RESEARCHERS are making headway in defining a role for cannabidiol in severe childhood epilepsy, but experts say recent findings reinforce the importance of proceeding cautiously with these medicines.

A small, open-label study published in the MJA found some subjective benefit with cannabidiol treatment in children with drug-resistant epilepsy, but mild to moderate side effects were also noted in most participants.

The researchers evaluated the safety and tolerability of the cannabidiol drug, Epidiolex (more than 98% purity; 100 mg/mL; GW Pharmaceuticals), in treating 40 children who had enrolled in the New South Wales Compassionate Access Scheme for children with drug-resistant epilepsy and uncountable daily seizures.

Co-author of the study, Dr John Lawson, a paediatric neurologist at the Sydney Children’s Hospital, said that the surge in interest in medicinal cannabis products, such as cannabidiol, was very much consumer driven.

He said there was a “story of hope” around medicinal cannabis, particularly among groups with desperate problems, such as severe childhood epilepsy and intractable pain, for whom all other medicines had failed.

Dr Lawson said that the internet had fuelled much interest in these drugs, and researchers were now seeking to provide scientific rigour around these claims.

“Cannabis was once perceived as a drug in the community, but it’s almost gone full circle now, and there is a perception that it is a healthy food product,” Dr Lawson told MJA InSight.

“This is where [research] like this can assist because it shows that [cannabis] behaves like a medicine and, particularly when it comes to children, we have to be very cautious about using it and using it in the right circumstances.”

The children enrolled in the trial received cannabidiol (titrated to a maximum of 25mg/kg/day) in addition to their usual anti-epilepsy medication for up to 12 weeks. The researchers found that 39 out of 40 patients reported at least one adverse event, many of which were deemed to be related to the cannabidiol treatment.

The most common treatment-related effect was somnolence, which was reported in 15 participants, while up to nine participants reported gastrointestinal effects such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. Four children were withdrawn from the treatment, including one with elevated transaminase levels, the researchers said. Two children were withdrawn because seizure frequency increased.

The study did not have an objective measure of efficacy, as the children enrolled were experiencing an unquantifiable number of seizures, but subjective benefit was reported using Global Impression of Change assessments.

“About a quarter of parents felt that their child was either much or very much improved and that’s really speaking to seizures,” Dr Lawson said. “The physicians looking after the children were not quite as optimistic, rating most children as showing a slight improvement.”

He said the findings debunked the image of cannabidiol as a “miracle drug”.

“It’s not a miracle drug for the majority of patients with the most severe epilepsy,” he said.

Dr Lawson said that the research also found some interactions between the cannabidiol and standard anti-epilepsy drugs.

“Cannabidiol behaves like a medicine and epilepsy medicines are often complex and have a lot of interactions,” he said. “So, this is a [reminder] that we are still very much in a learning phase with this medicine and we need to go through the normal processes before it becomes a free for all.”

Two recent randomised controlled trials of cannabidiol (here and here) had found significant improvement in seizure frequency among patients with Dravet syndrome and Lennox–Gastaut syndrome, and the US Food and Drug Administration recently approved Epidiolex for use in those conditions.

Dr Lawson said that an application for the local approval of Epidiolex would hopefully be made to the Therapeutic Goods Administration as the next step to enable patient access.

A research letter, also published in this week’s MJA, evaluated the safety of another cannabidiol product, CBD Max (98% cannabidiol in grapeseed oil, 100 mg/mL; Tilray) in 20 children with drug-resistant epilepsy.

In the Victorian study, cannabidiol was added to the children’s usual anti-epilepsy medicines, and similar side effects to the NSW study were noted. Most side effects were non-serious and transient, but one child discontinued treatment after having a serious adverse event (somnolence and anorexia), and eight children discontinued treatment because of lack of effectiveness.

The researcher, Dr Jeremy Freeman, a paediatric neurologist at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, reported that 11 children continued treatment beyond 17–40 weeks, and the parents of nine children reported a clinically significant reduction in seizures of more than 50%.

Dr Freeman concluded: “While medicinal cannabis products are portrayed in the media and perceived by the public to be effective, natural therapies, cannabidiol is still a pharmaceutical in development, with potential benefits that require further delineation, and with short term adverse effects that must be understood and mitigated.”

The public perception of the benefits of cannabis was further explored in this week’s MJA, in the findings of the 2016 Cannabis as Medicine Survey.

The anonymous online survey included more than 1700 adult participants who reported using cannabis for a self-identified medical or therapeutic reason. The participants were mostly men (68%) in their mid-30s who, on average, had been using cannabis for almost 10 years.

The most frequent reasons for use were: anxiety (50.7%), back pain (50.0%), depression (49.3%), and sleep problems (43.5%). The participants reported high levels of effectiveness, and frequent side effects, including drowsiness, eye irritation, lethargy, and memory impairment.

The researchers said that the survey participants believed that medical cannabis should be integrated into mainstream health care, and that products should be required to meet safety and consistency standards.

In many US states and in jurisdictions such as Canada, access to medicinal cannabis has been granted outside the standard regulatory system.

Dr Lawson said that he would not like to see such an approach here.

“If people just are allowed to use cannabis freely and have full access without medical supervision and without proper trials, we don’t learn anything,” Dr Lawson said.

He said that while the current studies in childhood epilepsy had evaluated short term safety, the effects of longer term use were still unknown.

