Updated October 4, 2021
We found 2 validated ALS Reversals whose recovery occurred in association with cannabis (as well as many other alternatives and off-label treatments). Although associations like this do not imply causality, this warrants a change in our “Cases” grade to B. Since no published trial so far has carefully examined the effects of cannabis on ALS progression our “Trials” grade should be U. We look forward to the results of on ongoing trials.
Updated April 19, 2021
As of April 19, 2021, we found 2 new reviews of pre-clinical studies in ALS models (Neural Regen Res 2016;11:1896-1899, J Neurochem 2019;149:284-297). These did not warrant a change in our “Pre-Clinical” TOE grade. We found a new retrospective case series in which patients taking cannabis subjectively rated its effect on their spasticity (BMC 2019;19:222)). Since this did not examine disease progression, it did not change our “Cases” grade. We found evidence of 2 new trials of cannabis products in people with ALS. Since no data are yet available from these, they did not change our “Trials” grade. Our conclusion remains unchanged.
Key Information
Click on any letter grade below for more info:
Preclinical Trials Grade:
C
Published: May 2012
Cannabis has biological properties including immunomodulation and effects on excitototoxicity that suggest it could be useful in ALS. Evidence from small, non-randomized, unblinded animal studies suggest that it could potentially slow ALS progression, and anecdotal reports suggest that it could ameliorate troubling ALS symptoms. Given all this, ALSUntangled supports further careful study of cannabis and cannabinoids, the active ingredients contained therein. Natural cannabis, as a single agent, provides advantages similar to a multiple drug trial given its numerous mechanisms of action. A possible next step would be a small case series of well-characterized PALS using cannabis at controlled dosages that could potentially be monitored by blood levels of cannabinoids, compared to matched controls, performed in a geographic area where it would be legal.
Grade A: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in humans
Grade B: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in pre-clinical model(s)
Grade C: Theoretically and plausibly acts on an ALS-relevant mechanism in humans
Grade D: Acts on a biological mechanism but it is not clear that this mechanism is relevant in ALS
Grade F: Implausible; would violate known principles or laws of biology
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: Two or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in well-designed studies.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade B: One peer-reviewed publication reporting benefits in a well-designed study.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publication(s) reporting benefits in flawed studies.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade D: One or more non-peer reviewed studies reporting benefits (published on a website or in an abstract)
Grade F: The only studies available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade B: More than one unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade C: One unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade D: Subjective report(s) of benefit without validated diagnoses and/or benefits
Grade F: The only reports available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Two or more peer-reviewed publications describing benefits in well-designed randomized, blinded placebo-controlled phase III trials
Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a well-designed randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled phase I or II trial
Grade D: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a flawed trial.
Flawed trials means those in which there are identifiable problems with patient selection, randomization, blinding, controls or follow-up. These have ‘high or unclear risk of bias’ according to published criteria. Well-designed trials are those that have ‘low risk of bias’.
Grade F: The only trials available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: No exposed patients appear to have experienced harms
Grade B: More than 0% but less than 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade B (oral): More than 0% but less than10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade D (intravenous): More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade C: At least 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization
Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Listen to the Podcast
Listen on Spreaker
