title: The Cannabinoid Use in Progressive Inflammatory brain Disease (CUPID) trial: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group multicentre trial and economic evaluation of cannabinoids to slow progression in multiple sclerosis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The Cannabinoid Use in Progressive Inflammatory brain Disease (CUPID) trial aimed to determine whether or not oral Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ(9)-THC) slowed the course of progressive multiple sclerosis (MS); evaluate safety of cannabinoid administration; and, improve methods for testing treatments in progressive MS.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  There were three objectives in the CUPID study: (1) to evaluate whether or not Δ(9)-THC could slow the course of progressive MS; (2) to assess the long-term safety of Δ(9)-THC; and (3) to explore newer ways of conducting clinical trials in progressive MS.
  
  
  METHODS
  The CUPID trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Patients were randomised in a 2 : 1 ratio to Δ(9)-THC or placebo. Randomisation was balanced according to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, study site and disease type. Analyses were by intention to treat, following a pre-specified statistical analysis plan. A cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) substudy, Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analyses and an economic evaluation were undertaken.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty-seven UK sites.
  
  
  METHODS
  Adults aged 18-65 years with primary or secondary progressive MS, 1-year evidence of disease progression and baseline EDSS 4.0-6.5.
  
  
  METHODS
  Oral Δ(9)-THC (maximum 28 mg/day) or matching placebo.
  Three and 6 months, and then 6-monthly up to 36 or 42 months.
  
  
  METHODS
  Primary outcomes were time to EDSS progression, and change in Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 version 2 (MSIS-29v2) 20-point physical subscale (MSIS-29phys) score. Various secondary patient- and clinician-reported outcomes and MRI outcomes were assessed. RMT analyses examined performance of MS-specific rating scales as measurement instruments and tested for a symptomatic or disease-modifying treatment effect. Economic evaluation estimated mean incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Effectiveness - recruitment targets were achieved. Of the 498 randomised patients (332 to active and 166 to placebo), 493 (329 active and 164 placebo) were analysed.
  
  
  METHODS
  no significant treatment effect; hazard ratio EDSS score progression (active : placebo) 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.23]; and estimated between-group difference in MSIS-29phys score (active-placebo) -0.9 points (95% CI -2.0 to 0.2 points). Secondary clinical and MRI outcomes: no significant treatment effects. Safety - at least one serious adverse event: 35% and 28% of active and placebo patients, respectively. RMT analyses - scale evaluation: MSIS-29 version 2, MS Walking Scale-12 version 2 and MS Spasticity Scale-88 were robust measurement instruments. There was no clear symptomatic or disease-modifying treatment effect. Economic evaluation - estimated mean incremental cost to NHS over usual care, over 3 years £27,443.20 per patient. No between-group difference in QALYs.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The CUPID trial failed to demonstrate a significant treatment effect in primary or secondary outcomes. There were no major safety concerns, but unwanted side effects seemed to affect compliance. Participants were more disabled than in previous studies and deteriorated less than expected, possibly reducing our ability to detect treatment effects. RMT analyses supported performance of MS-specific rating scales as measures, enabled group- and individual person-level examination of treatment effects, but did not influence study inferences. The intervention had significant additional costs with no improvement in health outcomes; therefore, it was dominated by usual care and not cost-effective. Future work should focus on determining further factors to predict clinical deterioration, to inform the development of new studies, and modifying treatments in order to minimise side effects and improve study compliance. The absence of disease-modifying treatments in progressive MS warrants further studies of the cannabinoid pathway in potential neuroprotection.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62942668.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, the Medical Research Council Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, Multiple Sclerosis Society and Multiple Sclerosis Trust. The report will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
authors: Centre for Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomarkers, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
authors: Susan
authors: S
authors: Ball
authors: Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
authors: Jane
authors: J
authors: Vickery
authors: Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
authors: Jeremy
authors: J
authors: Hobart
authors: Centre for Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomarkers, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
authors: Dave
authors: D
authors: Wright
authors: Health Economics Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
authors: Colin
authors: C
authors: Green
authors: Health Economics Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
authors: James
authors: J
authors: Shearer
authors: Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK.
authors: Andrew
authors: A
authors: Nunn
authors: Centre for Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomarkers, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
authors: Mayam Gomez
authors: MG
authors: Cano
authors: University College London's Institute of Neurology, London, UK.
authors: David
authors: D
authors: MacManus
authors: University College London's Institute of Neurology, London, UK.
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Miller
authors: University College London's Institute of Neurology, London, UK.
authors: Shahrukh
authors: S
authors: Mallik
authors: Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
authors: John
authors: J
authors: Zajicek
mesh_terms: D000284:Administration, Oral; D000328:Adult; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D018450:Disease Progression; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D013759:Dronabinol / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D005260:Female; D005380:Financing, Government; D005382:Financing, Personal; D006801:Humans; D053208:Kaplan-Meier Estimate; D016015:Logistic Models; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D020528:Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000191:economics / Q000523:psychology; D009128:Muscle Spasticity / Q000145:classification; D059906:Neuroimaging / Q000379:methods; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D016016:Proportional Hazards Models; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D013997:Time Factors; D006113:United Kingdom
chemical_list: D013759:Dronabinol