Cannabis and the brain.

Abstract

“The active compound in herbal cannabis, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, exerts all of its known central effects through the CB(1) cannabinoid receptor. Research on cannabinoid mechanisms has been facilitated by the availability of selective antagonists acting at CB(1) receptors and the generation of CB(1) receptor knockout mice. Particularly important classes of neurons that express high levels of CB(1) receptors are GABAergic interneurons in hippocampus, amygdala and cerebral cortex, which also contain the neuropeptides cholecystokinin. Activation of CB(1) receptors leads to inhibition of the release of amino acid and monoamine neurotransmitters. The lipid derivatives anandamide and 2-arachidonylglycerol act as endogenous ligands for CB(1) receptors (endocannabinoids). They may act as retrograde synaptic mediators of the phenomena of depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition or excitation in hippocampus and cerebellum. Central effects of cannabinoids include disruption of psychomotor behaviour, short-term memory impairment, intoxication, stimulation of appetite, antinociceptive actions (particularly against pain of neuropathic origin) and anti-emetic effects. Although there are signs of mild cognitive impairment in chronic cannabis users there is little evidence that such impairments are irreversible, or that they are accompanied by drug-induced neuropathology. A proportion of regular users of cannabis develop tolerance and dependence on the drug. Some studies have linked chronic use of cannabis with an increased risk of psychiatric illness, but there is little evidence for any causal link. The potential medical applications of cannabis in the treatment of painful muscle spasms and other symptoms of multiple sclerosis are currently being tested in clinical trials. Medicines based on drugs that enhance the function of endocannabinoids may offer novel therapeutic approaches in the future.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764049

Nabilone: an effective antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.

Abstract

“Eighty evaluable patients receiving chemotherapy were entered on a random prospective double-blind study to evaluate the effectiveness of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, compared to prochlorperazine. Most of these patients received cisplatin, a drug that universally produces severe nausea and vomiting, as part of a combination chemotherapy regimen. The patients served as their own controls, receiving either nabilone or prochlorperazine during two consecutive treatment courses with the identical chemotherapy. Side effects consisting of hypotension and lethargy were more pronounced with nabilone. Toxicity, in general, did not preclude antiemetic treatment and in no way interfered with chemotherapy. Sixty patients (75 per cent) reported nabilone to be more effective than prochlorperazine for relief of nausea and vomiting. Of these 60 patients, 46 required further chemotherapy and continued taking nabilone as the antiemetic of choice.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6271844

Anti-emetic efficacy and toxicity of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, in lung cancer chemotherapy.

Abstract

“Nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, and Prochlorperazine were compared in a double-blind crossover study of 34 patients with lung cancer undergoing a 3-day schedule of chemotherapy with Cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin and Etoposide. Symptom scores were significantly better for patients on nabilone for nausea, retching and vomiting (P less than 0.05). Fewer subjects vomited with nabilone (P = 0.05) and the number of vomiting episodes was lower (P less than 0.05); no patients on nabilone required additional parenteral anti-emetic. More patients preferred nabilone for anti-emetic control (P less than 0.005). Adverse effects common with nabilone were drowsiness (57%), postural dizziness (35%) and lightheadedness (18%). Euphoria was seen in 14% and a “high” in 7%. Erect systolic blood pressure was lower in nabilone patients on Day 1 (P = 0.05) but postural hypotension was a major problem in only 7%. Nabilone is an effective oral anti-emetic drug for moderately toxic chemotherapy, but the range and unpredictability of its side-effects warrant caution in its use.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6315040

Marijuana as antiemetic medicine: a survey of oncologists’ experiences and attitudes.

Abstract

“A random-sample, anonymous survey of the members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) was conducted in spring 1990 measuring the attitudes and experiences of American oncologists concerning the antiemetic use of marijuana in cancer chemotherapy patients. The survey was mailed to about one third (N = 2,430) of all United States-based ASCO members and yielded a response rate of 43% (1,035). More than 44% of the respondents report recommending the (illegal) use of marijuana for the control of emesis to at least one cancer chemotherapy patient. Almost one half (48%) would prescribe marijuana to some of their patients if it were legal. As a group, respondents considered smoked marijuana to be somewhat more effective than the legally available oral synthetic dronabinol ([THC] Marinol; Unimed, Somerville, NJ) and roughly as safe. Of the respondents who expressed an opinion, a majority (54%) thought marijuana should be available by prescription. These results bear on the question of whether marijuana has a “currently accepted medical use,” at issue in an ongoing administrative and legal dispute concerning whether marijuana in smoked form should be available by prescription along with synthetic THC in oral form. This survey demonstrates that oncologists’ experience with the medical use of marijuana is more extensive, and their opinions of it are more favorable, than the regulatory authorities appear to have believed.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2045870

Cannabidiol, a non-psychotropic component of cannabis, attenuates vomiting and nausea-like behaviour via indirect agonism of 5-HT(1A) somatodendritic autoreceptors in the dorsal raphe nucleus.