“We are giving a high concentration of a chemical to children, and we don’t really know the long term impacts on the brain development. There are the worries about young adolescents who are heavy recreational users and the effects on their learning, their memory and their risk of psychiatric disease.”

However, Dr Lawson added, the fact that the children enrolled in the NSW trials had such severe epilepsy, their risk–benefit profile favoured trialling another medicine.

“Our approach is a vote for the scientific method,” he said. “We have tried to get to those children who are most in need, but we need to consider who this therapy works for and the longer term effects. Caution is required.”


To find a doctor, or a job, to use GP Desktop and Doctors Health, book and track your CPD, and buy textbooks and guidelines, visit doctorportal.

6 thoughts on “Cannabidiol: headway made but caution applies

  1. Dr Roger BURGESS, radiologist says:

    Here we go, the knockers come out to play. An ancient Australian tradition which definitely has its place in the choppy seas of finding the place of medicinal marijuana in clinical medicine. Many medicines commonly used to day, had the same experience when gaining entry into the pharmacopoeia!

  2. Sue Ieraci says:

    Dr Kosterich – could I ask: how did you obtain your expertise in the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy?

  3. Sue Ieraci says:

    Paul Taper’s comment brings to mind the old saying: “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”. Chronic pain and anxiety do not resolve literally “overnight”, with any management. CBD is no miracle drug. It carries some therapeutic effects and some adverse effects.

    Morphine is another plant-derived chemical that, in its purified and dose-standardised form, helps literally millions of people daily, from Emergency Departments to Palliative Care at home. Morphine is not a miracle drug either – it has its uses, adverse effects and abuses, but, in a regulated way, its use is enormously effective.

    The same principles should apply to cannabis-derived chemicals, without the “miracle drug” hype, and with separation of the issues relating to recreational use vs medicinal use.

    CBD does appear to assist children with specific drug-resistant forms of epilepsy, but no better than other new anticonvulsants like Topiramate (reference: Kroll-Seger et al in Neuropaediatrics 2006). In the specific case of Dravet syndrome, (which is a rare genetic mutation causing global cerebral effects, not just seizures), various combinations of therapy have been trialed, including ketogenic diets, benzodiazepines, valproate, and stiripentol . This evidence does not translate to the general treatment of idiopathic epilepsy, for which we now have very good medications. We should be cautious about the self-reporting of benefits, no matter how earnestly families believe in the substance. Humans are notorious for mistaking correlation and causation. That’s why we do clinical trials.

  4. Joe Kosterich says:

    Medicinal cannabis has a role in certain forms of childhood epilepsy. Aside studies we know that parents spend significant amounts of money and risk legal action by administering it to their children. Why do they do this? Because they have seen the effect where other medications have failed. Necessarily nothing works for everyone. The commenter is Medical Advisor to start up companyMedicinal cannabis company Little Green Pharma

  5. Paul Taper says:

    CBD oil has basically saved my life. I was on 75mg IR TDS oxycodone for pain, anti inflammatory drugs, ant acids ( Omeprazole almost killed me with an angio odema), diazepam and lexapro for the mental health issues the chronic pain caused ( L4/L5 discs stuffed and many desiccated ) and anti nausea medication. It was not effective and caused my health more problems than they solved.
    A friend with endometriosis who was concerned and who had after 10 operations and every medication available had no success then tried CBD oil and it fixed her pain, anxiety and helped with her PTSD.
    I was skeptical but eventually realised that I had nothing to lose. I obtained some CBD oil and the next day woke up pain free with no anxiety. Then my skin cleared up. I gave up smoking with no cravings and over 5 months lost 23kg. No side effects. So I ask the medical community why it is almost impossible for me to be able to get access legally. People like me cannot wait for you to find suitable evidence. A recent USA study by a respected Scientific research body found strong evidence of effectiveness in patients with chronic pain. WHO recently declared it a safe substance that should not be in controlled drug treaties. There are tens of thousands of people like me using CBD in Australia and it works. It seems some in the medicinal community cherry pick evidence and pay no attention to people like myself who use it with amazing effect. I now no longer take any of those pharmaceuticals. Would you prefer I go back to them? No way. I will continue risking legal issues as it has given me my life back.

    The current system needs a drastic overhaul to improve patient access. With only a few thousand people approved after all this time it is basically legal in name only and if the medical community cared about patients ( as my GP, psychologist and psychiatrist who all approve and are frustrated by the quagmire to get access for me and would happily prescribe CBD to me as they have seen the dramatic changes in my health) then perhaps you would give patient access more weight in the current useless system. If a GP can prescribe opioids then why the hell not CBD

    Listen to the people who actually use it. We count too.

  6. Kennedy says:

    The promotion of cannabis in sport is a problem that is generally ignored. Some high profile US sportspersons make many claims about it improving concentration during training and being anxiolytic before events etc etc.
    It is on the WADA banned list at a concentration that could never be reached by passive exposure.
    The cardiovascular effects are a worry as THC it not (cannabidiol) decreases the threshold for angina in patients with coronary disease and has been linked to numerous vascular events.
    There are a lot of “older” people out there undertaking quite significant exercise programmes and the use of cannabis will soon extend into this group — some information needs to be distributed about the possibility of an acute cardiac event in relation to cannabis in sport — particularly in the older population

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *