Objectives There is increased interest in cannabinoids for cancer pain management and legislative changes are in progress in many countries. This study aims to determine the beneficial and adverse effects of cannabis/cannabinoids compared with placebo/other active agents for the treatment of cancer-related pain in adults. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis to identify randomised controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo/other active agents for the treatment of cancer-related pain in adults to determine the effect on pain intensity (primary outcome) and adverse effects, including dropouts. Searches included Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane and grey literature. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Results We identified 2805 unique records, of which six randomised controlled trials were included in this systematic review (n=1460 participants). Five studies were included in the meta-analysis (1442 participants). All had a low risk of bias. There was no difference between cannabinoids and placebo for the difference in the change in average Numeric Rating Scale pain scores (mean difference −0.21 (−0.48 to 0.07, p=0.14)); this remained when only phase III studies were meta-analysed: mean difference −0.02 (−0.21 to 0.16, p=0.80). Cannabinoids had a higher risk of adverse events when compared with placebo, especially somnolence (OR 2.69 (1.54 to 4.71), p<0.001) and dizziness (OR 1.58 (0.99 to 2.51), p=0.05). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Dropouts and mortality rates were high. Conclusions Studies with a low risk of bias showed that for adults with advanced cancer, the addition of cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain. Trial registration number CRD42018107662.

Background: Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients. Aim: The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required. Design: A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice. Data sources: National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for ‘cancer’ AND ‘pain’ in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made. Results: A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only. Conclusion: Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

The immune system has a central role in controlling cancer, and factors that influence protective antitumour immunity could therefore have a significant impact on the course of malignant disease. Opioids are essential for the management of cancer pain, and preclinical studies indicate that opioids have the potential to influence these tumour immune surveillance mechanisms. The aim of this systematic literature review is to evaluate the clinical effects of opioids on the immune system of patients with cancer. A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase, Cochrane database and Web of Knowledge for clinical studies, which evaluated the effects of opioids on the immune system in patients with cancer, was performed. Five human studies, which have assessed the effects of opioids on the immune system in patients with cancer, were identified. Although all of these evaluated the effect of morphine on immunologic end points in patients with cancer, none measured the clinical effects. Evidence from preclinical, healthy volunteer and surgical models suggests that different opioids variably influence protective anti-tumour immunity; however, actual data derived from cancer populations are inconclusive and definitive recommendations cannot be made. Appropriately designed and powered studies assessing clinical outcomes of opioid use in people with cancer are therefore required to inform oncologists and others involved in cancer care about the rational use of opioids in this patient group.

Older people with dementia are at risk of adverse events associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing. Aim: to describe (1) how international tools designed to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing have been used in studies of older people with dementia, (2) the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in this cohort and (3) advantages/disadvantages of tools

Background: The physical and psychosocial needs of patients with chronic non-malignant lung disease are comparable to those with lung cancer. This article will focus on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease and cystic fibrosis as examples of life-limiting, non-curable and non-malignant lung diseases. The need for supportive and palliative care: Recent national guidance has demanded that palliative care is inclusive of all patients with life-limiting disease, irrespective of diagnosis, and that specialist palliative care teams are involved in the management of patients on a basis of need rather than prognosis. What is known: Despite medical therapy, most patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease and cystic fibrosis experience pain, fatigue and dyspnoea, with the majority not getting relief from dyspnoea towards the end of life. Furthermore, dyspnoea causes social isolation and difficulty performing activities of daily living and impairs quality of life. There is an increasing evidence base for the assessment of supportive and palliative care needs, symptom interventions, prognostication, models of service delivery and implications of these for clinical practice and research in non-malignant lung diseases. What is unknown: Despite advances, much still remains unknown regarding assessment, management and prognostication in individual chronic non-malignant lung diseases. Although different service models are being used in clinical practice, the optimal model(s) of service delivery remain unknown. Implication for future research, policy and practice: We describe key areas for further research, which include the need for large, high-quality trials of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and their combinations as well as evaluation of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of models of care. As access to palliative care is poor for these patients, the barriers to referral need to be understood and reduced, which along with effective working between palliative care teams, with respiratory services backup, should optimise delivery of care in patients with life-limiting non-malignant lung disease.