Page 137

4
THE MEDICAL VALUE OF MARIJUANA AND RELATED SUBSTANCES

During the course of drug development, a typical compound is found to have some medical benefit and then extensive tests are undertaken to determine its safety and proper dosage for medical use. In contrast, marijuana has been widely used in the United States for decades.162 In 1996, 68.6 million people— 32% of the U.S. population over 12 years old—had tried marijuana or hashish at least once; 5% were current users.162

The data on the adverse effects of marijuana are more extensive than the data on its effectiveness. Clinical studies of marijuana are difficult to conduct: researchers interested in clinical studies of marijuana face a series of barriers, research funds are limited, and there is a daunting thicket of regulations to be negotiated at the federal level (those of the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, and the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA) and state levels (see chapter 5). Consequently, the rapid growth in basic research on cannabinoids contrasts with the paucity of substantial clinical studies on medical uses.

This chapter is devoted to an analysis of the therapeutic value of marijuana and cannabinoids for specific symptoms associated with various conditions. The risks associated with the medical use of marijuana are discussed in chapter 3. It should be noted that THC, the primary active ingredient in marijuana, is an FDA-approved drug referred to as dronabinol and marketed as Marinol. Marijuana is advocated primarily for relief from the symptoms of disease rather than as a cure.

For the most part, the logical categories for the medical use of mari-



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 137
Page 137 4 THE MEDICAL VALUE OF MARIJUANA AND RELATED SUBSTANCES During the course of drug development, a typical compound is found to have some medical benefit and then extensive tests are undertaken to determine its safety and proper dosage for medical use. In contrast, marijuana has been widely used in the United States for decades.162 In 1996, 68.6 million people— 32% of the U.S. population over 12 years old—had tried marijuana or hashish at least once; 5% were current users.162 The data on the adverse effects of marijuana are more extensive than the data on its effectiveness. Clinical studies of marijuana are difficult to conduct: researchers interested in clinical studies of marijuana face a series of barriers, research funds are limited, and there is a daunting thicket of regulations to be negotiated at the federal level (those of the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, and the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA) and state levels (see chapter 5). Consequently, the rapid growth in basic research on cannabinoids contrasts with the paucity of substantial clinical studies on medical uses. This chapter is devoted to an analysis of the therapeutic value of marijuana and cannabinoids for specific symptoms associated with various conditions. The risks associated with the medical use of marijuana are discussed in chapter 3. It should be noted that THC, the primary active ingredient in marijuana, is an FDA-approved drug referred to as dronabinol and marketed as Marinol. Marijuana is advocated primarily for relief from the symptoms of disease rather than as a cure. For the most part, the logical categories for the medical use of mari-

OCR for page 137
Page 138 juana are not based on particular diseases but on symptoms—such as nausea, appetite loss, or chronic pain—each of which can be caused by various diseases or even by treatments for diseases. This chapter is therefore organized by symptoms rather than by diseases. There are eight sections. The first section explains clinical trials, the following five deal with specific symptoms and conditions, and the last two summarize the medical benefits of marijuana and cannabinoids. The five sections on symptoms and conditions are as follows: pain, nausea and vomiting, wasting syndrome and appetite stimulation, neurological symptoms (including muscle spasticity), and glaucoma. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) study team received reports of more than 30 different medical uses of marijuana, more than could be carefully reviewed in a report of this length; even more uses are reported elsewhere.62,63 For most of the infrequently mentioned medical uses of marijuana there are only a few anecdotal reports. This report reviews only the most prominent symptoms that are reportedly relieved by marijuana. However, many of those diseases not reviewed here share common symptoms, such as pain, nausea and vomiting, and muscle spasms, which might be relieved by cannabinoid drugs. Standards For Evaluating Clinical Trials Before evaluating individual clinical trials concerning the efficacy and safety of medical uses of marijuana and cannabinoids, it is useful to review the general qualities of clinical trials. Clinical trials involve groups of individuals in which different treatments are compared among different groups. Such trials measure the efficacy of a medication and are required by the FDA for approval of any new drug or new use of a drug (discussed further in chapter 5). The degree of assurance that the outcome of a clinical trial is due to the treatment being tested depends on how well the trial is designed. Three important factors to consider in evaluating the design of a clinical trial are sample selection, subjective effects, and effects that are independent of the treatment. For sample selection it is important to ensure that patients are allocated to different treatment groups in such a way that the groups are not biased toward a particular treatment outcome. For example, the health status, gender, and ages of different treatment groups should be equivalent. Subjective effects must be controlled because they influence experimental results in two important ways. First, a patient's expectation that a treatment will be effective can influence the degree of its effect (for example, in the control of nausea). Second, the investigator's expectation can influence his or her interpretation of the treatment effect (for example, when assessing the level of pain experienced by a patient).

OCR for page 137
Page 139 For these reasons, double blinding, in which neither the subject nor the person who assesses the drug's effect is aware of the subject's treatment group, is particularly important in cannabinoid drug studies. Another important control for subjective effects includes the use of placebo drugs, which are inert substances, or the use of comparison drugs that have effects similar to the experimental drug. Finally, the quality of the experimental design depends on controlling for factors that are unrelated to the test drug but that might nonetheless influence the treatment outcome. Sequencing effects are one example of such factors. For example, patients might react differently to the same medication depending on whether the medication was administered after an effective or an ineffective treatment. Likewise, a patient whose symptoms are initially mild might react differently to a drug than would a patient whose symptoms are initially severe. Because psychological effects are associated with cannabinoid drugs, it is important to consider how such side effects might influence the therapeutic value of the treatment. Conditions such as pain and nausea are especially susceptible to subjective influences. For example, depending on the person, THC can reduce or increase anxiety; it is important to determine to what extent this ''side effect'' contributes to the therapeutic effect. While double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trials offer the highest degree of assurance of drug efficacy, such trials are not always feasible. Vulnerable populations, such as children, older patients, and women of child-bearing age, are often excluded from experimental drug trials for safety reasons. Nonetheless, such patients are part of everyday clinical practice. The challenge of integrating the ideal of standardized and rigorous processes for treatment evaluation with everyday clinical practice has encouraged interest in single-patient trials.67 Methods for such trials have been established and tested in a variety of clinical settings, usually under everyday conditions.66,105,159 They are particularly valuable when physicians or patients are uncertain about the efficacy of treatment for symptomatic diseases. Controls can be incorporated even in this kind of trial. Such trials can be double blinded and can involve crossover designs in which the patient is treated with alternating treatments, such as placebo-drug-placebo or one drug followed by another drug. As with any other clinical trial, a single-patient trial should be designed to permit objective comparison between treatments. Analgesia Pain is the most common symptom for which patients seek medical assistance.5 Pain associated with structural or psychophysiological disorders can arise from somatic, visceral, or neural structures. Somatic pain results from activation of receptors outside the brain and is transmitted to

