Dataset Information

Does cannabidiol make cannabis safer? A randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial of cannabis with four different CBD:THC ratios.

ABSTRACT: As countries adopt more permissive cannabis policies, it is increasingly important to identify strategies that can reduce the harmful effects of cannabis use. This study aimed to determine if increasing the CBD content of cannabis can reduce its harmful effects. Forty-six healthy, infrequent cannabis users participated in a double-blind, within-subject, randomised trial of cannabis preparations varying in CBD content. There was an initial baseline visit followed by four drug administration visits, in which participants inhaled vaporised cannabis containing 10 mg THC and either 0 mg (0:1 CBD:THC), 10 mg (1:1), 20 mg (2:1), or 30 mg (3:1) CBD, in a randomised, counter-balanced order. The primary outcome was change in delayed verbal recall on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Task. Secondary outcomes included change in severity of psychotic symptoms (e.g., Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] positive subscale), plus further cognitive, subjective, pleasurable, pharmacological and physiological effects. Serial plasma concentrations of THC and CBD were measured. THC (0:1) was associated with impaired delayed verbal recall (t(45) = 3.399, d = 0.50, p = 0.001) and induced positive psychotic symptoms on the PANSS (t(45) = -4.709, d = 0.69, p = 2.41 × 10^-5). These effects were not significantly modulated by any dose of CBD. Furthermore, there was no evidence of CBD modulating the effects of THC on other cognitive, psychotic, subjective, pleasurable, and physiological measures. There was a dose-response relationship between CBD dose and plasma CBD concentration, with no effect on plasma THC concentrations. At CBD:THC ratios most common in medicinal and recreational cannabis products, we found no evidence that CBD protects against the acute adverse effects of cannabis. This should be considered in health policy and safety decisions about medicinal and recreational cannabis.

SUBMITTER: Englund A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10156730 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does cannabidiol make cannabis safer? A randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial of cannabis with four different CBD:THC ratios.

Englund Amir A Oliver Dominic D Chesney Edward E Chester Lucy L Wilson Jack J Sovi Simina S De Micheli Andrea A Hodsoll John J Fusar-Poli Paolo P Strang John J Murray Robin M RM Freeman Tom P TP McGuire Philip P

Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology 20221116 6

As countries adopt more permissive cannabis policies, it is increasingly important to identify strategies that can reduce the harmful effects of cannabis use. This study aimed to determine if increasing the CBD content of cannabis can reduce its harmful effects. Forty-six healthy, infrequent cannabis users participated in a double-blind, within-subject, randomised trial of cannabis preparations varying in CBD content. There was an initial baseline visit followed by four drug administration visit ...[more]

PMID: 36380220

Similar Datasets

Project description:The market for products containing cannabidiol (CBD) is booming globally. However, the pharmacokinetics of CBD in different oral formulations and the impact of CBD use on urine drug testing outcomes for cannabis (e.g., 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THCCOOH)) are understudied. This study characterized the urinary pharmacokinetics of CBD (100 mg) following vaporization or oral administration (including three formulations: gelcap, pharmacy-grade syrup and or Epidiolex) as well as vaporized CBD-dominant cannabis (containing 100 mg CBD and 3.7 mg Δ9-THC) in healthy adults (n = 18). A subset of participants (n = 6) orally administered CBD syrup following overnight fasting (versus low-fat breakfast). Urine specimens were collected before and for 58 h after dosing on a residential research unit. Immunoassay (IA) screening (cutoffs: 20, 50 and 100 ng/mL) for Δ9-THCCOOH was performed, and quantitation of cannabinoids was completed via LC-MS-MS. Urinary CBD concentrations (ng/mL) were higher after oral (mean Cmax: 734; mean Tmax: 4.7 h, n = 18) versus vaporized CBD (mean Cmax: 240; mean Tmax: 1.3 h, n = 18), and oral dose formulation significantly impacted mean Cmax (Epidiolex = 1,274 ng/mL, capsule = 776 ng/mL, syrup = 151 ng/mL, n = 6/group) with little difference in Tmax. Overnight fasting had limited impact on CBD excretion in urine, and there was no evidence of CBD conversion to Δ8- or Δ9-THC in any route or formulation in which pure CBD was administered. Following acute administration of vaporized CBD-dominant cannabis, 3 of 18 participants provided a total of six urine samples in which Δ9-THCCOOH concentrations ≥15 ng/mL. All six specimens screened positive at a 20 ng/mL IA cutoff, and two of six screened positive at a 50 ng/mL cutoff. These data show that absorption/elimination of CBD is impacted by drug formulation, route of administration and gastric contents. Although pure CBD is unlikely to impact drug testing, it is possible that hemp products containing low amounts of Δ9-THC may produce a cannabis-positive urine drug test.

