Parasitic pharmacology: A plausible mechanism of action for cannabidiol

Research Status, Synthesis and Clinical Application of Antiepileptic Drugs

According to the 2017 ILAE's official definition, epilepsy is a slow brain disease state characterized by recurrent episodes. Due to information released by ILAE in 2017, it can be divided into four types, including focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy, combined generalized, and focal epilepsy, and unknown epilepsy. Since 1989, 24 new antiepileptic drugs have been approved to treat different types of epilepsy. Besides, there are a variety of antiepileptic medications under clinical monitoring. These novel antiepileptic drugs have plenty of advantages. Over the past 33 years, there have been many antiepileptic drugs on the mearket, but no one has been found that can completely cure epilepsy. In this paper, the mentioned drugs were classified according to their targets, and the essential information, and clinical studies of each drug were described. The structure-activity relationship of different chemical structures was summarized. This paper provides help for the follow-up research on epilepsy drugs.

Complementary and alternative therapies in the palliative setting

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) encompasses a wide range of medication, herbal, dietary and physical therapies that are not usually considered within the realm of conventional therapeutics. Approximately two thirds of the Australian population use CAMs and only around half of this number will discuss their use of these products with their doctor. Clinical use is commonly seen in patients with life-limiting illness, often because they experience a high burden of symptoms. However, it is also the case that many of these therapies do not have demonstrated efficacy, particularly for the often broad list of conditions and symptoms for which they are chosen to be used. Further, depending on whether they are sold as medications, sold as food supplements or imported illegally and distributed via nonstandard therapeutic channels, several products have had reports of toxicity, severe adverse effects, batch irregularities and drug interactions with other therapies. This awareness, together with lack of standardisation of products and lack of interchangeability between brands has made prescribers unwilling to put patients at risk of harm by supporting their use. In this article, we cover general pharmacological principles around use of a small selection of chemicals used in a medical setting to enable some guidance for use.

Expert advice for prescribing cannabis medicines for patients with epilepsy-drawn from the Australian clinical experience

There is international interest for consensus advice for prescribers working in the field of drug resistant epilepsy intending to trial potential therapies that are nonregistered or off‐label. Cannabinoids are one such therapy. In 2017, the New South Wales State Government (Australia) set up a cannabinoid prescribing guidance service for a wide variety of indications, based on known pharmacology together with the relevant new literature as it became available. Increasing interest in cannabis medicines use outside this State over the following 5 years together with a paucity of registration‐standard clinical trials, lack of information around dosing issues, drug interactions and biological plausibility meant there remained a large unmet need for such advice. To address the unmet need in epilepsy, and until medicines were registered or regulator quality data were available, it was agreed to bring together a working group comprising paediatric and adult epilepsy specialists, clinical pharmacists., clinical pharmacologists and cannabis researchers from across Australia to develop interim consensus advice for prescribers. Although interim, this consensus advice addresses much of the current practice gap by providing an informed overview of the different cannabis medicines currently available for use in the treatment of epilepsy in paediatric and adult settings, with information on dose, drug interactions, toxicity, type of seizure and frequency of symptom relief. As such it supplements the limited evidence currently available from clinical trials with experience from front‐line practice. It is expected that this consensus advice will be updated as new evidence emerges and will provide guidance for a subsequent Guideline.

Cannabidiol (CBD) as a novel treatment in the early phases of psychosis

The pharmacological interventions available for individuals in the early stages of psychosis are extremely limited. For those at clinical high risk for psychosis, there is no licensed treatment available. For those with first-episode psychosis, all licensed antipsychotic medications act via dopamine D₂ receptors. While treatment with antipsychotics is transformative in some patients, in others, it is ineffective. In addition, these medications can often cause adverse effects which make patients reluctant to take them. This is a particular problem in the early phases of psychosis, when patients are being treated for the first time, as unpleasant experiences may colour their future attitude towards treatment. Recent research has suggested that cannabidiol (CBD), a compound found in the Cannabis sativa plant, may have antipsychotic effects and relatively few adverse effects and could therefore be an ideal treatment for the early phases of psychosis, when minimising adverse effects is a clinical priority. In this review, we consider CBD's potential as a treatment in the clinical high risk and first-episode stages of psychosis. First, we describe the limitations of existing treatments at these two stages. We then describe what is known of CBD's mechanisms of action, effectiveness as a treatment for psychosis, adverse effects and acceptability to patients. We discuss how some of the outstanding issues about the utility of CBD in the early phases of psychosis may be resolved through ongoing clinical trials. Finally, we consider the impact of recreational cannabis use and over-the-counter cannabinoids preparations and discuss the potential therapeutic role of other compounds that modulate the endocannabinoid system in psychosis.