OCR for page 137
Page 140 the brain via peripheral nerves. Visceral pain results from activation of specific pain receptors in the intestine (visceral nociceptive receptors); it is characterized as a deep aching or cramping sensation, but its source is often experienced at sites remote from the site of receptor activation, a phenomenon known as referred pain. Neuropathic pain results from injury to peripheral receptors, nerves, or the central nervous system; it is typically burning, the skin feels abnormally unpleasant when gently touched (dysesthesia), and it often occurs in an area of sensory loss, as in the case of postherpetic neuralgia (shingles). All of the currently available analgesic (pain-relieving) drugs have limited efficacy for some types of pain. Some are limited by dose-related side effects and some by the development of tolerance or dependence. A cannabinoid, or other analgesic, could potentially be useful under any of the following circumstances: ·      There is a medical condition for which it is more effective than any currently available medication. ·      It has a broad clinical spectrum of efficacy and a unique side effect profile. ·      It has synergistic interactions with other analgesics. ·      It exhibits "side effects" that are considered useful in some clinical situations. ·      Its efficacy is enhanced in patients who have developed tolerance to opioids. There have not been extensive clinical studies of the analgesic potency of cannabinoids, but the available data from animal studies indicate that cannabinoids could be useful analgesics. In general, cannabinoids seem to be mild to moderate analgesics. Opiates, such as morphine and codeine, are the most widely used drugs for the treatment of acute pain, but they are not consistently effective in chronic pain; they often induce nausea and sedation, and tolerance occurs in some patients. Recent research has made it clear that CB1 receptor agonists act on pathways that partially overlap with those activated by opioids but through pharmacologically distinct mechanisms (see chapter 2). Therefore, they would probably have a different side effect profile and perhaps additive or synergistic analgesic efficacy. In light of the evidence that cannabinoids can reduce pain in animals, it is important to re-evaluate the evidence of analgesic efficacy in humans and to ask what clinical evidence is needed to decide whether cannabinoids have any use in the treatment of pain.

OCR for page 137
Page 141 Clinical Studies of Cannabinoids There have been three kinds of studies of the effects of cannabinoids on pain in human volunteers: studies of experimentally induced acute pain, studies of postsurgical acute pain, and studies of chronic pain. Overall, there have been very few studies—only one since 1981—and they have been inconclusive. Experimentally Induced Acute Pain Early studies of cannabinoids on volunteers did not demonstrate consistent analgesia when experimental pain models were used. In fact, three early volunteer studies of THC and experimental pain caused by a variety of pain modalities—electrical stimulation, tourniquet pain, and thermal pain—resulted in an increase in pain sensitivity (hyperalgesia).22,84,108 Other studies also failed to show an analgesic effect of THC, but they were not well designed. Raft and co-workers found no evidence of THC effect on pain thresholds and pain tolerance following electrical stimulation and noxious pressure.150 But their study suffers from two major methodological problems. First, they measured only the extremes of pain sensation—threshold (the lowest intensity at which a particular stimulus is perceived as painful) and tolerance (the maximum intensity of pain that a subject can withstand). However, most pain is experienced in an intermediate range, where effects on pain suppression are most detectable. Modern methods of pain assessment in humans typically use ratings of the intensity of the sensation of pain; those methods are superior to assessing the effects of a drug on the extremes of pain.192 Second, Raft and coworkers did not include a positive control; that is, they did not demonstrate the adequacy of their method by showing that an established analgesic, such as an opiate or narcotic, was effective under their study conditions. Clark and co-workers22 tested the effect of smoked marijuana on thermal pain in volunteers and failed to observe an analgesic effect. However, because of the study design, the results are inconclusive. First, there was no positive control to demonstrate the adequacy of their methods; second, the study subjects were habitual marijuana users. During the study, they were hospitalized and allowed free access to marijuana cigarettes for a period of four weeks, consuming an average of four to 17 marijuana cigarettes per day. Pain was tested "approximately every one to two weeks." Thus, it is quite likely that the subjects were tolerant to THC at the time of testing.

OCR for page 137
Page 142 Surgical Acute Pain Raft and co-workers150 found no analgesic effect of THC on surgical pain induced by tooth extraction. However, that study suffered from several serious limitations: the tooth extraction included treatment with the local anesthetic lidocaine, the pain during the procedure was assessed 24 hours later, and there was no positive control. Levonantradol (a synthetic THC analogue) was tested in 56 patients who had moderate to severe postoperative or trauma pain.89 They were given intramuscular injections of levonantrodol or placebo 24 hours after surgery. To control for previous drug exposure, patients with a history of drug abuse or addiction and those who received an analgesic, antiinflammatory, tranquilizer, sedative, or anesthetic agent within 24 hours of the test drug were excluded from the study. On average, pain relief was significantly greater in the levonantradol-treated patients than in the placebo-treated patients. Because the authors did not report the number or percentage of people who responded, it is not clear whether the average represents consistent pain relief in all levonantradol-treated patients or whether some people experienced great relief and a few experienced none. Chronic Pain The most encouraging clinical data on the effects of cannabinoids on chronic pain are from three studies of cancer pain. Cancer pain can be due to inflammation, mechanical invasion of bone or other pain-sensitive structure, or nerve injury. It is severe, persistent, and often resistant to treatment with opioids. In one study, Noyes and co-workers found that oral doses of THC in the range of 5-20 mg produced analgesia in patients with cancer pain.139,140 The first experiment was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 10 subjects and measured both pain intensity and pain relief.140 Each subject received all drug treatments: placebo and 5, 10, 15, and 20 mg of THC in pill form; each pill was identical in appearance and given on successive days. The 15- and 20-mg doses of-THC produced significant analgesia. There were no reports of nausea or vomiting. In fact, at least half the patients reported increased appetite. With a 20-mg dose of THC, patients were heavily sedated and exhibited "depersonalization," characterized by a state of dreamy immobility, a sense of unreality, and disconnected thoughts. Five of 36 patients exhibited adverse reactions (extreme anxiety) and were eliminated from the study. Only one patient experienced this effect at the 10-mg dose of THC. The mean age of the patients was 51 years, and they were probably not experienced marijuana smokers. A limitation of this study is that there were no positive con-

OCR for page 137
Page 143 trols—that is, other analgesics that could provide a better measure of the degree of analgesia produced by THC. In a later larger single-dose study, the same investigators reported that the analgesic effect of 10 mg of THC was equivalent to that of 60 mg of codeine; the effect of 20 mg of THC was equivalent to that of 120 mg of codeine.139 (Note that codeine is a relatively weak analgesic.) The side effect profiles were similar, though THC was more sedating than codeine. In a separate publication the same authors published data indicating that patients had improved mood, a sense of well-being, and less anxiety.139 The results of the studies mentioned above on cancer pain are consistent with the results of using a nitrogen analogue of THC. Two trials were reported: one compared this analogue with codeine in 30 patients, and a second compared it with placebo or secobarbital, a short-acting barbiturate.175 For mild, moderate, and severe pain, the THC analogue was equivalent to 50 mg of codeine and superior to placebo and to 50 mg of secobarbital. Case Reports and Surveys The few case reports of clinical analgesia trials of cannabinoids are not convincing.85,120 There are, however, anecdotal surveys that raise the possibility of a role for cannabinoids in some patients who have chronic pain with prominent spasticity. A recent survey of over 100 patients with multiple sclerosis reported that a large number obtained relief from spasticity and limb pain (discussed further under the section on multiple sclerosis).28 Several said that it relieved their phantom pain and headache.41 Migraine Headaches There is clearly a need for improved migraine medications. Sumatriptan (Imitrex) is the best available medication for migraine headaches, but it fails to abolish migraine symptoms in about 30% of migraine patients.118,147 Marijuana has been proposed numerous times as a treatment for migraine headaches, but there are almost no clinical data on the use of marijuana or cannabinoids for migraine. Our search of the literature since 1975 yielded only one scientific publication on the subject. It presents three cases of cessation of daily marijuana smoking followed by migraine attacks—not convincing evidence that marijuana relieves migraine headaches.43 The same result could have been found if migraine headaches were a consequence of marijuana withdrawal. While there is no evidence that marijuana withdrawal is followed by migraines, when analyzing the strength of reports such as these it is important to consider

