Cannabidiol (CBD), a constituent of cannabis with few psychoactive effects, has been reported in some studies to attenuate certain aspects of Δ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) intoxication. However, most studies have tested only one dose of CBD in combination with one dose of oral THC, making it difficult to assess the nature of this interaction. Further, the effect of oral CBD on smoked cannabis administration is unknown. The objective of this multi-site, randomized, double-blind, within-subject laboratory study was to assess the influence of CBD (0, 200, 400, 800 mg, p.o.) pretreatment on the reinforcing, subjective, cognitive, and physiological effects of smoked cannabis (0.01 (inactive), 5.30-5.80% THC). Non-treatment-seeking, healthy cannabis smokers (n = 31; 17M, 14 F) completed eight outpatient sessions. CBD was administered 90 min prior to cannabis administration. The behavioral and cardiovascular effects of cannabis were measured at baseline and repeatedly throughout the session. A subset of participants (n = 8) completed an additional session to measure plasma CBD concentrations after administration of the highest CBD dose (800 mg). Under placebo CBD conditions, active cannabis (1) was self-administered by significantly more participants than placebo cannabis and (2) produced significant, time-dependent increases in ratings of 'High', 'Good Effect', ratings of the cannabis cigarette (eg, strength, liking), and heart rate relative to inactive cannabis. CBD, which alone produced no significant psychoactive or cardiovascular effects, did not significantly alter any of these outcomes. Cannabis self-administration, subjective effects, and cannabis ratings did not vary as a function of CBD dose relative to placebo capsules. These findings suggest that oral CBD does not reduce the reinforcing, physiological, or positive subjective effects of smoked cannabis.

No abstract

Background Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a prevalent and impairing condition, and established psychosocial treatments convey limited efficacy. In light of recent findings supporting the efficacy of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for CUD in adolescents, the objective of this trial was to evaluate its efficacy in adults. Methods In a 12-week double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial, treatment-seeking adults ages 18–50 with CUD (N=302), enrolled across six National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network-affiliated clinical sites, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a 12-week course of NAC 1200 mg (n=153) or placebo (n=149) twice daily. All participants received contingency management (CM) and medical management. The primary efficacy measure was the odds of negative urine cannabinoid tests during treatment, compared between NAC and placebo participants. Results There was not statistically significant evidence that the NAC and placebo groups differed in cannabis abstinence (odds ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 – 1.59; p=0.984). Overall, 22.3% of urine cannabinoid tests in the NAC group were negative, compared with 22.4% in the placebo group. Many participants were medication non-adherent; exploratory analysis within medication-adherent subgroups revealed no significant differential abstinence outcomes by treatment group. Conclusions In contrast with prior findings in adolescents, there is no evidence that NAC 1200 mg twice daily plus CM is differentially efficacious for CUD in adults when compared to placebo plus CM. This discrepant finding between adolescents and adults with CUD may have been influenced by differences in development, cannabis use profiles, responses to embedded behavioral treatment, medication adherence, and other factors.

Background Cannabidiol (CBD) is a naturally occurring constituent of the marijuana plant. In the past few years, there has been great interest in the therapeutic effects of isolated CBD and it is currently being explored for numerous disease conditions (e.g., pain, epilepsy, cancer, various drug dependencies). However, CBD remains a Schedule I drug on the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Despite its status, there are no well-controlled data available regarding its abuse liability. Methods Healthy, frequent marijuana users (n=31) were enrolled in this within subject, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multisite study that administered oral cannabidiol (0, 200, 400, 800 mg) alone and in combination with smoked marijuana (0.01%, 5.3-5.8% THC). Participants received one dose combination across 8 once-weekly outpatient sessions (7.5 hrs). The primary findings on the drug interaction effects were previously reported (Haney et al., 2016). The present study is a secondary analysis of the data to examine the abuse liability profile of oral cannabidiol (200, 400, 800 mg) in comparison to oral placebo and active smoked marijuana (5.3-5.8% THC). Results Active marijuana reliably produced abuse-related subjective effects (e.g., high) (p<.05). However, CBD was placebo-like on all measures collected (p>.05). Conclusions Overall, CBD did not display any signals of abuse liability at the doses tested and these data may help inform U.S. regulatory decisions regarding CBD schedule on the CSA.