Dataset Information

Cannabidiol for the treatment of cannabis use disorder: a phase 2a, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive Bayesian trial.

ABSTRACT: Background A substantial and unmet clinical need exists for pharmacological treatment of cannabis use disorders. Cannabidiol could offer a novel treatment, but it is unclear which doses might be efficacious or safe. Therefore, we aimed to identify efficacious doses and eliminate inefficacious doses in a phase 2a trial using an adaptive Bayesian design.

Methods

We did a phase 2a, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive Bayesian trial at the Clinical Psychopharmacology Unit (University College London, London, UK). We used an adaptive Bayesian dose-finding design to identify efficacious or inefficacious doses at a-priori interim and final analysis stages. Participants meeting cannabis use disorder criteria from DSM-5 were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) in the first stage of the trial to 4-week treatment with three different doses of oral cannabidiol (200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or with matched placebo during a cessation attempt by use of a double-blinded block randomisation sequence. All participants received a brief psychological intervention of motivational interviewing. For the second stage of the trial, new participants were randomly assigned to placebo or doses deemed efficacious in the interim analysis. The primary objective was to identify the most efficacious dose of cannabidiol for reducing cannabis use. The primary endpoints were lower urinary 11-nor-9-carboxy-δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH):creatinine ratio, increased days per week with abstinence from cannabis during treatment, or both, evidenced by posterior probabilities that cannabidiol is better than placebo exceeding 0·9. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02044809) and the EU Clinical Trials Register (2013-000361-36).

Findings

Between May 28, 2014, and Aug 12, 2015 (first stage), 48 participants were randomly assigned to placebo (n=12) and to cannabidiol 200 mg (n=12), 400 mg (n=12), and 800 mg (n=12). At interim analysis, cannabidiol 200 mg was eliminated from the trial as an inefficacious dose. Between May 24, 2016, and Jan 12, 2017 (second stage), randomisation continued and an additional 34 participants were allocated (1:1:1) to cannabidiol 400 mg (n=12), cannabidiol 800 mg (n=11), and placebo (n=11). At final analysis, cannabidiol 400 mg and 800 mg exceeded primary endpoint criteria (0·9) for both primary outcomes. For urinary THC-COOH:creatinine ratio, the probability of being the most efficacious dose compared with placebo given the observed data was 0·9995 for cannabidiol 400 mg and 0·9965 for cannabidiol 800 mg. For days with abstinence from cannabis, the probability of being the most efficacious dose compared with placebo given the observed data was 0·9966 for cannabidiol 400 mg and 0·9247 for cannabidiol 800 mg. Compared with placebo, cannabidiol 400 mg decreased THC-COOH:creatinine ratio by -94·21 ng/mL (95% interval estimate -161·83 to -35·56) and increased abstinence from cannabis by 0·48 days per week (0·15 to 0·82). Compared with placebo, cannabidiol 800 mg decreased THC-COOH:creatinine ratio by -72·02 ng/mL (-135·47 to -19·52) and increased abstinence from cannabis by 0·27 days per week (-0·09 to 0·64). Cannabidiol was well tolerated, with no severe adverse events recorded, and 77 (94%) of 82 participants completed treatment.

Interpretation

In the first randomised clinical trial of cannabidiol for cannabis use disorder, cannabidiol 400 mg and 800 mg were safe and more efficacious than placebo at reducing cannabis use.

Funding

Medical Research Council.

