A cross-sectional survey on cannabis: Characterizing motives, opinions, and subjective experiences associated with the use of various oral cannabis products.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis-infused products available for oral consumption include food and drink items (i.e., edibles) (e.g., baked goods, gummy-, chocolate-, and hard-candies, beverages/drinks) as well as non-food formulations (e.g., oils/tinctures, pills/capsules). This study characterized the motives, opinions, and subjective experiences associated with the use of these seven subtypes of oral cannabis products. METHODS: This web-based survey collected cross-sectional, self-report data from a convenience sample of 370 adults regarding various use-motives, self-reported cannabinoid content, subjective experiences, and opinions related to ingesting oral cannabis products with alcohol and/or food. Advice participants had received about modifying oral cannabis product effects, in general, was also collected. RESULTS: Participants reported consuming cannabis baked goods and gummy candies most frequently over the past year (68% and 63%, respectively). Participants were less likely to use oils/tinctures for enjoyment/desire relative to other product types and more likely to use oils/tinctures for therapeutic purposes (e.g., medication-replacement). Self-reported cannabinoid content was highly variable across participants and within product subtype. Participants reported feeling stronger and longer-lasting effects when consuming oral cannabis products on an empty stomach and 43% received advice to "eat a snack or meal" to mitigate effects that are too strong, which contrasts with controlled studies. Finally, 43% of participants reported modifying their experiences with alcohol at least some of time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the need to further evaluate use-motives as well as the interaction between dietary factors, cannabinoid pharmacokinetics, and subjective drug effects and the interactive effects of oral cannabis products and alcohol in a controlled laboratory setting.

Pharmacokinetic Profile of ∆9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabidiol and Metabolites in Blood following Vaporization and Oral Ingestion of Cannabidiol Products.

There is limited data on the comparative pharmacokinetics of cannabidiol (CBD) across oral and vaporized formulations. This within-subject, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled laboratory study analyzed the pharmacokinetic profile of CBD, ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9-THC) and related metabolites in blood and oral fluid (OF) after participants (n = 18) administered 100 mg of CBD in each of the following formulations: (1) oral CBD, (2) vaporized CBD and (3) vaporized CBD-dominant cannabis containing 10.5% CBD and 0.39% ∆9-THC (3.7 mg); all participants also completed a placebo condition. Oral CBD was administered in three formulations: (1) encapsulated CBD, (2) CBD suspended in pharmacy-grade syrup and (3) Epidiolex, allowing for pharmacokinetic comparisons across oral formulations (n = 6 per condition). An optional fifth experimental condition was completed for six participants in which they fasted from all food for 12 h prior to oral ingestion of 100 mg of CBD. Blood and OF samples were collected immediately before and for 57-58 h after each drug administration. Immunoassay screening and LC-MS-MS confirmatory tests were performed, the limit of quantitation was 0.5 ng/mL for ∆9-THC and 1 ng/mL for CBD. The mean Cmax and range of CBD blood concentrations for each product were as follows: vaporized CBD-dominant cannabis, 171.1 ng/mL, 40.0-665.0 ng/mL, vaporized CBD 104.6 ng/mL, 19.0-312.0 ng/mL and oral CBD, 13.7 ng/mL, 0.0-50.0 ng/mL. Of the three oral formulations, Epidiolex produced the greatest peak concentration of CBD (20.5 ng/mL, 8.0-37.0 ng/mL) relative to the capsule (17.8 ng/mL, 2.0-50.0 ng/mL) and syrup (2.8 ng/mL, 0-7.0 ng/mL). ∆9-THC was detected in the blood of 12/18 participants after vaporized CBD-dominant cannabis use, but neither ∆9-THC nor its metabolite THC-COOH were detected in the blood of any participants after vaporized or oral CBD-only administration. These data demonstrate that different oral and vaporized formulations produce substantial variability in the pharmacokinetics of CBD and that CBD alone is unlikely to convert to ∆9-THC or produce positive drug tests for ∆9-THC or its metabolite.

Urinary Pharmacokinetic Profile of Cannabidiol (CBD), Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Their Metabolites following Oral and Vaporized CBD and Vaporized CBD-Dominant Cannabis Administration.

The market for products containing cannabidiol (CBD) is booming globally. However, the pharmacokinetics of CBD in different oral formulations and the impact of CBD use on urine drug testing outcomes for cannabis (e.g., 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THCCOOH)) are understudied. This study characterized the urinary pharmacokinetics of CBD (100 mg) following vaporization or oral administration (including three formulations: gelcap, pharmacy-grade syrup and or Epidiolex) as well as vaporized CBD-dominant cannabis (containing 100 mg CBD and 3.7 mg Δ9-THC) in healthy adults (n = 18). A subset of participants (n = 6) orally administered CBD syrup following overnight fasting (versus low-fat breakfast). Urine specimens were collected before and for 58 h after dosing on a residential research unit. Immunoassay (IA) screening (cutoffs: 20, 50 and 100 ng/mL) for Δ9-THCCOOH was performed, and quantitation of cannabinoids was completed via LC-MS-MS. Urinary CBD concentrations (ng/mL) were higher after oral (mean Cmax: 734; mean Tmax: 4.7 h, n = 18) versus vaporized CBD (mean Cmax: 240; mean Tmax: 1.3 h, n = 18), and oral dose formulation significantly impacted mean Cmax (Epidiolex = 1,274 ng/mL, capsule = 776 ng/mL, syrup = 151 ng/mL, n = 6/group) with little difference in Tmax. Overnight fasting had limited impact on CBD excretion in urine, and there was no evidence of CBD conversion to Δ8- or Δ9-THC in any route or formulation in which pure CBD was administered. Following acute administration of vaporized CBD-dominant cannabis, 3 of 18 participants provided a total of six urine samples in which Δ9-THCCOOH concentrations ≥15 ng/mL. All six specimens screened positive at a 20 ng/mL IA cutoff, and two of six screened positive at a 50 ng/mL cutoff. These data show that absorption/elimination of CBD is impacted by drug formulation, route of administration and gastric contents. Although pure CBD is unlikely to impact drug testing, it is possible that hemp products containing low amounts of Δ9-THC may produce a cannabis-positive urine drug test.

Pharmacodynamic effects of vaporized and oral cannabidiol (CBD) and vaporized CBD-dominant cannabis in infrequent cannabis users.

INTRODUCTION: The use and availability of oral and inhalable products containing cannabidiol (CBD) as the principal constituent has increased with expanded cannabis/hemp legalization. However, few controlled clinical laboratory studies have evaluated the pharmacodynamic effects of oral or vaporized CBD or CBD-dominant cannabis. METHODS: Eighteen healthy adults (9 men; 9 women) completed four, double-blind, double-dummy, drug administration sessions. Sessions were separated by ≥1 week and included self-administration of 100 mg oral CBD, 100 mg vaporized CBD, vaporized CBD-dominant cannabis (100 mg CBD; 3.7 mg THC), and placebo. Study outcomes included: subjective drug effects, vital signs, cognitive/psychomotor performance, and whole blood THC and CBD concentrations. RESULTS: Vaporized CBD and CBD-dominant cannabis increased ratings on several subjective items (e.g., Like Drug Effect) relative to placebo. Subjective effects did not differ between oral CBD and placebo and were generally higher for CBD-dominant cannabis compared to vaporized CBD. CBD did not increase ratings for several items typically associated with acute cannabis/THC exposure (e.g., Paranoid). Women reported qualitatively higher ratings for Pleasant Drug Effect than men after vaporized CBD and CBD-dominant cannabis use. CBD-dominant cannabis increased heart rate compared to placebo. Cognitive/psychomotor impairment was not observed in any drug condition. CONCLUSIONS: Vaporized CBD and CBD-dominant cannabis produced discriminable subjective drug effects, which were sometimes stronger in women, but did not produce cognitive/psychomotor impairment. Subjective effects of oral CBD did not differ from placebo. Future research should further elucidate the subjective effects of various types of CBD products (e.g., inhaled, oral, topical), which appear to be distinct from THC-dominant products.