OCR for page 137
Page 144 all logical possibilities. Various people have claimed that marijuana relieves their migraine headaches, but at this stage there are no conclusive clinical data or published surveys about the effect of cannabinoids on migraine. However, a possible link between cannabinoids and migraine is suggested by the abundance of cannabinoid receptors in the periaqueductal gray (PAG) region of the brain. The PAG region is part of the neural system that suppresses pain and is thought to be involved in the generation of migraine headaches.52 The link or lack thereof between cannabinoids and migraine might be elucidated by examining the effects of cannabinoids on the PAG region.110 Recent results indicating that both cannabinoid receptor subtypes are involved in controlling peripheral pain15 suggest that the link is possible. Further research is warranted. Conclusions: Analgesia A key question to address is whether there is any receptor selectivity for the analgesic efficacy of cannabinoids. Are the unwanted side effects (amnesia and sedation) caused by the same receptors in the same brain regions as those producing the analgesia? If the answer is yes, enhancing efficacy will not solve the problem of sedation. Similarly, are the pleasant side effects due to an action at the same receptor? Can the feelings of wellbeing and appetite stimulation be separated by molecular design? Recent results indicating that both cannabinoid receptor subtypes are independently involved in controlling peripheral pain15 (discussed in chapter 2) strongly suggest that this is possible and that further research is warranted. Further research into the basic circuitry underlying cannabinoid analgesia should be valuable. The variety of neural pathways that underlie the control of pain suggests that a synergistic analgesia "cocktail" would be effective. For example, Lichtman and Martin have shown the involvement of an a2 adrenoreceptor in cannabinoid analgesia.111 Perhaps a combination of a CB1 agonist and an a2 agonist (such as clonidine) would provide enhanced analgesia with less severe side effects. Clinical studies should be directed at pain patients for whom there is a demonstrated need for improved management and where the particular side effect profile of cannabinoids promises a clear benefit over current approaches. The following patient groups should be targeted for clinical studies of cannabinoids in the treatment of pain: ·      Chemotherapy patients, especially those being treated for the mucositis, nausea, and anorexia.

OCR for page 137
Page 145 ·      Postoperative pain patients (using cannabinoids as an opioid adjunct to determine whether nausea and vomiting from opioids are reduced). ·      Patients with spinal cord injury, peripheral neuropathic pain, or central poststroke pain. ·      Patients with chronic pain and insomnia. ·      AIDS patients with cachexia, AIDS neuropathy, or any significant pain problem. In any patient group an essential question to be addressed is whether the analgesic efficacy of opioids can be augmented. The strategy would be to find the ceiling analgesic effect with an opioid (as determined by pain intensity and tolerability of side effects) and then add a cannabinoid to determine whether additional pain relief can be obtained. That would begin the investigation of potential drug combinations. As with any clinical study on analgesic drugs, it will be important to investigate the development of tolerance and physical dependence; these are not themselves reasons to exclude the use of cannabinoids as analgesics, but such information is essential to the management of many drugs that are associated with tolerance or physical dependence. A secondary question would be whether THC is the only or the best component of marijuana for analgesia. How does the analgesic effect of the plant extract compare with that of THC alone? If there is a difference, it will be important to identify the combinations of cannabinoids that are the most effective analgesics. In conclusion, the available evidence from animal and human studies indicates that cannabinoids can have a substantial analgesic effect. One exception is the lack of analgesic effect in studies on experimentally induced acute pain, but because of limitations in the design of those studies they were inconclusive. Further clinical work is warranted to establish the magnitude of the effect in different clinical conditions and to determine whether the effect is sustained. Although the usefulness of cannabinoids appears to be limited by side effects, notably sedation, other effects such as anxiolysis, appetite stimulation, and perhaps antinausea and antispasticity effects should be studied in randomized, controlled clinical trials. These very "special" effects might warrant development of cannabinoid drugs for particular clinical populations. Nausea and Vomiting Nausea and vomiting (emesis) occur under a variety of conditions, such as acute viral illness, cancer, radiation exposure, cancer chemotherapy, postoperative recovery, pregnancy, motion, and poisoning. Both

OCR for page 137
Page 146 are produced by excitation of one or a combination of triggers in the gastrointestinal tract, brain stem, and higher brain centers (Figure 4.1, Emesis-stimulating pathways).127 There are numerous cannabinoid receptors in the nucleus of the solitary tract, a brain center that is important in the control of emesis.79,80 Although the same mechanisms appear to be involved in triggering both nausea and vomiting, either can occur without the other. Much more is known about the neural mechanisms that produce vomiting than about those that produce nausea, in large part because vomiting is a complex behavior involving coordinated changes in the gastrointestinal tract, respiratory muscles, and posture, whereas nausea is a sensation involving primarily higher brain centers and lacks a discrete observable action.104,128 Most reports on the antiemetic effects of marijuana or cannabinoids are based on chemotherapy-induced emesis; they are the subject of the following section. Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting The use of effective chemotherapeutic drugs has produced cures in some malignancies and retarded the growth of others, but nausea and Figure 4.1    Emesis-stimulating pathways. Source: Bruton, L.L. 1996.  P. 929 in Hardman et al., eds.,  The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics,  9th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Reprinted with permission.

OCR for page 137
Page 147 vomiting are frequent side effects of these drugs. Nausea ranks behind only hair loss as a concern of patients on chemotherapy, and many patients experience it as the worst side effect of chemotherapy. The side effects can be so devastating that patients abandon therapy or suffer diminished quality of life. As a result, the development of effective strategies to control the emesis induced by many chemotherapeutic agents is a major goal in the supportive care of patients with malignancies. The mechanism by which chemotherapy induces vomiting is not completely understood. Studies suggest that emesis is caused by stimulation of receptors in the central nervous system or the gastrointestinal tract. This stimulation appears to be caused by the drug itself, a metabolite of the drug, or a neurotransmitter.6,12,35 In contrast with an emetic like apomorphine, there is a delay between the administration of chemotherapy and the onset of emesis. This delay depends on the chemotherapeutic agent; emesis can begin anywhere from a few minutes after the administration of an agent like mustine to an hour for cisplatin.12 The most desirable effect of an antiemetic is to control emesis completely, which is currently the primary standard in testing new antiemetic agents (R. Gralla, IOM workshop). Patients recall the number of emetic episodes accurately, even if their antiemetics are sedating or affect memory;101 thus, the desired end point of complete control is also a highly reliable method of evaluation. The degree of nausea can be estimated through the use of established visual analogue scales.*21,55,101 Another consideration in using antiemetic drugs is that the frequency of emesis varies from one chemotherapeutic agent to another. For example, cisplatin causes vomiting in more than 99% of patients who are not taking an antiemetic (with about 10 vomiting episodes per dose), whereas methotrexate causes emesis in less than 10% of patients.55,82,83 Among chemotherapeutic agents, cisplatin is the most consistent emetic known and has become the benchmark for judging antiemetic efficacy. Antiemetics that are effective with cisplatin are at least as effective with other chemotherapeutic agents. Controlling for the influence of prior chemotherapy and balancing predisposing factors such as, sex, age, and prior heavy alcohol use among study groups are vital for reliability. Reliable randomization of patients and blinding techniques (easier when there are no psychoactive effects) are also necessary to evaluate the control of vomiting and nausea. *The visual analogue scale is a continuous line representing all possible levels of a particular sensation. It is an estimation of a patient's subjective evaluation and not a true measurement. Patients select a point anywhere on the line to demonstrate the level of sensation they are experiencing, with one end representing one extreme, such as no sensations, and the other end representing the opposite extreme, such as a maximum level of that sensation.

OCR for page 137
Page 182 20. Chauhan BC, Drance SM. 1992. The relationship between intraocular pressure and visual field progression in glaucoma. Graefe's Archives for Clinical and Experinental Ophthalmology 230:521-526. 21. Clark RA, Tyson LB, Frisone M. 1985. A correlation of objective and subjective parameters in assessing antiemetic regimens. Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Congress of the Oncology Nursing Society 2:96. 22. Clark WC, Janal MN, Zeidenberg P, Nahas GG. 1981. Effects of moderate and high doses of marihuana on thermal pain: A sensory decision theory analysis. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21:299S-310S. 23. Clarke RC. 1995. Marijuana Botany-An Advanced Study: The Propagation and Breeding of Distinctive Cannabis. Berkeley, CA: Ronin Publishing. 24. Clifford DB. 1983. Tetrahydrocannabinol for tremor in multiple sclerosis. Annals of Neurology 13:669-671. 25. Consroe P. 1998a. Clinical and experimental reports of marijuana and cannabinoids in spastic disorders. In: Nahas GG, Sutin KM, Harvey DJ, Agurell S, Editors, Marijuana and Medicine. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. 26. Consroe P. 1998b. Brain cannabinoid systems as target for the treatment of neurological disorders. Neurobiology of Disease 5:534-551. 27. Consroe P, Laguna J, Allender J, Snider S, Stern L, Sandyk R, Kennedy K, Schram K. 1991. Controlled clinical trial of cannabidiol in Huntington's disease. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior (New York) 40:701-708. 28. Consroe P, Musty R, Rein J, Tillery W, Pertwee RG. 1997. The perceived effects of smoked cannabis on patients with multiple sclerosis. European Neurology 38:44-48. 29. Consroe P, Sandyk R. 1992. Potential role of cannabinoids for therapy of neurological disorders. In: Bartke A, Murphy LL, Editors, Marijuana/Cannabinoids: Neurobiology and Neurophysiology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 459-524. 30. Consroe P, Sandyk R, Snider SR. 1986. Open label evaluation of cannabidiol in dystonic movement disorders. International Journal of Neuroscience 30:277-282. 31. Cooler P, Gregg JM. 1977. Effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on intraocular pressure in humans. Southern Medical Journal 70:951-954. 32. Crawford WJ, Merritt JC. 1979. Effects of tetrahydrocannabinol on arterial andintraocular hypertension. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmacy 17:191-196. 33. Crow S. 1997. Investigational drugs for eating disorders. Expert Opinion ol Investigational Drugs 6:427-436. 34. Cunha JM, Carlini EA, Pereira AE, Ramos OL, Pimentel C, Gagliardi R, Sanvito WL, Lander N, Mechoulam R. 1980. Chronic administration of cannabidiol to healthy volunteers and epileptic patients. Pharmacology 21:175-185. 35. Davis CJ. 1995. Emesis research: A concise history of the critical concepts and experiments. In: Reynolds DJ, Andrews PL, Davis CJ, Editors, Serotonin and the Scientific Basis of Anti-Emetic Therapy. Oxford : Oxford Clinical Communications. Pp. 9-24. 36. DeLong MR, Georgopoulos AP, Crutcher MD, Mitchell S J, Richardson RT, Alexander GE. 1984. Functional organization of the basal ganglia: Contributions of single-cell recording studies. CIBA Foundation Symposium 107:64-82. 37. DeMulder PH, Seynaeve C, Vermorker JB, et al. 1990. Ondansetron compared with high-dose metoclopramide in prophylaxis of acute and delayed cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Annals of Internal Medicine 113:834-840. 38. Doblin R, Kleiman MA. 1995. The medical use of marijuana: The case for clinical trials [editorial; comment]. Journal of Addictive Diseases 14:5-14; Comment in Journal of Addictive Diseases 1994, 13(1):53-65.

OCR for page 137
Page 183 39. Doblin R, Kleiman M. 1991. Marijuana as antiemetic medicine: A survey of oncologists' experiences and attitudes. Journal of Clinical Oncology 9:1314-1319. 40. Dunlop R. 1996. Clinical epidemiology of cancer cachexia. In: Bruera E, Higginson I, Editors, Cachexia-Anorexia in Cancer Patients. Vol. 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 76-82. 41. Dunn M, Davis R. 1974. The perceived effects of marijuana on spinal cord injured males. Paraplegia 12:175. 42. Eidelberg D, Moeller JR, Antonini A, Kazumata K, Dhawan V, Budman C, Feigin A. 1997. The metabolic anatomy of Tourette's syndrome. Neurology 48:927-934. 43. El-Mallakh RS. 1987. Marijuana and migraine. Headache 27:442-443. 44. Engelson ES, Rabkin JG, Rabkin R, Kotler DP. 1996. Effects of testosterone upon body composition. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and Humnan Retrovirology 11:510-511. 45. Enoch M, Kaye WH, Rotondo A, Greenberg BD, Murphy DL, Goldman D. 1998. 5HT2A promoter polymorphism-1438G/A, anorexia nervosa, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The Lancet 351:1785-1786. 46. Follmann P, Paltotas C, Suveges I, Petrovits A. 1996-1997. Nocturnal blood pressure and intraocular pressure measurement in glaucoma patients and healthy controls. International Ophthalmology 20:83-87. 47. Foltin RW, Fischman MW, Byrne MF. 1988. Effects of smoked marijuana on food intake and body weight of humans living in a residential laboratory. Appetite 11:1-14. 48. Frankel JP, Hughes A, Lees AJ, Stern GM. 1990. Marijuana for Parkinsonian tremor. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 53:436. 49. French J. 1998. The art of antiepileptic trial design. Advances in Neurology 76:113-123. 50. Frytak S, Moertel CG, O'Fallon J, et al. 1979. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic in patients treated with cancer chemotherapy: A double comparison with prochloperazine and a placebo. Annals of Internal Medicine 91:825-830. 51. Glass M, Dragunow M, Faull RLM. 1997. Cannabinoid receptors in the human brain: A detailed anatomical and quantitative autoradiographic study in the fetal, neonatal and adult human brain. Neuroscience 77:299-318. 52. Goadsby PJ, Gundlach AL. 1991. Localization of [3H]-dihydroergotamine binding sites in the cat central nervous system: Relevance to migraine. Annals of Neurology 29:91-94. 53. Gonzalez EC, Brownlee HJ. 1998. Movement disorders. In: Taylor RB, Editor, Family Medicine: Principles and Practice. 5th Edition. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 565-573. 54. Gorter R. 1991. Management of anorexia-cachexia associated with cancer and HIV infection. Oncology (Supplement) 5:13-17. 55. Gralla RJ, Itri LM, Pisko SE, et al. 1981. Antiemetic efficacy of high dose metoclopramide: Randomized trials with placebo and prochlorperazine in patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. New England Journal of Medicine 305:905-909. 56. Gralla RJ, Navari RM, Hesketh PJ, et al. 1998. Single-dose oral granisetron has equivalent antiemetic efficacy to intravenous ondansetron for highly emetogenic cisplatinbased chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 16:1-7. 57. Gralla RJ, Rittenberg CN, Lettow LA, et al. 1995. A unique all-oral, single-dose, combination antiemetic regimen with high efficacy and marked cost saving potential. Proceedings of the American Societyfor Clinical Oncology 14:526. 58. Gralla RJ, Tyson LB, Borden LB, et al. 1984. Antiemetic therapy: A review of recent studies and a report of a random assignment trial comparing metoclopramide with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Cancer Treatment Reports 68:163-172.