Cannabidiol in the treatment of epilepsy: Current evidence and perspectives for further research

The therapeutic potential of cannabidiol (CBD) in seizure disorders has been known for many years, but it is only in the last decade that major progress has been made in characterizing its preclinical and clinical properties as an antiseizure medication. The mechanisms responsible for protection against seizures are not fully understood, but they are likely to be multifactorial and to include, among others, antagonism of G protein-coupled receptor, desensitization of transient receptor potential vanilloid type 1 channels, potentiation of adenosine-mediated signaling, and enhancement of GABAergic transmission. CBD has a low and highly variable oral bioavailability, and can be a victim and perpetrator of many drug-drug interactions. A pharmaceutical-grade formulation of purified CBD derived from Cannabis sativa has been evaluated in several randomized placebo-controlled adjunctive-therapy trials, which resulted in its regulatory approval for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and tuberous sclerosis complex. Interpretation of results of these trials, however, has been complicated by the occurrence of an interaction with clobazam, which leads to a prominent increase in the plasma concentration of the active metabolite N-desmethylclobazam in CBD-treated patients. Despite impressive advances, significant gaps in knowledge still remain. Areas that require further investigation include the mechanisms underlying the antiseizure activity of CBD in different syndromes, its pharmacokinetic profile in infants and children, potential relationships between plasma drug concentration and clinical response, interactions with other co-administered medications, potential efficacy in other epilepsy syndromes, and magnitude of antiseizure effects independent from interactions with clobazam. This article is part of the special issue on 'Cannabinoids'.

The Essential Medicinal Chemistry of Cannabidiol (CBD)

This Perspective of the published essential medicinal chemistry of cannabidiol (CBD) provides evidence that the popularization of CBD-fortified or CBD-labeled health products and CBD-associated health claims lacks a rigorous scientific foundation. CBD's reputation as a cure-all puts it in the same class as other "natural" panaceas, where valid ethnobotanicals are reduced to single, purportedly active ingredients. Such reductionist approaches oversimplify useful, chemically complex mixtures in an attempt to rationalize the commercial utility of natural compounds and exploit the "natural" label. Literature evidence associates CBD with certain semiubiquitous, broadly screened, primarily plant-based substances of undocumented purity that interfere with bioassays and have a low likelihood of becoming therapeutic agents. Widespread health challenges and pandemic crises such as SARS-CoV-2 create circumstances under which scientists must be particularly vigilant about healing claims that lack solid foundational data. Herein, we offer a critical review of the published medicinal chemistry properties of CBD, as well as precise definitions of CBD-containing substances and products, distilled to reveal the essential factors that impact its development as a therapeutic agent.

Adverse effects of cannabidiol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Cannabidiol (CBD) is being investigated as a treatment for several medical disorders but there is uncertainty about its safety. We conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the adverse effects of CBD across all medical indications. Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials lasting ≥7 days were included. Twelve trials contributed data from 803 participants to the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, CBD was associated with an increased likelihood of withdrawal for any reason (OR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.38-4.96) or due to adverse events (OR 2.65, 95% CI: 1.04-6.80), any serious adverse event (OR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.18-4.48), serious adverse events related to abnormal liver function tests (OR 11.19, 95% CI: 2.09-60.02) or pneumonia (OR 5.37, 95% CI: 1.17-24.65), any adverse event (OR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.03-2.33), adverse events due to decreased appetite (OR 3.56, 95% CI: 1.94-6.53), diarrhoea (OR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.46-4.67), somnolence (OR 2.23, 95% CI: 1.07-4.64) and sedation (OR 4.21, 95% CI: 1.18-15.01). Associations with abnormal liver function tests, somnolence, sedation and pneumonia were limited to childhood epilepsy studies, where CBD may have interacted with other medications such as clobazam and/or sodium valproate. After excluding studies in childhood epilepsy, the only adverse outcome associated with CBD treatment was diarrhoea (OR 5.03, 95% CI: 1.44-17.61). In summary, the available data from clinical trials suggest that CBD is well tolerated and has relatively few serious adverse effects, however interactions with other medications should be monitored carefully. Additional safety data from clinical trials outside of childhood epilepsy syndromes and from studies of over-the-counter CBD products are needed to assess whether the conclusions drawn from clinical trials can be applied more broadly.