SUBMITTER: Freeman TP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7116091 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsLong-term harms of cannabis may be exacerbated in adolescence, but little is known about the acute effects of cannabis in adolescents. We aimed to (i) compare the acute effects of cannabis in adolescent and adult cannabis users and (ii) determine if cannabidiol (CBD) acutely modulates the effects of delta-9-tetrahydocannabinol (THC).DesignRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover experiment. The experiment was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04851392).SettingLaboratory in London, United Kingdom.ParticipantsTwenty-four adolescents (12 women, 16- to 17-year-olds) and 24 adults (12 women, 26- to 29-year-olds) who used cannabis 0.5-3 days/week and were matched on cannabis use frequency (mean = 1.5 days/week).InterventionWe administered three weight-adjusted vaporised cannabis flower preparations: 'THC' (8 mg THC for 75 kg person); 'THC + CBD' (8 mg THC and 24 mg CBD for 75 kg person); and 'PLA' (matched placebo).MeasurementsPrimary outcomes were (i) subjective 'feel drug effect'; (ii) verbal episodic memory (delayed prose recall); and (iii) psychotomimetic effect (Psychotomimetic States Inventory).FindingsCompared with 'PLA', 'THC' and 'THC + CBD' significantly (P < 0.001) increased 'feel drug effect' (mean difference [MD] = 6.3, 95% CI = 5.3-7.2; MD = 6.8, 95% CI = 6.0-7.7), impaired verbal episodic memory (MD = -2.7, 95% CI = -4.1 to -1.4; MD = -2.9, 95% CI = -4.1 to -1.7) and increased psychotomimetic effects (MD = 7.8, 95% CI = 2.8-12.7; MD = 10.8, 95% CI = 6.2-15.4). There was no evidence that adolescents differed from adults in their responses to cannabis (interaction P ≥ 0.4). Bayesian analyses supported equivalent effects of cannabis in adolescents and adults (Bayes factor [BF01 ] >3). There was no evidence that CBD significantly modulated the acute effects of THC.ConclusionsAdolescent cannabis users are neither more resilient nor more vulnerable than adult cannabis users to the acute psychotomimetic, verbal memory-impairing or subjective effects of cannabis. Furthermore, in adolescents and adults, vaporised cannabidiol does not mitigate the acute harms caused by delta-9-tetrahydocannabinol.

Project description:To identify dose(s) of lemborexant that maximize insomnia treatment efficacy while minimizing next-morning residual sleepiness and evaluate lemborexant effects on polysomnography (PSG) measures (sleep efficiency [SE], latency to persistent sleep [LPS], and wake after sleep onset [WASO]) at the beginning and end of treatment.Adults and elderly subjects with insomnia disorder per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Bayesian, adaptive, parallel-group study, receiving lemborexant (1, 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 25 mg) or placebo for 15 nights. Efficacy assessments included a utility function that combined efficacy (SE) and safety (residual morning sleepiness as measured by Karolinska Sleepiness Scale [KSS]), PSG measures, and sleep diary. Safety assessments included KSS, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, computerized reaction time tests, and adverse events (AEs).A total of 616 subjects were screened; 291 were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar between lemborexant groups and placebo (?63% female, median age: 49.0 years). The study was stopped for early success after the fifth interim analysis when the 15-mg dose met utility index/KSS criteria for success; 3 other doses also met the criteria. Compared with placebo, subjects showed significant improvements in SE, subjective SE, LPS, and subjective sleep onset latency at the beginning and end of treatment for lemborexant doses ? 5 mg (P < .05). WASO and subjective WASO showed numerically greater improvements for doses > 1 mg. AEs, mostly mild to moderate, included dose-related somnolence.Lemborexant doses ranging from 2.5-10 mg provided efficacy for the treatment of insomnia while minimizing next-morning residual sleepiness.Title: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Bayesian Adaptive Randomization Design, Dose Response Study of the Efficacy of E2006 in Adults and Elderly Subjects With Chronic Insomnia; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01995838; Identifier: NCT01995838.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with eosinophilic airway inflammation in 10-20% of patients. Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 receptor ? monoclonal antibody, depletes blood and sputum eosinophils. We aimed to establish whether benralizumab reduces acute exacerbations of COPD in patients with eosinophilia and COPD. METHODS:We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2a study between Nov 18, 2010, and July 13, 2013, at 26 sites in the UK, Poland, Germany, Canada, the USA, Denmark, and Spain. Adults aged 40-85 years, with moderate-to-severe COPD, at least one acute exacerbation of COPD, and a sputum eosinophil count of 3·0% or more within the previous year, were randomly assigned (1:1) via computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block size of four), with an interactive voice or web-response system, to receive placebo or 100 mg benralizumab subcutaneously, every 4 weeks (three doses), then every 8 weeks (five doses) over 48 weeks. Study site personnel included in study assessments, participants, and data analysts, were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the annualised rate of acute exacerbations of COPD at week 56, defined as the number of acute exacerbations divided by total duration of person-year follow-up. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included COPD-specific Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ-C), Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire self-administered standardised format (CRQ-SAS), pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and safety. We did a prespecified subgroup analysis by baseline blood eosinophil count. Analyses were by intention to treat and per-protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227278. FINDINGS:We randomly assigned 101 patients to receive placebo (n=50) or benralizumab (n=51), of whom 88 (87%) patients completed the study. Six patients who completed the study were excluded from the per-protocol population because of major protocol violations; the per-protocol population thus included 82 patients. Benralizumab did not reduce the annualised rate of acute exacerbations of COPD compared with placebo in the per-protocol population, with rates of 0·95 (0·68-1·29; n=40) versus 0·92 (0·67-1·25; n=42). Mean pre-bronchodilator FEV1 change from baseline to week 56 was -0·06 L (SD 0·24) with placebo, and 0·13 L (0·41) with benralizumab (p=0·014). Numerical, albeit non-significant, improvement in acute exacerbations of COPD, SGRQ-C, CRQ-SAS, and FEV1 were greater in benralizumab-treated patients with baseline blood eosinophil concentrations of 200 cells per ?L or more or 300 cells per ?L or more. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the two groups, with the most common events being respiratory disorders (31 [62%] of 50 patients given placebo vs 32 [63%] of 51 given benralizumab) and infections (28 [56%] vs 27 [53%]). A higher incidence of serious treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded in patients in the benralizumab group than in those in the placebo group (14 vs nine patients), although none of these events were considered by the investigator to be benralizumab related. INTERPRETATION:Compared with placebo, benralizumab did not reduce the rate of acute exacerbations of COPD. However, the results of prespecified subgroup analysis support further investigation of benralizumab in patients with COPD and eosinophilia. FUNDING:MedImmune.