OCR for page 137
Page 184 59. Grandara DR, Roila F, Warr D, Edelman MJ, Perez EA, Gralla RJ. 1998. Consensus proposal for 5HT3 antagonists in the prevention of acute emesis related to highly emetogenic chemotherapy: Dose, schedule, and route of administration. Supportive Care in Cancer 6:237-243. 60. Green K, Roth M. 1982. Ocular effects of topical administration of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in man. Archives of Ophthalmology 100:265-267. 61. Greenberg HS, Werness SA, Pugh JE, Andrus RO, Anderson DJ, Domino EF. 1994. Short-term effects of smoking marijuana on balance in patients with multiple sclerosis and normal volunteers. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 55:324-328. 62. Grinspoon L, Bakalar JB. 1993. Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine. New Haven: Yale University Press. 63. Grinspoon L, Bakalar JB, Zimmer L, Morgan JP. 1997. Marijuana addiction [Letter]. Science 277:749; discussion, 750-752. 64. Grinspoon S, Corcoran C, Askari H, Schoenfeld D, Wolf L, Burrows B, Walsh M, Hayden D, Parlman K, Anderson E, Basgoz N, Klibanski A. 1998. Effects of androgen administration in men with the AIDS wasting syndrome. Annals of Internal Medicine 129:18-26. 65. Gross H, Egbert MH, Faden VB, Godberg SC, Kaye WH, Caine ED, Hawks R, Zinberg NE. 1983. A double-blind trial of delta-9-THC in primary anorexia nervosa. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 3:165-171. 66. Guyatt GH, Keller JL, Jaeschke R, Rosenbloom D, Adachi JD, Newhouse MT. 1990. The N-of-1 randomized controlled trial-clinical usefulness: Our three-year experience. Annals of Internal Medicine 112:293-299. 67. Guyatt GH, Sackett D, Taylor DW, Chong J, Roberts R, Pugsley S. 1986. Determining optimal therapy: Randomized trials in individual patients. New England Journal of Medicine 314:889-892. 68. Guyton AC. 1986. Textbook of Medical Physiology. 7th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company. 69. Hall W. 1997. An ongoing debate. Science 278:75. 70. Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, Foltin RW, Fischman MW. 1999. Abstinence symptoms following oral THC administration to humans. Psychopharmacology 141:385-394. 71. Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, Foltin RW, Fischman MW. 1999. Abstinence symptoms following smoked marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacology 141:395-404. 72. Hanigan WC, Destree R, Truong XT. 1986. The effect of delta-9-THC on human spasticity. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 39:198. 73. Hardin TC. 1993. Cytokine mediators of malnutrition: Clinical implications. Nutrition in Clinical Practice 8:55-59. 74. Hayreh SS, Zimmerman MB, Podhajsky P, Alward W. 1994. Nocturnal arterial hypotension and its role in optic nerve head and ocular ischemic disorders. American Journal of Ophthalmology 117:603-624. 75. Hemming M, Yellowlees PM. 1993. Effective treatment of Tourette's syndrome with marijuana. Journal of Psychopharmacology 7:389-391. 76. Hepler RS, Frank IM, Petrus R. 1976. Ocular effects of marijuana smoking. In: Braude MC, Szara S, Editors, The Pharmacology of Marijuana. New York: Raven Press. Pp. 815824. 77. Hepler RS, Frank IR. 1971. Marihuana smoking and intraocular pressure. Journal of the American Medical Association 217(10):1392. 78. Herkenham M, Lynn AB, de Costa BR, Richfield EK. 1991a. Neuronal localization of cannabinoid receptors in the basal ganglia of the rat. Brain Research 547:267-274.

OCR for page 137
Page 185 79. Herkenham M, Lynn AB, Johnson MR, Melvin LS, de Costa BR, Rice KC. 1991b. Characterization and localization of cannabinoid receptors in rat brain: A quantitative in vitro autoradiographic study. Journal of Neuroscience 11:563-583. 80. Herkenham M, Lynn AB, Little MD, Johnson MR, Melvin LS, de Costa BR, Rice KC. 1990. Cannabinoid receptor localization in the brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 87:1932-1936. 81. Herrstedt J, Aapro MS, Smyth JF, Del Favero A. 1998. Corticosteroids, dopamine antagonists and other drugs. Supportive Care in Cancer 6:204-214. 82. Hesketh PJ, Gralla RJ, duBois A, Tonato M. 1998. Methodology of antiemetic trials: Response assessment, evaluation of new agents and definition of chemotherapy emetogenicity. Supportive Care in Cancer 6:221-227. 83. Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Grunberg SM, Beck T, Hainsworth JD, Harker G, Aapro MS, Gandara D, Lindley CM. 1997. Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 15:103-109. 84. Hill SY, Schwin R, Goodwin DW, Powell BJ. 1974. Marihuana and pain. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 188:415-418. 85. Holdcroft A, Smith M, Jacklin A, Hodgson H, Smith B, Newton M, Evans F. 1997. Pain relief with oral cannabinoids in familial Mediterranean fever. Anaesthesia 5:483486. 86. Homesley HD, Gainey JM, Jobson VN, et al. 1982. Double-blind placebo-controlled study of metoclopramide in cisplatin-induced emesis. New England Journal of Medicine 307:250-251. 87. Huestis MA, Henningfield JE, Cone EJ. 1992. Blood cannabinoids. I. Absorption of THC and formation of 11-OH-THC and THCCOOH during and after smoking marijuana. Journal of Analytical Toxicology 16:276-282. 88. Italian Group for Antiemetic Trials. 1995. Dexamethasone, granisetron, or both for the prevention of nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy for cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 332:332-337. 89. Jain AK, Ryan JR, McMahon FG, Smith G. 1981. Evaluation of intramuscular levonantradol and placebo in acute postoperative pain. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21:320S-326S. 90. Jay WM, Green K. 1983. Multiple-drop study of topically applied 1%, A9-tetrahydrocannabinol in human eyes. Archives of Ophthalmology 101:591-593. 91. Jones RT, Benowitz NL, Heming RI. 1981. Clinical relevance of cannabis tolerance and dependence. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21:143S-152S. 92. Kass MA, Gordon MO, Hoff MR, Pardinson JM, Kolker AE, Hart WM, Becker B. 1989. Topical timolol administration reduces the incidence of glaucomatous damage in ocular hypertensive individuals: A randomized, double-masked, long-term clinical trial. Archives of Ophthalmology 107:1590-1598. 93. Kaufman P, Mittag TW. 1994. Medical therapy of glaucoma. In: Kaufman P, Mittag TW, Editors, Textbook of Ophthalmology. Volume 7. London: Mosby-Yearbook. 94. Kotler DP. 1997. Wasting Syndrome Pathogenesis and Clinical Markers. Institute of Medicine Workshop. Irvine, CA, December 15, 1997. Pp. 56-66. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. 95. Kotler DP, Gaetz HP, Klein EB, Lange M, Holt PR. 1984. Enteropathy associated with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Annals of Internal Medicine 101:421-428. 96. Kotler DP, Tierney AR, Culpepper-Morgan JA, Wang J, Peirson RN. 1990. Effect of home total parental nutrition on body composition in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Journal of Parenteral Nutrition 14:454-458.

OCR for page 137
Page 186 97. Kotler DP, Tierney AR, Dilmanian FA, Kamen Y, Wang J, Pierson Jr RN, Weber D. 1991. Correlation between total body potassium and total body nitrogen in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Clinical Research 39:649A. 98. Kotler DP, Tierney AR, Ferraro R, et al. 1991. Enteral alimentation and repletion of body cell mass in malnourished patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 53:149-154. 99. Kotler DP, Tierney AR, Wang J, Pierson RN. 1989. Magnitude of body-cell-mass depletion and the timing of death from wasting in AIDS. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50:444-447. 100. Kotler DP, Wang J, Pierson RN. 1985. Studies of body composition in patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 42:1255-1265. 101. Kris MG, Gralla RJ, Clark RA, et al. 1987. Antiemetic control and prevention of side effects of anticancer therapy with lorazepam or diphenhydramine when used in combination with metoclopramide plus dexamethasone: A double-blind randomized trial. Cancer 60:2816-2822. 102. Kris MG, Radford JE, Pizzo BA, et al. 1997. Use of an NK-1 receptor antagonist to prevent delayed emesis following cisplatin. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 89:817-818. 103. Kris MG, Roila F, De Mulder PH, Marty M. 1998. Delayed emesis following anticancer chemotherapy. Supportive Care in Cancer 6:228-232. 104. Lang IM, Sarna SK. 1989. Motor and myoelectric activity associated with vomiting, regurgitation, and nausea. In: Wood JD, Editor, Handbook of Physiology: The Gastrointestinal System. 1, Motility and Circulation. Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society. Pp. 1179-1198. 105. Larson EB, Ellsworth AJ, Oas J. 1993. Randomized clinical trials in single patients during a 2-year period. Journal of the American Medical Association 270:2708-2712. 106. Leske MC, Connell AM, Schachat AP, Hyman L. 1994. The Barbados Eye Study: Prevalence of open angle glaucoma. Archives of Oplitlhalmrology 112:821-829. 107. Levitt M, Faiman C, Hawks R, et al. 1984. Randomized double-blind comparison of delta-9-THC and marijuana as chemotherapy antiemetics. Proceedings of the American Societyfor Clinical Oncology 3:91. 108. Libman E, Stern MH. 1985. The effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on cutaneous sensitivity and its relation to personality. Personality, Individuality and Difference 6:169174. 109. Lichter PR. 1988. A wolf in sheep's clothing. Ophthalmology 95:149-150. 110. Lichtman AH, Cook SA, Martin BR. 1996. Investigation of brain sites mediating cannabinoid-induced antinociception in rats: Evidence supporting periaqueductal gray involvement. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 276:585-593. 111. Lichtman AH, Martin BR. 1991. Cannabinoid-induced antinociception is mediated by a spinal alpha-noradrenergic mechanism. Brain Research 559:309-314. 112. Lindgren JE, Ohlsson A, Agurell S, Hollister LE, Gillespie H. 1981. Clinical effects and plasma levels of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta 9-THC) in heavy and light users of cannabis. Psychophlarmacology (Berlin) 74:208-212. 113. Macallan DC, Noble C, Baldwin C, Foskett M, McManus T, Griffin GE. 1993. Prospective analysis of patterns of weight change in stage IV human immunodeficiency virus infection. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 58:417-424. 114. Malec J, Harvey RF, Cayner JJ. 1982. Cannabis effect on spasticity in spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 63:116-118.

OCR for page 137
Page 187 115. Mao NK, Stewart WC, Shields M. 1991. Correlation between intraocular pressure control and progressive glaucomatous damage in primary open-angle glaucoma. American Journal of Ophthalmology 111:51-55. 116. Marotta JT. 1995. Spinal injury. In: Rowland LP, Editor, Merrit's Textbook of Neurology. 9th Edition. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger. Pp. 440-447. 117. Martyn CN, Illis LS, Thom J. 1995. Nabilone in the treatment of multiple sclerosis [Letter]. Lancet 345:579. 118. Mathew NT. 1997. Serotonin 1D (5-HT 1D) agonists and other agents in acute migraine. Neurologic Clinics 15:61-83. 119. Mattes RD, Engelman K, Shaw LM, Elsohly MA. 1994. Cannabinoids and appetite stimulation. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 49:187-195. 120. Maurer M, Henn V, Dittrich A, Hoffman A. 1990. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol shows antispastic and analgesic effects in a single case double-blind trial. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 240:1-4. 121. McCarthy LE, Flora KP, Vishnuvajjala BR. 1984. Antiemetic properties and plasma concentrations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol against cisplatin vomiting in cats. In: Agurell S, Dewey WL, Willette RE, Editors, The Cannabinoids: Chemical, Pharmlacologic and Therapeutic Aspects. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Pp. 859-870. 122. McQuay H, Carroll D, Moore A. 1996. Variation in the placebo effect in randomised controlled trials of analgesics: All is as blind as it seems. Pain 64:331-335. 123. Meinck HM, Schonle PW, Conrad B. 1989. Effect of cannabinoids on spasticity and ataxia in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neurology 236:120-122. 124. Merritt JC, Cook CE, Davis KH. 1982. Orthostatic hypotension after delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol marihuana inhalation. Ophthalmic Research 14:124-128. 125. Merritt JC, Crawford WJ, Alexander PC, Anduze AL, Gelbart SS. 1980. Effect of marihuana on intraocular and blood pressure in glaucoma. Ophthalnology 87:222-228. 126. Mertens TE, Low-Beer D. 1996. HIV and AIDS: Where is the epidemic going? Bulletin of the World Health Organization 74:121-129. 127. Miller AD. 1998. Nausea and vomiting: Underlying mechanisms and upcoming treatments. Journal of the Japanese Broncho-Esophagological Society 49:57-64. 128. Miller AD, Nonaka S, Siniaia MS, Jakus J. 1995. Multifunctional ventral respiratory group: Bulospinal expiratory neurons play a role in pudendal discharge during vomiting. Journal of the Autonomic Nervous System 54:253-260. 129. Miller AS, Walker JM. 1995. Effects of a cannabinoid on spontaneous and evoked neuronal activity in the substantia nigra pars reticulata. European Journal of Pharmacology 279:179-185. 130. Miller AS, Walker JM. 1996. Electrophysiological effects of a cannabinoid on neural activity in the globus pallidus. European Journal of Pharmacology 304:29-35. 131. Moertel CG, Taylor WF, Roth A, Tyce FA. 1976. Who responds to sugar pills? Mayo Clinic Proceedings 51:96-100. 132. Moldawer LL, Andersson C, Gelin J, Lundholm KG. 1988. Regulation of food intake and hepatic protein synthesis by recombinant-derived cytokines. American Journal of Physiology 254:G450-G456. 133. Mulligan K, Tai VW, Schambelan M. 1997. Cross-sectional and longitudinal evaluation of body composition in men with HIV infection. Journal of Acquired Inmmunodeficiency Syndrome 15:43-48. 134. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. 1996. Global Health Statistics: A Comwpenditum of Incidence, Prevalence, and Mortality Estimates for Over 200 Conditions. Global Burden of Disease and Injury Series, Volume II. Boston, MA: The Harvard School of Public Health.