Lack of evidence for the effectiveness or safety of over-the-counter cannabidiol products

Over the past 5 years, public interest in the potential health benefits of cannabidiol (CBD) has increased exponentially, and a wide range of over-the-counter (OTC) preparations of CBD are now available. A substantial proportion of the population appears to have used these products, yet the extent to which they are effective or safe is unclear. We reviewed the evidence for whether CBD has significant pharmacological and symptomatic effects at the doses typically found in OTC preparations. We found that most of the evidence for beneficial effects is derived from studies of pure, pharmaceutical grade CBD at relatively high doses. Relatively few studies have examined the effect of OTC CBD preparations, or of CBD at low doses. Thus, at present, there is little evidence that OTC CBD products have health benefits, and their safety has not been investigated. Controlled trials of OTC and low-dose CBD preparations are needed to resolve these issues.

Towards Better Delivery of Cannabidiol (CBD)

Cannabidiol (CBD) has substantial therapeutic potential, but its development as an effective drug by the pharmaceutical industry is hindered by intrinsic characteristics such as low bioavailability, low water solubility, and variable pharmacokinetic profiles. Importantly, lack of patentability of the drug substance also limits the likelihood of an expensive, full development programme in anything other than orphan indications. Potential avenues to overcome these issues with CBD include self-emulsifying drug delivery systems, improved crystal formulations and other solid-state delivery formulations, which are mostly in the pre-clinical or early clinical stages of development. This review identifies issues compromising current delivery of solid-state CBD, and how advanced pharmaceutical development strategies can enable CBD to realise the full potential as a successful therapeutic agent.

Does cannabidiol have antiseizure activity independent of its interactions with clobazam? An appraisal of the evidence from randomized controlled trials

Four pivotal randomized placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated that adjunctive therapy with cannabidiol (CBD) improves seizure control in patients with Dravet syndrome (DS) and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS). Between 47% and 68% of patients allocated to CBD treatment in these trials were receiving clobazam (CLB), which shows complex interactions with CBD resulting, in particular, in a 3.4- to 5-fold increase in plasma concentration of the active metabolite norclobazam. This raises concern as to the role played by these interactions in determining the reduction in seizure frequency in CBD-treated patients, and the question of whether CBD per se has clinically evident antiseizure effects. We appraised available evidence on the clinical consequences of the CBD-CLB interaction, focusing on subgroup analyses of seizure outcomes in patients on and off CLB comedication in the pivotal CBD trials, as provided by the European Medicines Agency Public Assessment Report. Evaluation of the results of individual trials clearly showed that improvement in seizure control over placebo was greater when CBD was added on to CLB than when it was added on to other medications. However, seizure control was also improved in patients off CLB, and despite the small sample size the difference vs placebo was statistically significant for the 10 mg/kg/d dose in one of the two LGS trials. Stronger evidence for an antiseizure effect of CBD independent of an interaction with CLB emerges from meta-analyses of seizure outcomes in the pooled population of LGS and DS patients not receiving CLB comedication. Although these results need to be interpreted taking into account methodological limitations, they provide the best clinical evidence to date that CBD exerts therapeutic effects in patients with epilepsy that are independent of its interaction with CLB. Greater antiseizure effects, and a greater burden of adverse effects, are observed when CBD is combined with CLB.