Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Cannabidiol (CBD) is one of the most studied compounds of Cannabis sativa plant that gained much interest due to its therapeutic and beneficial properties, which have been confirmed in numerous preclinical and clinical studies over the last few years. A great advantage of CBD over the other widely known Cannabis sativa ingredient, Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is that CBD does not exert intoxicating and psychoactive effects, making it an attractive candidate for therapeutic applications in neurological disorders. CBD has been proven to exert anti-oxidative, analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective effects that may serve as a therapeutic promise for various neurological conditions. To date, the only drug that consists solely of highly purified CBD is Epidiolex, which is used in the management of severe forms of epilepsy such as Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Another legal medication containing CBD (however with the addition of THC) is Sativex, used to alleviate spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Besides epilepsy, preclinical data suggest that CBD alone may be potentially beneficial in treating chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, or stroke. The safety profile of CBD is generally considered favorable, as the most commonly reported adverse effects are mild (e.g., somnolence, diarrhea). However, much attention should be paid as CBD-driven drug-drug interactions have been reported. This review article aims to assess the outcomes from already conducted preclinical and clinical research exploring CBD's effects in various neurological conditions, while also addressing potential risks and concerns related to its use.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.