WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: • Cannabis based medicines are registered as a treatment for various indications, such as pain and spasms in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, and anorexia and nausea in patients with HIV or receiving cancer treatment. • the pharmacokinetics of the various administration routes of cannabis and cannabis based medicines are variable and dosing is hard to regulate. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: • Namisol is a new tablet containing pure THC (>98%) that has a beneficial pharmacokinetic profile after oral administration. • Namisol gives a quick onset of pharmacodynamic effects in healthy volunteers, which implies a rapid initiation of therapeutic effects in patients. AIMS: Among the main disadvantages of currently available Δ(9) -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) formulations are dosing difficulties due to poor pharmacokinetic characteristics. Namisol® is a novel THC formulation, designed to improve THC absorption. The study objectives were to investigate the optimal administration route, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and tolerability of Namisol®. METHODS: This first in human study consisted of two parts. Panel I included healthy males and females (n = 6/6) in a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, crossover study with sublingual (crushed tablet) and oral administration of Namisol® (5 mg THC). Based on these results, male and female (n = 4/5) participants from panel I receivedoral THC 6.5 and 8.0 mg or matching placebo in a randomized, crossover, rising dose study during panel II. PD measurements were body sway; visual analogue scales (VAS) mood, psychedelic and heart rate. THC and 11-OH-THC population PK analysis was performed. RESULTS: Sublingual administration showed a flat concentration profile compared with oral administration. Oral THC apparent t(1/2) was 72-80 min, t(max) was 39-56 min and C(max) 2.92-4.69 ng ml(-1) . THC affected body sway (60.8%, 95% CI 29.5, 99.8), external perception (0.078 log mm, 95% CI 0.019, 0.137), alertness (-2.7 mm, 95% CI -4.5, -0.9) feeling high (0.256 log mm, 95% CI 0.093, 0.418) and heart rate (5.6 beats min(-1) , 95% CI 2.7, 6.5). Namisol® was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS:Oral Namisol® showed promising PK and PD characteristics. Variability and t(max) of THC plasma concentrations were smaller for Namisol® than reported for studies using oral dronabinol and nabilone. This study was performed in a limited number of healthy volunteers. Therefore, future research on Namisol® should study clinical effects in patient populations.
RCT Entities:
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: • Cannabis based medicines are registered as a treatment for various indications, such as pain and spasms in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, and anorexia and nausea in patients with HIV or receiving cancer treatment. • the pharmacokinetics of the various administration routes of cannabis and cannabis based medicines are variable and dosing is hard to regulate. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: • Namisol is a new tablet containing pure THC (>98%) that has a beneficial pharmacokinetic profile after oral administration. • Namisol gives a quick onset of pharmacodynamic effects in healthy volunteers, which implies a rapid initiation of therapeutic effects in patients. AIMS: Among the main disadvantages of currently available Δ(9) -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) formulations are dosing difficulties due to poor pharmacokinetic characteristics. Namisol® is a novel THC formulation, designed to improve THC absorption. The study objectives were to investigate the optimal administration route, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and tolerability of Namisol®. METHODS: This first in human study consisted of two parts. Panel I included healthy males and females (n = 6/6) in a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, crossover study with sublingual (crushed tablet) and oral administration of Namisol® (5 mg THC). Based on these results, male and female (n = 4/5) participants from panel I received oral THC 6.5 and 8.0 mg or matching placebo in a randomized, crossover, rising dose study during panel II. PD measurements were body sway; visual analogue scales (VAS) mood, psychedelic and heart rate. THC and 11-OH-THC population PK analysis was performed. RESULTS: Sublingual administration showed a flat concentration profile compared with oral administration. Oral THC apparent t(1/2) was 72-80 min, t(max) was 39-56 min and C(max) 2.92-4.69 ng ml(-1) . THC affected body sway (60.8%, 95% CI 29.5, 99.8), external perception (0.078 log mm, 95% CI 0.019, 0.137), alertness (-2.7 mm, 95% CI -4.5, -0.9) feeling high (0.256 log mm, 95% CI 0.093, 0.418) and heart rate (5.6 beats min(-1) , 95% CI 2.7, 6.5). Namisol® was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Oral Namisol® showed promising PK and PD characteristics. Variability and t(max) of THC plasma concentrations were smaller for Namisol® than reported for studies using oral dronabinol and nabilone. This study was performed in a limited number of healthy volunteers. Therefore, future research on Namisol® should study clinical effects in patient populations.
Authors: John Zajicek; Patrick Fox; Hilary Sanders; David Wright; Jane Vickery; Andrew Nunn; Alan Thompson Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-11-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Wesley K Utomo; Marjan de Vries; Dagmar C van Rijckevorsel; Maikel P Peppelenbosch; Harry van Goor; Gwenny M Fuhler Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: L Cinnamon Bidwell; Jarrod M Ellingson; Hollis C Karoly; Sophie L YorkWilliams; Leah N Hitchcock; Brian L Tracy; Jost Klawitter; Cristina Sempio; Angela D Bryan; Kent E Hutchison Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Geke A H van den Elsen; Amir I A Ahmed; Robbert-Jan Verkes; Cees Kramers; Ton Feuth; Paul B Rosenberg; Marjolein A van der Marck; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jules A A C Heuberger; Zheng Guan; Olubukayo-Opeyemi Oyetayo; Linda Klumpers; Paul D Morrison; Tim L Beumer; Joop M A van Gerven; Adam F Cohen; Jan Freijer Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Edward J Cone; George E Bigelow; Evan S Herrmann; John M Mitchell; Charles LoDico; Ronald Flegel; Ryan Vandrey Journal: J Anal Toxicol Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Amanda R Bolbecker; Deborah Apthorp; Ashley Schnakenberg Martin; Behdad Tahayori; Leah Moravec; Karen L Gomez; Brian F O'Donnell; Sharlene D Newman; William P Hetrick Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Daniël Kleinloog; Frits Roozen; Willem De Winter; Jan Freijer; Joop Van Gerven Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 4.035