Back

The safety and relative effectiveness of non-psychoactive cannabinoid formulations for the improvement of sleep: a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

Saleska, J.; Bryant, C.; Kolobaric, A.; Chen, J.; Loewy, D.; Colwell, C.; Pauli, E. K.

2023-01-23 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2023.01.20.23284842 medRxiv
Show abstract

The objective of this randomized, double-blinded controlled trial was to evaluate the safety and relative effects of different formulations containing Cannabidiol (CBD) and melatonin, with and without the addition of minor cannabinoids, on sleep. Participants (N=1,793 adults experiencing symptoms of sleep disturbance) were assigned to receive a 4-week supply of 1 of 6 products (all capsules) containing either 15mg CBD or 5mg melatonin, alone or in combination with minor cannabinoids. Sleep disturbance was assessed using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Sleep Disturbance SF 8A, administered via weekly online surveys. All formulations exhibited a favorable safety profile (12% of participants reported a side effect and none were severe) and led to significant improvements in sleep disturbance (p<0.001 in within-group comparisons). Most participants (56% to 75%) across all formulations experienced a clinically important improvement in their sleep quality. There were no significant differences in effect, however, between 15mg CBD isolate and formulations containing 15mg CBD and 15mg Cannabinol (CBN), alone or in combination with 5 mg Cannabichromene (CBC). There were also no significant differences in effect between 15mg CBD isolate and formulations containing 5 mg melatonin, alone or in combination with 15mg CBD and 15mg CBN. Our findings suggest that chronic use of a low dose of CBD is safe and could improve sleep quality, though these effects do not exceed that of 5 mg melatonin. Moreover, the addition of low doses of CBN and CBC may not improve the effect of formulations containing CBD or melatonin isolate.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.