Abstract

“BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

To evaluate the hypothesis that activation of somatodendritic 5-HT(1A) autoreceptors in the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) produces the anti-emetic/anti-nausea effects of cannabidiol (CBD), a primary non-psychoactive cannabinoid found in cannabis.”

“CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:

These results suggest that CBD produced its anti-emetic/anti-nausea effects by indirect activation of the somatodendritic 5-HT(1A) autoreceptors in the DRN.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21827451

Central and peripheral mechanisms contribute to the antiemetic actions of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol against 5-hydroxytryptophan-induced emesis.

Abstract

“Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) prevents cisplatin-induced emesis via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors. Whether central and/or peripheral cannabinoid CB(1) receptors account for the antiemetic action(s) of delta-9-THC remains to be investigated. The 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT=serotonin) precursor, 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP), is an indirect 5-HT agonist and simultaneously produces the head-twitch response (a centrally mediated serotonin 5-HT(2A) receptor-induced behavior) and emesis (a serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor-induced response, mediated by both peripheral and central mechanisms) in the least shrew (Cryptotis parva). The peripheral amino acid decarboxylase inhibitor, carbidopa, prevents the conversion of 5-HTP to 5-HT in the periphery and elevates 5-HTP levels in the central nervous system (CNS). When administered i.p. alone, a 50 mg/kg dose of 5-HTP failed to induce either behaviour while its 100 mg/kg dose produced robust frequencies of both head-twitch response and emesis. Pretreatment with carbidopa (0, 10, 20 and 40 mg/kg) potentiated the ability of both doses of 5-HTP to produce the head-twitch response in a dose-dependent but bell-shaped manner, with maximal potentiation occurring at 20 mg/kg carbidopa. Carbidopa dose-dependently reduced the frequency of 5-HTP (100 mg/kg)-induced emesis, whereas the 10 mg/kg dose potentiated, and the 20 and 40 mg/kg doses suppressed the frequency of vomits produced by the 50 mg/kg dose of 5-HTP. The peripheral and/or central antiemetic action(s) of delta-9-THC (0, 1, 2.5, 5, 10 and 20 mg/kg) against 5-HTP (100 mg/kg)-induced head-twitch response and emesis were investigated in different groups of carbidopa (0, 10 and 20 mg/kg) pretreated shrews. Irrespective of carbidopa treatment, delta-9-THC attenuated the frequency of 5-HTP-induced head-twitch response in a dose-dependent manner with similar ID(50) values. Although delta-9-THC also reduced the frequency of 5-HTP-induced emesis with similar ID(50s), at the 5 mg/kg delta-9-THC dose however, 5-HTP induced significantly less vomits in the 10 and 20 mg/kg carbidopa-treated groups relative to its 0 mg/kg control group. Moreover, increasing doses of carbidopa significantly shifted the inhibitory dose-response effect of delta-9-THC in protecting shrews from 5-HTP-induced emesis to the left. Relatively, a large dose of delta-9-THC (20 mg/kg) was required to significantly reduce the number of vomits produced by direct acting serotonergic 5-HT(3) receptor agonists, serotonin and 2-methylserotonin. Low doses of delta-9-THC (0.1-1 mg/kg) nearly completely prevented 2-methylserotonin-induced, centrally mediated, head-twitch and ear-scratch responses. The results indicate that delta-9-THC probably acts pre- and postsynaptically to attenuate emesis produced by indirect and direct acting 5-HT(3) receptor agonists via both central and peripheral mechanisms. In addition, delta-9-THC prevents 5-HTP-induced head-twitch and emesis via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors since the CB(1) receptor antagonist, SR 141716A [N-piperidino-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methylpyrazole-3-carboxamide], countered the inhibitory actions of an effective dose of delta-9-THC against both behaviours.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15044052

http://www.thctotalhealthcare.com/category/nauseavomiting/

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol differentially suppresses cisplatin-induced emesis and indices of motor function via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors in the least shrew.

“The present study investigates the cannabinoid receptor mechanisms by which Delta(9)-THC produces its antiemetic effects against cisplatin -induced emesis as well as its cannabimimetic activity profile (motor reduction) in the least shrew.

Intraperitoneal administration of Delta(9)-THC (1, 2.5, 5 and 10 mg/kg) dose-dependently reduced both the percentage of animals vomiting (ID(50)=1.8+/-1.6 mg/kg) and the frequency of vomits (ID(50)=0.36+/-1.18 mg/kg) in a potent manner.

