Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Acceptability of Cannabis Use Disorder Treatments
| Journal | Addiction (Abingdon, England) |
| Study Type | Systematic Review |
| Population | Human participants |
This item covers developments relevant to cannabis medicine and clinical practice. Clinicians monitoring evidence in this area should review the source material.
Our primary aim was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) for the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of all psychosocial interventions and all pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD). We conducted a NMA of studies identified from two completed systematic reviews examining the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of pharmacotherapies and psychosocial interventions for CUD in people aged ≥16 years. Outcomes were level of cannabis use, abstinence, adverse events and treatment completion. Fifty-seven studies were eligible for NMA. Depending on outcome, NMAs of psychosocial interventions included 6-16 studies (445-2287 participants), and NMAs of pharmacotherapies included 5-36 studies (260-3106 participants). Results are described relative to minimum clinically meaningful difference [mean difference (MD) ± 0.05, odds ratio (OR) ≤ 0.8 or ≥1.25]. Evidence for pharmacological interventions reducing cannabis use was very uncertain. However, low-certainty evidence suggested
“This is a development worth tracking. The clinical implications will become clearer as more evidence accumulates.”
💬 Join the Conversation
Have a question about how this applies to your situation? Ask Dr. Caplan →
Want to discuss this topic with other patients and caregivers? Join the forum discussion →
Have thoughts on this? Share it:
FAQ
What did this network meta-analysis of cannabis use disorder treatments compare?
It compared the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of all psychosocial interventions and all pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder. The studies came from two completed systematic reviews and involved people aged 16 or older. The analysis was published in the journal Addiction.
Which outcomes did the analysis use to judge treatments?
The analysis looked at four outcomes: level of cannabis use, abstinence, adverse events and treatment completion. Results were described relative to the minimum clinically meaningful difference, meaning each finding was judged against the smallest change considered clinically meaningful.
How many studies and participants were included in the analysis?
Fifty-seven studies were eligible. Depending on the outcome, the analyses of psychosocial interventions included 6 to 16 studies with 445 to 2,287 participants, and the analyses of pharmacotherapies included 5 to 36 studies with 260 to 3,106 participants.
Do medications help people with cannabis use disorder cut back?
The evidence is very uncertain. In this network meta-analysis, evidence that pharmacological interventions reduce cannabis use was very uncertain, so the analysis does not establish that any medication reliably lowers cannabis use in people with cannabis use disorder.
Get the next evidence review in your inbox
Plain-language summaries of the newest cannabis research, written by a physician. Free to read, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
Join the growing cannabis community. Free. One-click subscribe. Delivered by Substack.
