Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common adult primary malignant brain tumour. The condition is incurable and, despite aggressive treatment at first presentation, almost all tumours recur after a median of 7 months. The aim of treatment at recurrence is to prolong survival and maintain health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Chemotherapy is typically employed for recurrent GBM, often using nitrosourea-based regimens. However, efficacy is limited, with reported median survivals between 5 and 9 months from recurrence. Although less commonly used in the UK, there is growing evidence that re-irradiation may produce survival outcomes at least similar to nitrosourea-based chemotherapy. However, there remains uncertainty as to the optimum approach and there is a paucity of available data, especially with regards to HRQoL. Brain Re-Irradiation Or Chemotherapy (BRIOChe) aims to assess re-irradiation, as an acceptable treatment option for recurrent IDH-wild-type GBM.
BRIOChe is a phase II, multi-centre, open-label, randomised trial in patients with recurrent GBM. The trial uses Sargent’s three-outcome design and will recruit approximately 55 participants from 10 to 15 UK radiotherapy sites, allocated (2:1) to receive re-irradiation (35 Gy in 10 daily fractions) or nitrosourea-based chemotherapy (up to six, 6-weekly cycles). The primary endpoint is overall survival rate for re-irradiation patients at 9 months. There will be no formal statistical comparison between treatment arms for the decision-making primary analysis. The chemotherapy arm will be used for calibration purposes, to collect concurrent data to aid interpretation of results. Secondary outcomes include HRQoL, dexamethasone requirement, anti-epileptic drug requirement, radiological response, treatment compliance, acute and late toxicities, progression-free survival.
BRIOChe obtained ethical approval from Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (reference no. 20/NI/0070). Final trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and adhere to the ICMJE guidelines.
People who are dependent on opioids experience acute pain similar to other individuals. However, treating acute pain in these patients renders unique challenges such as opioid-induced hyperalgesia, opioid tolerance, withdrawal and stigma from healthcare providers. Thus, it is crucial to identify effective strategies for treating acute pain in this population and to highlight gaps in knowledge to create a high standard of care. The main objective of the proposed scoping review is to identify current strategies for treating the acute pain in individuals with opioid dependence or use disorder.
MEDLINE via the PubMed interface, Embase and Cochrane Central, Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index and Google Scholar will be searched. Forward and backward citation searching of the final included studies will also be conducted. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of sources, review and assess relevant full-text studies and extract data. Data will be presented in a diagram and will contribute to a qualitative thematic analysis.
Data will be gathered from publicly accessible sources, so ethics approval is not necessary. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and reported at conferences related to addiction medicine.
10.17605/OSF.IO/BG6SJ.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain.
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 2021.
Randomised trials comparing any type of cannabis for medical use or opioids, against each other or placebo, with patient follow-up ≥4 weeks.
Paired reviewers independently extracted data. We used Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and communicate our findings.
Ninety trials involving 22 028 patients were eligible for review, among which the length of follow-up ranged from 28 to 180 days. Moderate certainty evidence showed that opioids provide small improvements in pain, physical functioning and sleep quality versus placebo; low to moderate certainty evidence supported similar effects for cannabis versus placebo. Neither was more effective than placebo for role, social or emotional functioning (all high to moderate certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence showed there is probably little to no difference between cannabis for medical use and opioids for physical functioning (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.47 on the 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey physical component summary score, 95% credible interval (CrI) –1.97 to 2.99), and cannabis resulted in fewer discontinuations due to adverse events versus opioids (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.83). Low certainty evidence suggested little to no difference between cannabis and opioids for pain relief (WMD 0.23 cm on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 95% CrI –0.06 to 0.53) or sleep quality (WMD 0.49 mm on a 100 mm VAS, 95% CrI –4.72 to 5.59).
Cannabis for medical use may be similarly effective and result in fewer discontinuations than opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.
CRD42020185184.