Project description:BackgroundImpaired wound healing is a growing medical problem and very few approved drugs with documented clinical efficacy are available. CXCL12-expressing lactic acid bacteria, Limosilactobacillus reuteri (ILP100-Topical), has been demonstrated to accelerate wound healing in controlled preclinical models. In this first-in-human study, the primary objective was to determine safety and tolerability of the drug candidate ILP100-Topical, while secondary objectives included assessments of clinical and biologic effects on wound healing by traditionally accepted methods and explorative and traceable assessments.MethodsSITU-SAFE is an adaptive, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, first-in-human phase 1 trial (EudraCT 2019-000680-24) consisting of a single (SAD) and a multiple ascending dose (MAD) part of three dose cohorts each. The study was performed at the Phase 1 Unit, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. Data in this article were collected between Sep 20th, 2019 and Oct 20th 2021. In total 240 wounds were induced on the upper arms in 36 healthy volunteers. SAD: 12 participants, 4 wounds (2/arm), MAD: 24 participants, 8 wounds (4/arm). Wounds in each participant were randomised to treatment with placebo/saline or ILP100-Topical.FindingsIn all individuals and doses, ILP100-Topical was safe and well-tolerated with no systemic exposure. A combined cohort analysis showed a significantly larger proportion of healed wounds (p = 0.020) on Day 32 by multi-dosing of ILP100-Topical when compared to saline/placebo (76% (73/96) and 59% (57/96) healed wounds, respectively). In addition, time to first registered healing was shortened by 6 days on average, and by 10 days at highest dose. ILP100-Topical increased the density of CXCL12+ cells in the wounds and local wound blood perfusion.InterpretationThe favourable safety profile and observed effects on wound healing support continued clinical development of ILP100-Topical for the treatment of complicated wounds in patients.FundingIlya Pharma AB (Sponsor), H2020 SME Instrument Phase II (#804438), Knut and Alice Wallenberg foundation.