1973
DOI: 10.1002/cpt1973143344
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of orally administered delta‐9‐tetrahydrocannabinol in man

Abstract: The etfects of Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9‐THC) administered orally at 2 dose levels were studied in a group of 7 healthy young adult males. Each subiect was studied for 7 nights (2 drug, 5 placebo). Vital signs, subiective feelings, deep tendon reflexes, electrocardiogram, electroencephalogram, visual evoked responses, postural responses, time estimation and reaction time and sleep patterns were studied. At the doses studied, Δ9‐THC increased pulse rate, altered subjective feelings, and caused hyperreflexia a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
8
1

Year Published

1974
1974
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
2
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The study found no acute effect of THC on sleep characteristics the second night on the research unit (after at least 17.5 hours of abstinence). This finding is consistent with previous single‐dose human laboratory studies with 1.5–30 mg THC, but not with animal studies or clinical reports of somnolence associated with oral THC (dronabinol) use. It is possible that any sleep‐promoting effect of the initial oral THC doses (40 mg) was counteracted, and thereby masked, in our study (and in prior human laboratory studies) by the sleep disturbance engendered by admission to an unfamiliar environment (the research unit) .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The study found no acute effect of THC on sleep characteristics the second night on the research unit (after at least 17.5 hours of abstinence). This finding is consistent with previous single‐dose human laboratory studies with 1.5–30 mg THC, but not with animal studies or clinical reports of somnolence associated with oral THC (dronabinol) use. It is possible that any sleep‐promoting effect of the initial oral THC doses (40 mg) was counteracted, and thereby masked, in our study (and in prior human laboratory studies) by the sleep disturbance engendered by admission to an unfamiliar environment (the research unit) .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The approved product labeling for synthetic THC (dronabinol, Marinol® Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Marietta, GA) includes somnolence as a common side effect, reported in up to 10% of patients in clinical trials. However, human laboratory studies involving controlled administration of oral THC have not shown consistent effects on nighttime sleep latency or duration with single 1.5–30 mg doses, 20–40 mg daily for up to 14 days, or 210 mg daily for 16 days . Interpretation is limited by small sample sizes (2–10 subjects per study) and heterogeneity in degree of cannabis use at the time of study .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As with the acute impairments in arm speed, balance ability both with and without the benefit of visual feedback was acutely impaired after concentrate use but normalized after 1 h. In agreement, early research with low-potency cannabis (48) showed impaired balance (wobble board) that worsened as the dose of THC increased. Similarly, Hosko et al (49) found decreased one-legged balance ability with eyes closed after administration of edible low-potency cannabis, consistent with our finding of impaired balance after high-potency cannabis use. Additionally, a study in experienced cannabis users also supports our findings with a general equilibrium score (as measured by body sway) increasing by ∼11% after smoking the highest dose of flower cannabis tested (3% THC) (27).…”
Section: Balance With and Without Visual Feedback Is Acutely Impaired After Cannabis Concentrate Usesupporting
confidence: 92%
“…1 Indeed, early studies indicated that sleep may be modulated. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] However, these studies used various modes of administration, involved wide dose ranges, and were carried out in subjects of variable status with respect to their use of such drugs. Furthermore, the experimental designs were not amenable to analyses that could indicate the pharmacologic activity of individual substances.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%