Pain measurements and side effect profile of the novel cannabinoid ajulemic acid
Abstract
Preclinical findings on ajulemic acid (AJA) showed analgesic and anti-allodynic effects without psychoactive properties making it an appealing substance for the treatment of pain. A recently published randomized double-blind crossover clinical trial described the pain-reducing effects and side effect profile of AJA on 21 patients with chronic neuropathic pain. In this report from this same sample the effects of AJA on the mechanical hypersensitivity, on pain, and on psychological and physical performance were further characterized. During a 5-week study period, patients were divided into two 7-day treatment groups receiving either AJA or placebo capsules first, respectively. All patients received 40 and 80 mg of AJA or placebo daily in each treatment period. Pain measurements included the determination of mechanical hypersensitivity using the von Frey hair method as well as the visual analog scale (VAS), for which the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated. The side effect profile of the compound was evaluated using psychotropic and physical measurements as well as obtaining reports on possible subjective side effects. The results showed no significant reduction in mechanical hypersensitivity (p=0.052), although a tendency towards pain reduction could be seen. The VAS score showed significant pain reduction (p=0.021) and NNT values for 30% pain relief were 2.14 for the first treatment group and 5.29 for the second treatment group. No significant findings were observed regarding psychotropic or physical measurements. Reported subjective side effects were mainly dry mouth, tiredness and dizziness and did not increase with dose elevation. Overall, these study findings indicate that AJA shows pain-reducing effects on patients with chronic neuropathic pain without clinically relevant psychotropic or physical side effects.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Patients showed a trend towards decreased mechanical allodynia following CT-3 administration.
“Eighteen of those same patients participated in stimulus-evoked pain testing during the study and patients showed a trend towards decreased mechanical allodynia following CT-3 administration.153”
From Cannabinoids as Pharmacotherapies for Neuropathic Pain: From the Bench to the Bedside (2009) · cites this paper as [153]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 58
- Authors
- Salim, K., Schneider, U., Burstein, S., Hoy, L., & Karst, M.
- Affiliations
- Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
- University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
- Corresponding author
- Karst, Matthias
- Venue
- Neuropharmacology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1164-1171
- ISSN
- 0028-3908 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2117626900
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 4.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neuropharmacology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
- Keywords
- ajulemic acid, chronic neuropathic pain, mechanical hypersensitivity, number needed to treat, adverse effects, xerostomia, dizziness, fatigue, psychoactive effects
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Hyperalgesia, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Dronabinol, Touch, Cross-Over Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review