Project description:Cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products are widely marketed as over the counter products, mostly as food supplements, to avoid the strict rules of medicinal products. Side-effects reported in anecdotal consumer reports or during clinical studies were first assumed to be due to hydrolytic conversion of CBD to psychotropic ? 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (? 9-THC) in the stomach after oral consumption. However, research of pure CBD solutions stored in simulated gastric juice or subjected to various storage conditions such as heat and light with specific liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric (LC/MS/MS) and ultra-high pressure liquid chromatographic/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometric (UPLC-QTOF) analyses was unable to confirm THC formation. Another hypothesis for the side-effects of CBD products may be residual ? 9-THC concentrations in the products as contamination, because most of them are based on crude hemp extracts containing the full spectrum of cannabinoids besides CBD. Analyses of 67 food products of the German market (mostly CBD oils) confirmed this hypothesis: 17 products (25%) contained ? 9-THC above the lowest observed adverse effects level (2.5 mg/day). Inversely, CBD was present in the products below the no observed adverse effect level. Hence, it may be assumed that the adverse effects of some commercial CBD products are based on a low-dose effect of ? 9-THC and not due to effects of CBD itself. The safety, efficacy and purity of commercial CBD products is highly questionable, and all of the products in our sample collection showed various non-conformities to European food law such as unsafe ? 9-THC levels, full-spectrum hemp extracts as non-approved novel food ingredients, non-approved health claims, and deficits in mandatory food labelling requirements. In view of the growing market for such lifestyle products, the effectiveness of the instrument of food business operators' own responsibility for product safety must obviously be challenged.

Project description:BackgroundSignificant interest has emerged in the therapeutic and interactive effects of different cannabinoids. Cannabidiol (CBD) has been shown to have anxiolytic and antipsychotic effects with high doses administered orally. We report a series of studies conducted to determine the vaporisation efficiency of high doses of CBD, alone and in combination with ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), to achieve faster onset effects in experimental and clinical trials and emulate smoked cannabis.MethodsPurified THC and CBD (40 mg/ml and 100 mg/ml respectively) were loaded onto a liquid absorbing pad in a Volcano vaporiser, vaporised and the vapours quantitatively analysed. Preliminary studies determined 200 mg CBD to be the highest dose effectively vaporised at 230 ° C, yielding an availability of approximately 40% in the vapour phase. Six confirmatory studies examined the quantity of each compound delivered when 200 mg or 4 mg CBD was loaded together with 8 mg of THC.ResultsTHC showed 55% availability when vaporised alone or with low dose CBD, while large variation in the availability of high dose CBD impacted upon the availability of THC when co-administered, with each compound affecting the vaporisation efficiency of the other in a dynamic and dose-dependent manner. We describe optimised protocols that enable delivery of 160 mg CBD through vaporisation.ConclusionsWhile THC administration by vaporisation is increasingly adopted in experimental studies, often with oral predosing with CBD to examine interactive effects, no studies to date have reported the administration of CBD by vaporisation. We report the detailed methodology aimed at optimising the efficiency of delivery of therapeutic doses of CBD, alone and in combination with THC, by vaporisation. These protocols provide a technical advance that may inform methodology for clinical trials in humans, especially for examining interactions between THC and CBD and for therapeutic applications of CBD.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN24109245.

Project description:Background: The popularity of edible cannabis products continues to grow in states with legal cannabis access, but few studies have investigated the acute effects of these commercially available products. The present study sought to explore the effects of three commercially available edible products with different levels of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Methods: A sample of regular cannabis users (N=99) were evaluated. Fifty participants completed the study procedures in-person, whereas 49 participants completed the study procedures remotely via Zoom. Subjective effects and plasma cannabinoid levels (in-person participants only) were assessed before and 2 h after participants self-administered one of three products ad libitum: a THC-dominant edible product, a CBD-dominant edible product, or a THC+CBD edible product. Results: At the 2-h post-use assessment, among in-person participants, plasma THC and CBD levels were robustly correlated with self-reported milligrams of THC and CBD consumed, respectively. Across all three conditions, in-person and remote participants experienced (1) an increase in subjective intoxication and elation, (2) a decrease in tension, and (3) no change in paranoia from pre-use to post-use. At post-use, participants who used a CBD product reported less intoxication relative to participants who used a THC+CBD or THC-only product. Participants who used a THC+CBD product reported consuming less THC-and displayed lower plasma THC levels (in-person participants)-relative to participants who used a THC-only product, despite reporting similar levels of positive (intoxication, elation, liking) and psychotomimetic (paranoia, tension) effects. Psychotomimetic effects were very low among both in-person and remote participants across all three conditions, and there were no post-use differences across conditions. Conclusions: Findings suggest that experienced users who consumed a THC+CBD product reported similar levels of positive and psychotomimetic effects relative to those who consumed a THC-only product, despite consuming less THC and displaying lower plasma THC concentrations. Given the potential harms associated with acute cannabis reward and long-term THC exposure, further research is needed to establish whether edible cannabis products with CBD pose less risk to users. Future studies should examine whether these effects generalize to samples of infrequent users, who may have less experience with edible cannabis use. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03522103.

Dataset Information

Does cannabidiol make cannabis safer? A randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial of cannabis with four different CBD:THC ratios.

Publications

Does cannabidiol make cannabis safer? A randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial of cannabis with four different CBD:THC ratios.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets