Clinical Studies and Case Reports

On this site you will find clinical studies with cannabis or single cannabinoids in different diseases and case reports on the use of cannabis by patients.
You may search for diseases (indications), authors, medication, study design (controlled study, open trial, case report etc.) and other criteria.

[Back to Overview]  [IACM Homepage]

TitlePreliminary efficacy and safety of an oromucosal standardized cannabis extract in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
Author(s)Duran M, Pérez E, Abanades S, Vidal X, Saura C, Majem M, Arriola E, Rabanal M, Pastor A, Farré M, Rams N, Laporte JR, Capellà D.
Journal, Volume, IssueBr J Clin Pharmacol. 2010 Nov;70(5):656-63.
Major outcome(s)Cannabis was superior to placebo in reducing nausea and vomiting in patients refractory to other medications
IndicationNausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapyAbstract

AIMS: Despite progress in anti-emetic treatment, many patients still suffer from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This is a pilot, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II clinical trial designed to evaluate the tolerability, preliminary efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of an acute dose titration of a whole-plant cannabis-based medicine (CBM) containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, taken in conjunction with standard therapies in the control of CINV. METHODS: Patients suffering from CINV despite prophylaxis with standard anti-emetic treatment were randomized to CBM or placebo, during the 120 h post-chemotherapy period, added to standard anti-emetic treatment. Tolerability was measured as the number of withdrawals from the study during the titration period because of adverse events (AEs). The endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analysis was the proportion of patients showing complete or partial response. RESULTS: Seven patients were randomized to CBM and nine to placebo. Only one patient in the CBM arm was withdrawn due to AEs. A higher proportion of patients in the CBM group experienced a complete response during the overall observation period [5/7 (71.4%) with CMB vs. 2/9 (22.2%) with placebo, the difference being 49.2% (95% CI 1%, 75%)], due to the delayed period. The incidence of AEs was higher in the CBM group (86% vs. 67%). No serious AEs were reported. The mean daily dose was 4.8 sprays in both groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, CBM added to standard antiemetic therapy was well tolerated and provided better protection against delayed CINV. These results should be confirmed in a phase III clinical trial.

Duration (days)5
Participants16 patients chemotherapy-induced nausea
DesignControlled study
Type of publicationMedical journal
Address of author(s)Fundació Institut Català de Farmacologia, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Full text

[Back to Overview]  [IACM Homepage]