The lowest significantly effective antiemetic dose of Delta(9)-THC for the latter emesis parameters was 2.5 mg/kg. Although Delta(9)-THC reduced the frequency of vomits up to 98%, it failed to completely protect all tested shrews from vomiting (80% protection). The cannabinoid CB(1) antagonist (SR 141716A) and not the CB(2) antagonist (SR 144528), reversed the antiemetic effects of Delta(9)-THC in a dose-dependent fashion. Delta(9)-THC (1, 5, 10 and 20 mg/kg, ip) suppressed locomotor parameters (spontaneous locomotor activity, duration of movement and rearing frequency) in a biphasic manner and only the 20-mg/kg dose simultaneously suppressed the triad of locomotor parameters to a significant degree. Subcutaneous (1-10 mg/kg) and intraperitoneal (0.05-40 mg/kg) injection of some doses of SR 141716A caused significant reductions in one or more components of the triad of locomotor parameters but these reductions were not dose dependent. Subcutaneous injection of SR 141716A (0.2, 1, 5 and 10 mg/kg) reversed the motor suppressant effects of a 20-mg/kg dose of Delta(9)-THC (ip) in a dose-dependent manner. Relative to its motor suppressant effects,

Delta(9)-THC is a more potent antiemetic agent. Both effects are probably mediated via CB(1) receptors in distinct loci.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11420092

http://www.thctotalhealthcare.com/category/nauseavomiting/

Antiemetic and motor-depressive actions of CP55,940: cannabinoid CB1 receptor characterization, distribution, and G-protein activation.

Abstract

“Dibenzopyran (Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol) and aminoalkylindole [R(+)-[2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-3-[(morpholinyl)methyl]pyrolol[1,2,3-de]-1,4-benzoxazin-yl]-(1-naphthalenyl) methanone mesylate; (WIN55,212-2)] cannabinoids suppress vomiting produced by cisplatin via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors. This study investigates the antiemetic potential of the “nonclassical” cannabinoid CP55,940 [1alpha,2beta-(R)-5alpha]-(-)-5-(1,1-dimethyl)-2-[5-hydroxy-2-(3-hydroxypropyl) cyclohexyl-phenol] against cisplatin-induced vomiting and assesses the presence and functionality of cannabinoid CB(1) receptors in the least shrew (Cryptotis parva) brain. CP55,940 (0.025-0.3 mg/kg) reduced both the frequency of cisplatin-induced emesis (ID(50)=0.025 mg/kg) and the percentage of shrews vomiting (ID(50)=0.09 mg/kg). CP55,940 also suppressed shrew motor behaviors (ID(50)=0.06- 0.21 mg/kg) at such doses. The antiemetic and motor-suppressant actions of CP55,940 were countered by SR141716A [N-piperidino-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methylpyrazole-3-carboxamide], indicating both effects are cannabinoid CB(1) receptor-mediated. Autoradiographic studies with [3H]-SR141716A and [35S]-GTPgammaS binding revealed that the distribution of the cannabinoid CB(1) receptor and its activation pattern are similar to rodent brain and significant levels are present in brain loci (e.g., nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS)) that control emesis. The affinity rank order of structurally diverse cannabinoid ligands for cannabinoid CB(1) receptor in shrew brain is similar to rodent brain: HU-210=CP55,940=SR141716A>/=WIN55,212-2>/=delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol>methanandamide=HU-211=cannabidiol=2-arachidonoylglycerol. This affinity order is also similar and is highly correlated to the cannabinoid EC(50) potency rank order for GTPgammaS stimulation except WIN55,212-2 and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency order were reversed. The affinity and the potency rank order of tested cannabinoids were significantly correlated with their antiemetic ID(50) potency order against cisplatin-induced vomiting (CP55,940>WIN55,212-2=delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) as well as emesis produced by 2-arachidonoylglycerol or SR141716A (CP55,940>WIN55,212-2>delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol).”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12505537

Antiemetic efficacy of levonantradol compared to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Abstract

“The antiemetic efficacy of im levonantradol, a synthetic cannabinoid, given at a dose of 1 mg every 4 hours, was compared to oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) given at a dose of 15 mg every 4 hours in a double-blind crossover study. Twenty-six patients receiving emetogenic cancer chemotherapy were evaluated. For each drug, 28% of treated patients had no nausea. The median number of emetic episodes with levonantradol was 2.0 versus 3.0 for THC (P = 0.06). Side effects occurred in 91.7% and 97.3% of levonantradol and THC patients, respectively, with drowsiness and dizziness most commonly seen. Side effects were generally well-tolerated, with only 13.9% of levonantradol and 21.6% of THC patients discontinuing treatment because of side effects. Levonantradol appears to be at least as effective an antiemetic as THC and is the only cannabinoid available for parenteral use.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2981616

Levonantradol for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Abstract

“Twenty patients with cancer previously unresponsive to antiemetic treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting were treated with the new tetrahydrocannabinoid Levonantradol. 15 patients experienced substantial relief and 10 of them preferred the drug for further courses. These observations suggest that Levonantradol can be beneficial to patients refractory to conventional antiemetic therapy.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6350696