OCR for page 137
Page 188 135. Navari RM, Reinhardt RR, Gralla RJ, Kris MG, Hesketh PJ, et al. 1999. Reduction of cisplatin-induced emesis by a selective neurokinin-l-receptor antagonist. The New England Journal of Medicine 340:190-195. 136. Newell FW, Stark P, Jay WM, Schanzlin DJ. 1979. Nabilone: A pressure-reducing synthetic benzopyran in open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 86:156-160. 137. Ng SKC, Brust JCM, Hauser WA, Susser M. 1990. Illicit drug use and the risk of newonset seizures. American Journal of Epidemiology 132:47-57. 138. NIH. 1997. Spinal cord injury: Emerging concepts: An NIH workshop. Proceedings of an NIH Workshop on Spinal Cord Injury. Bethesda, MD, September 30-October 1, 1996. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. 139. Noyes R, Jr, Brunk SF, Avery DH, Canter A. 1975b. The analgesic properties of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and codeine. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 18:84-89. 140. Noyes Jr R, Brunk SF, Baram DA, Canter A. 1975a. Analgesic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 15:139-143. 141. Ohlsson A, Lindgren J-E, Wahlen A, Agurell S, Hollister LE, Gillespie HK. 1980. Plasma delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations and clinical effects after oral and intravenous administration and smoking. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 28:409-416. 142. Orgul S, Kaiser HJ, Flammer J, Gasser P. 1995. Systemic blood pressure and capillary blood-cell velocity in glaucoma patients: A preliminary study. European Journal of Ophthalmology 5:88-91. 143. Orr LE, McKernan JF, Bloome B. 1980. Antiemetic effect of tetrahydrocannabinol. Compared with placebo and prochlorperazine in chemotherapy-associated nausea and emesis. Archives of Internal Medicine 140:1431-1433. 144. Ott M, Lambke B, Fischer H, Jagre R, Polat H, Geier H, Rech M, Staszeswki S, Helm EB, Caspary WF. 1993. Early changes of body composition in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients: Tetrapolar body impedance analysis indicates significant malnutrition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 57:15-19. 145. Perez EA, Chawla SP, Kaywin PK, et al. 1997. Efficacy and safety of oral granisetron versus IV ondansetron in prevention of moderately emetogenic chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting. Proceedings of the American Societyfor Clinical Oncology 16:43. 146. Perez-Reyes M, Wagner D, Wall ME, Davis KH. 1976. Intravenous administration of cannabinoids and intraocular pressure. In: The Pharmacology of Marihuana, New York: Raven Press. Pp. 829-832. 147. Peroutka SJ. 1996. Drugs effective in the therapy of migraine. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, Editors, Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 487-502. 148. Petro D, Ellenberger Jr C. 1981. Treatment of human spasticity with delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21:413S-416S. 149. Quigley HA. 1996. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. British Journal of Oplhthalmology 80:389-393. 150. Raft D, Gregg J, Ghia J, Harris L. 1977. Effects of intravenous tetrahydrocannabinol on experimental and surgical pain: Psychological correlates of the analgesic response. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 21:26-33. 151. Razdan RK. 1986. Structure-activity relationships in cannabinoids. Pharmacology Review 38:75-149. 152. Richfield EK, Herkenham M. 1994. Selective vulnerability in Huntington's disease: Preferential loss of cannabinoid receptors in lateral globus pallidus. Annals of Neurology 36:577-584.

OCR for page 137
Page 189 153. Richter A, Loscher W. 1994. (+)-WIN55,212-2 A novel cannabinoid receptor agonist, exerts antidystonic effects in mutant dystonic hamsters. European Journal of Pharmacology 264:371-377. 154. Rodriguez de Fonseca F, Carrera MRA, Navarro M, Koob G, Weiss F. 1997. Activation of corticotropin-releasing factor in the limbic system during cannabinoid withdrawal [see comments Science 1997., 276:1967-1968]. Science 276:2050-2054. 155. Roila F, Tonato M, Cognetti F, et al. 1991. Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis: A double-blind multicenter randomized crossover study comparing ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone. Journal of Clinical Oncology 9:674-678. 156. Rosenzweig MR, Leiman AL, Breedlove SM. 1996. Biological Psychology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. 157. Roth RI, Owen RL, Keren DF, Volberding PA. 1985. Intestinal infection with Mycobacterium avium in acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS): Histological and clinical comparison with Whipple's disease. Digestive Disease Science 30:497-504. 158. Suttmann U, Ockenga J, Selberg 0, Hoogestraat L, Deicher H, Muller MJ. 1995. Incidence and prognostic value of malnutrition and wasting in human immunodeficiency virus-infected outpatients. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and Human Retrovirology 8:239-246. 159. Sackett D, Rosenberg W, Haynes B, Richardson S. 1997. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. New York: Churchhill Livingston. 160. Sallan SE, Cronin CM, Zelen M, et al. 1980. Antiemetics in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer: A randomized comparison of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and prochlorperazine. New England Journal of Medicine 302:135-138. 161. Sallan SE, Zinberg NE, Frei E. 1975. Antiemetic effect of delta-9-THC in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. New England Journal of Medicine 293:795-797. 162. SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). 1998. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1997. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 98-3250. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies. 163. Sandyk R, Awerbuch G. 1988. Marijuana and Tourette's syndrome. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 8:444-445. 164. Sandyk R, Consroe P, Stern P, Biklen D. 1988. Preliminary trial of cannabidiol in Huntington's disease. Chesher G, Consroe P, Musty R., Editors, Marijuana: An International Research Report. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. 165. Sanudo-Pena MC, Patrick SL, Patrick RL, Walker JM. 1996. Effects of intranigral cannabinoids on rotational behavior in rats: Interactions with the dopaminergic system. Neuroscience Letters 206:21-24. 166. Sanudo-Pena MC, Tsou K, and Walker JM. Cannabinoid dopamine interactions in the basal ganglia in an animal model of Parkinson disease. (in preparation). 167. Sanudo-Pena MC, Tsou K, and Walker JM. Superior colliculus and turning: Dopamine and cannabinoids. (in preparation). 168. Sanudo-Pena MC, Walker JM. 1997. Role of the subthalamic nucleus in cannabinoid actions in the substantia nigra of the rat. Journal of Neurophysiology 77:1635-1638. 169. Sanudo-Pena MC, Walker JM. 1998. Effects of intrastriatal cannabinoids on rotational behavior in rats: Interactions with the dopaminergic system. Synapse 30:221-226. 170. Schambelan M, Mulligan K, Grunfeld C, Daar ES, LaMarca A, Kotler DP. 1996. Recombinant human growth hormone in patients with HIV-associated wasting: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial: Serostim Study Group. Annals of Internal Medicine 125:873-882. 171. Schwartz RH, Beveridge RA. 1994. Marijuana as an antiemetic drug: How useful is it today? Opinions from clinical oncologists [see Comments]. Journal of Addictive Diseases 13:53-65.

