Tom P Freeman1, Chandni Hindocha2, Gianluca Baio3, Natacha D C Shaban4, Emily M Thomas4, Danica Astbury4, Abigail M Freeman4, Rachel Lees5, Sam Craft6, Paul D Morrison7, Michael A P Bloomfield8, Dominic O'Ryan9, Jane Kinghorn10, Celia J A Morgan11, Ali Mofeez12, H Valerie Curran13. 1. Addiction and Mental Health Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK; Clinical Psychopharmacology Unit, University College London, London, UK; Translational Psychiatry Research Group, Research Department of Mental Health Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK; National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: t.p.freeman@bath.ac.uk. 2. Clinical Psychopharmacology Unit, University College London, London, UK; Translational Psychiatry Research Group, Research Department of Mental Health Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK; National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK. 3. Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK. 4. Clinical Psychopharmacology Unit, University College London, London, UK. 5. Addiction and Mental Health Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK. 6. Addiction and Mental Health Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK; National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. 7. Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. 8. Clinical Psychopharmacology Unit, University College London, London, UK; Translational Psychiatry Research Group, Research Department of Mental Health Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK; National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK; The Traumatic Stress Clinic, St Pancras Hospital, Camden and Islington National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, UK; Pain Management Centre, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College London Hospitals, London, UK. 9. Substance Misuse Services, Camden and Islington National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, UK. 10. Translational Research Office, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK. 11. Psychopharmacology and Addiction Research Centre, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. 12. Pain Management Centre, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College London Hospitals, London, UK. 13. Clinical Psychopharmacology Unit, University College London, London, UK; National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Yasmin L Hurd; Sharron Spriggs; Julia Alishayev; Gary Winkel; Kristina Gurgov; Chris Kudrich; Anna M Oprescu; Edwin Salsitz Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: J M Cunha; E A Carlini; A E Pereira; O L Ramos; C Pimentel; R Gagliardi; W L Sanvito; N Lander; R Mechoulam Journal: Pharmacology Date: 1980 Impact factor: 2.547
Authors: Jason P Connor; Daniel Stjepanović; Bernard Le Foll; Eva Hoch; Alan J Budney; Wayne D Hall Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Sarah L Withey; Brian D Kangas; Sophia Charles; Andrew B Gumbert; Jessica E Eisold; Susan R George; Jack Bergman; Bertha K Madras Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Anna E Kirkland; Matthew C Fadus; Staci A Gruber; Kevin M Gray; Timothy E Wilens; Lindsay M Squeglia Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Francisco Navarrete; María Salud García-Gutiérrez; Ani Gasparyan; Amaya Austrich-Olivares; Jorge Manzanares Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 5.810