mg
Routeoral
Key finding
CBD oil provided no additional benefit over placebo for symptom burden in palliative care patients with advanced cancer.
Summary
n=144 advanced cancer patients under palliative care, CBD oil (100 mg/mL titrated up to 600 mg/day) vs. placebo over 28 days. Primary endpoint ESAS Total Symptom Distress Score (TSDS) day 14: CBD -3.0 vs. placebo -6.2, no significant difference (p=0.24). Response rate (TSDS reduction ≥6): CBD 44.8% vs. placebo 58.7% (p=0.13). CBD showed no additional benefit over specialised palliative care; dyspnoea more frequent under CBD.
P
PopulationAdults with advanced cancer and symptom burden (ESAS total score ≥10/90) under palliative care, n=144 randomised (58 CBD, 63 placebo for primary analysis)
I
InterventionTitrated CBD oil 100 mg/mL, 0,5 mL once daily up to 2 mL three times daily (max. ~600 mg/day) over 28 days
C
ControlMatched placebo over 28 days
O
OutcomeESAS total score (TSDS) at day 14: change −3,0 (CBD) vs. −6,2 (placebo), no significant difference (p=0,24); responder rate: 44,8% (CBD) vs. 58,7% (placebo, p=0,13)
Confidence in the evidence
High
The highest of four GRADE levels, the effect estimate is very reliable.
Quality profile
Sample size
★★★★★
Blinding
Double-blind
Effect size
No benefit
Citations / year
★★★★★
Authors
Share
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether cannabidiol (CBD) oil can improve symptom distress in patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care.
Methods: Participants were adults with advanced cancer and symptom distress (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS] total score of >/= 10/90) who received titrated CBD oil 100 mg/mL, 0.5 mL once daily to 2 mL three times a day, or matched placebo for 28 days. The primary outcome was ESAS total symptom distress score (TSDS) at day 14. Response was defined as a decrease in TSDS by >/= 6 at day 14. Secondary outcomes were ESAS TSDS over time, individual symptom scores, patient-determined effective dose, opioid use, Global Impression of Change, depression, anxiety, quality of life, and adverse events.
Results: Of the 144 patients randomly assigned, the planned sample size of 58 participants on CBD and 63 on placebo reached the primary analysis point (day 14). The unadjusted change in TSDS from baseline to day 14 was -6.2 (standard deviation, 14.5) for placebo and -3.0 (standard deviation, 15.2) for CBD with no significant difference between arms (P = .24). Similarly, there was no detected difference in proportion of responders (placebo: 37 of 63 [58.7%],
Cbd: 26 of 58 [44.8%], P = .13). All components of ESAS improved (fell) over time with no difference between arms. The median dose of participant-selected CBD was 400 mg per day with no correlation with opioid dose. There was no detectable effect of CBD on quality of life, depression, or anxiety. Adverse events did not differ significantly between arms apart from dyspnea that was more common with CBD. Most participants reported feeling better or much better at days 14 (53% CBD and 65% placebo) and 28 (70% CBD and 64% placebo).
Conclusion: CBD oil did not add value to the reduction in symptom distress provided by specialist palliative care alone.
The impediment to action advances action.