OCR for page 137
Page 190 172. Schwartz RH, Voth EA. 1995. Marijuana as medicine: Making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Journal of Addictive Diseases 14:15-21. 173. Shields MB. 1998. Textbook of Glaucoma. 4th Edition. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. 174. Sommer A, Tielsch JM, Katz J, Quigley HA, Gottsch JD, Javitt J, Singh K. 1991. Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black Americans: The Baltimore Eye Survey. Archives of Ophthanlology 109:1090-1095. 175. Staquet M, Gantt C, Machin D. 1978. Effect of a nitrogen analog of tetrahydrocannabinol on cancer pain. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 23:397-401. 176. Steele N, Gralla RJ, Braun Jr DW. 1980. Double-blind comparison of the antiemetic effects of nabilone and prochlorperazine on chemotherapy-induced emesis. Cancer Treatments Report 64:219-224. 177. Stimmel B. 1995. Medical marijuana: To prescribe or not to prescribe, that is the question [Editorial]. Journal of Addictive Diseases 14:1-3. 178. Strassman RJ. 1998. Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine (book review). Journal of the American Medical Association 279:963-964. 179. Struwe M, Kaempfer SH, Geiger CJ, Pavia AT, Plasse TF, Shepard KV, Ries K, Evans TG. 1993. Effect of dronabinol on nutritional status in HIV infection. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 27:827-831. 180. Swift RM. 1994. Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine (book review). The New England Journal of Medicine 331:749-750. 181. Tanda G, Pontieri FE, Di Chiara G. 1997. Cannabinoid and heroin activation of mesolimbic dopamine transmission by a common PL opioid receptor mechanism. Science 276:2048-2049. 182. Tiedeman JS, Shields MB, Weber PA, Crow JW, Cocchetto DM, Harris WA, Howes JF. 1981. Effect of synthetic cannabinoids on elevated intraocular pressure. Ophthalmology 88:270-277. 183. Timpone JG, Wright DJ, Li N, Egorin MJ, Enama ME, Mayers J, Galetto G, DATRI 004 Study Group. 1997. The safety and pharmacokinetics of single-agent and combination therapy with megestrol acetate and dronabinol for the treatment of HIV wasting syndrome: The DATRI 004 study group. AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses 13:305315. 184. Trembly B, Sherman M. 1990. Double-blind clinical study of cannabidiol as a secondary anticonvulsant. Unpublished manuscript presented at the Marijuana '90 International Conference on Cannabis and Cannabinoids. Kolympari, Crete, July 8-11. 185. Tyson LB, Gralla RJ, Clark RA, et al. 1985. Phase I trial of levonantradol in chemotherapy-induced emesis. American Journal of Clinical Oncology 8:528-532. 186. UNAIDS, WHO. 1998. Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic, June 1998. 187. Ungerleider JT, Andrysiak TA, Fairbanks L, Ellison GW, Myers LW. 1987. Delta-9-THC in the treatment of spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis. Advances in Alcohol and Substance Abuse 7:39-50. 188. Vinciguerra V, Moore T, Brennan E. 1988. Inhalation marijuana as an antiemetic for cancer chemotherapy. New York State Journal of Medicine 88:525-527. 189. Volicer L, Smith S, Volicer BJ. 1995. Effect of seizures on progression of dementia of the Alzheimer type. Dementia 6:258-263. 190. Volicer L, Stelly M, Morris J, McLaughlin J, Volicer BJ. 1997. Effects of dronabinol on anorexia and disturbed behavior in patients with Alzheimer's disease. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 12:913-919. 191. Voth EA, Schwartz RH. 1997. Medicinal applications of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and marijuana. Annals of Internal Medicine 126:791-798.

OCR for page 137
Page 191 192. Wall PD, Melzack R. 1994. Textbook of Pain. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. 193. Walters TR. 1996. Development and use of brimonidine in treating acute and chronic elevations of intraocular pressure: A review of safety, efficacy, dose response, and dosing studies. Survey of Ophthalmology 41(Suppl. 1):S19-S26. 194. Wang ZM, Visser M, Ma R, Baumgartner RN, Kotler DP, Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB. 1996. Skeletal muscle mass: Validation of neutron activation and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry methods by computerized tomography. Journal of Applied Physiology 80:824-831. 195. Whitney EN, Cataldo CB, Rolfes SR. 1994. Understanditng Normal and Clinical Nutrition. 4th Edition. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing Co. 196. Wood. 1998. HIV-protease inhibitors. Drug Therapy 338:1281-1292. 197. Yoles E, Belkin M, Schwartz M. 1996. HU-211, a nonpsychotropic cannabinoid, produces short- and long-term neuroprotection after optic nerve axotomy. Journal of Neurotrauma 13:49-57. 198. Zimmer L, Morgan JP. 1997. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts. New York: The Lindesmith Center.

OCR for page 137
No clear link has been established between symptoms of Tourette's and cannabinoid sites or mechanism of action. Pimozide and haloperidol, two widely used treatments for Tourette's, inhibit effects mediated by the neurotransmitter, dopamine, whereas cannabinoids can increase dopamine reiease.~56, I84 The physiological relevance, if any, of these two observations has not been established. The clinical reports consist of four case histories indicating that marijuana use can reduce tics in Tourette's patients.79 ~66 in three of the four cases, the investigators suggest that beneficial effects of marijuana might have been due to anxiety-reducing properties of marijuana rather than to a specific anti-tic effect. ~66 Therapy for Movement Disorders There are a variety of drugs available, listed in table 4.3, to treat the different movement disorders. Common side effects of many of these c rugs include sedation, lethargy, school and work avoidance, social phobia, and increased risk of parkinsonism and tardive dyskinesia.' With some of these medications, like those used for dystonia, efficacy is lacking in as much as 50 percent of the patients. [n addition to medications, surgical interventions such as pallidotomy and neuro surgical transplantation of embryonic substantia nigra tissue into the patient's striatum have been tried in Parkinson's patients. Surgery is generally palliative, and is still considered to be in the developmental phase. Dyskinesia is the development of irreversible, involuntary dyskinetic movements. 4.32