• Skip to main content

ALS Untangled™

ALSUntangled™ reviews alternative and off label treatments (AOTs), with the goal of helping people with ALS make more informed decisions about them.

  • How to Use
  • Mission & Methods
  • Completed Reviews
  • Future Reviews
  • Search
  • EnglishEnglish
    • EnglishEnglish
    • EspañolEspañol

Search ALS Untangled™

Cannabis

Updated Review
Published: 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.
Updated Review
Published: 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.

Key Information

Click on any letter grade below for more info:
Mechanism Grade: C
Preclinical Trials Grade: C
Cases Grade: B
Trials Grade: U
Risks Grade: U
Published: May 2012
Download

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.

Mechanistic plausibility

Grade A: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in humans

Mechanistic plausibility

Grade B: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in pre-clinical model(s)

Mechanistic plausibility - C

Grade C: Theoretically and plausibly acts on an ALS-relevant mechanism in humans

Mechanistic plausibility

Grade D: Acts on a biological mechanism but it is not clear that this mechanism is relevant in ALS

Mechanistic plausibility

Grade F: Implausible; would violate known principles or laws of biology

Mechanistic plausibility

Grade U: No useful information was found for this category

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

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’.

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

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’.

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

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’.

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

Grade D: One or more non-peer reviewed studies reporting benefits (published on a website or in an abstract)

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

Grade F: The only studies available show no benefit

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

Grade U: No useful information was found for this category

Patient case reports

Grade A: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits with validated diagnosis and benefits

Patient case reports

Grade B: More than one unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits

Patient case reports

Grade C: One unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits

Patient case reports

Grade D: Subjective report(s) of benefit without validated diagnoses and/or benefits

Patient case reports

Grade F: The only reports available show no benefit

Patient case reports

Grade U: No useful information was found for this category

Patient trials

Two or more peer-reviewed publications describing benefits in well-designed randomized, blinded placebo-controlled phase III trials

Patient trials

Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a well-designed randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled phase I or II trial

Patient trials

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’.

Patient trials

Grade F: The only trials available show no benefit

Patient trials

Grade U: No useful information was found for this category

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade A: No exposed patients appear to have experienced harms

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade B: More than 0% but less than 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

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

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade C: At least 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

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

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade U: No useful information was found for this category

Listen to the Podcast

© 2023 ALS Untangled™ · All Rights Reserved · Website by Code the Dream & Tomatillo Design