The proof is in the pudding: patient engagement in studying cannabidiol in mild cognitive impairment

Article type: Research Article

Keywords: Mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, Cannabidiol, Cannabis-based medicine, Patient engagement, Patient and public involvement

Authors: Antonia Keck ⚬, Julia-Sophia Scheuermann ⚬, Petra Scheerbaum ⚬, Elmar Graessel, Kirsten R. Müller-Vahl ⚬

Affiliations: https://ror.org/00f7hpc57grid.5330.50000 0001 2107 3311Center for Health Services Research in Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, (FAU), Erlangen, Germany; https://ror.org/00f2yqf98grid.10423.340000 0000 9529 9877Clinic of Psychiatry, Social Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

License: © The Author(s) 2025 CC BY 4.0 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Article links: DOI: 10.1186/s12906-025-04753-w  |  PubMed: 39844123  |  PMC: PMC11755935

Relevance: Relevant: mentioned in keywords or abstract

Full text: PDF (1006 KB)

Background

Active patient engagement (PE) in which patients function as genuine partners in clinical trials – particularly in drug development – has gained enormous importance in recent years. Currently, PE is considered the gold standard in all phases of study design due to the growing awareness of the discrepancy between patient needs and research practice [ref. 1]. It is generally accepted that joint action between patient partners and academic researchers is crucial for enhancing the focus on patient-centered healthcare [ref. 1]. Zvonareva et al. [ref. 2] proposed a framework for conceptualizing the varying degrees of PE in drug research delineating four levels: consultation, involvement, collaboration, and patient-controlled. However, PE remains uncommon in the context of drug research trials. While a variety of disease areas are encompassed by trials that incorporate PE activities, many disease areas remain devoid of such activities in the context of drug research [ref. 2]. By actively engaging patient partners in determining how to conduct trials, it is more probable that unmet clinical needs will be addressed and that participant recruitment and adherence will be facilitated.

To the best of our knowledge, PE has not yet been applied in the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating the effectiveness and safety of a compound in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Mild cognitive impairment is defined as a decline in cognitive abilities that is significantly below what would be expected for an individual’s age and level of education. Frequently regarded as an intermediated phase between normal cognitive aging and dementia, MCI differs from dementia in that it is not accompanied by substantial limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) [ref. 3]. Nevertheless, MCI represents a notable alteration in health status and is associated with an elevated risk of progression to dementia with a progression rate of approximately 70% within five years [ref. 4]. Moreover, MCI is frequently associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with 40–60% of individuals aged 58 and above diagnosed with MCI also exhibiting underlying AD pathology [ref. 5, ref. 6]. A meta-analysis conducted by Jansen and colleagues [ref. 7] indicates that the prevalence of AD pathology is 20–30% higher in individuals with MCI compared to those with non-impaired cognition or subjective cognitive impairment, supporting the notion that MCI constitutes a risk condition for AD.

In many cases, direct PE is no longer feasible after the disease progresses and transitions into AD because medical decisions have to be made by patients’ legal representatives on behalf of the individual at this stage [ref. 8]. In contrast, people with MCI retain full legal competence. In light of the significant challenges posed by AD to both individuals and society [ref. 9], an evidence-based pharmacological treatment for MCI is urgently needed but is currently unavailable [ref. 10]. The fact that MCI is easy to diagnose provides the unique chance to implement a treatment that could potentially delay or reduce the probability of progression to AD.

The cannabinoid known as cannabidiol (CBD) has been identified as a promising candidate for slowing down the progression of MCI and therefore delaying the transition to AD due to its neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory properties [ref. 11]. In addition, CBD is safe and generally well-tolerated, largely due to its lack of untoward psychoactive sequelae. To date, only a limited number of studies have actively incorporated PE when examining the efficacy and safety of cannabis-based medicines across various indications [ref. 12]. Remarkably, approval of highly purified CBD (Epidiolex^®) to treat seizures in two rare forms of epilepsy (Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome) in 2018 was significantly initiated by the fact that the mother of Charlotte, a little girl with Dravet syndrome, had self-initiated adjunctive therapy with a high concentration of CBD from the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) strain of cannabis to reduce the frequency of Charlotte’s seizures [ref. 13]. This case study impressively illustrates the benefits of engaging patients and their relatives or caregivers in initiating new pharmacological therapy strategies.

As part of our planned RCT investigating the effectiveness and safety of CBD in individuals with MCI, we aimed to directly involve patient partners in all steps of the study. To this end, we administered an online survey to individuals diagnosed with MCI who had participated in a recent trial at our center [ref. 14]. With this approach, we aimed to design an RCT that employs the most pertinent outcomes for participants, offers a more convenient approach to adverse events (AEs), and considers practical aspects such as acceptance of additional and invasive investigations.

Here, we present the results of the first online survey administered to people with MCI exploring their views on matters of convenience and their preferences regarding the setup of a clinical trial.

Methods

Study design and participants

We contacted N = 209 people who had previously been diagnosed with MCI at our center and who had recently participated in a non-pharmacological trial (for further information, see Scheerbaum et al. [ref. 14]) via email in December 2023 and asked them to participate in the online survey. Of these, N = 118 agreed to participate and – after giving written informed consent – were sent a link to the online survey (SoSci Survey; version 3.5.01; [ref. 15]). Out of these N = 118 people, N = 103 opened the survey, and N = 88 completed it. To reduce participants’ burden and the time they needed to invest in the study and because collecting participants’ characteristics was not the main focus of this study, we did not collect data on patients’ characteristics in the current study, since these data were available in the study we had recently conducted [ref. 14]. However, since the data were collected anonymously, it was not possible to identify the N = 88 individuals who participated in this study out of the sample of N = 118 who had agreed to participate. In order to provide sample characteristics at least by approximation, we present the participant characteristics of the N = 118 individuals who had initially agreed to participate and who were sent the survey link. This information refers to the baseline data in Scheerbaum et al. [ref. 14]. Table 1 presents the sample characteristics.

Online survey

The survey was specially designed for our planned trial “BrainFit-CBD” (currently in the application process) and has not been previously published elsewhere. Participants were informed about the purpose of the survey. In detail, they received the information that the planned trial “BrainFit-CBD” was designed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of CBD in people with MCI. Furthermore, participants were explicitly informed that the purpose of the survey was to learn more about the needs, wishes, concerns, and suggestions of people with MCI in order to be able to take these results into account while designing the study further. In total, the survey comprised 14 questions. It took participants an average of 7.72 min (SD = 2.98) to complete the survey. Before the survey was launched, we asked two people with MCI to evaluate the survey’s clarity, comprehensibility, and completeness via an online video interview conducted by one of the authors (AK).

The survey contained the following topics (for the full English version of the survey, please consult additional file 1): (i) importance of improvements (1 = not important to 5 = very important) in various domains including cognitive abilities, activities of daily living, mood, anxiety, behavior, pain, sleep, and quality of life, (ii) acceptance of AEs from CBD (1 = fully acceptable to 5 = not at all acceptable) including the most common AEs from CBD (diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and headache); (iii) reasons for dropout due to AEs, including persistent diarrhea, mild fatigue, severe fatigue, and mild headache (yes/no); (iv) willingness to undergo blood sampling and lumbar puncture to assess AD pathology (yes; basically yes, but more information is needed; no), and (v) general willingness to participate in a trial investigating the effectiveness and safety of CBD in MCI (yes; basically yes, but more information is needed; no), and more specifically, willingness to participate in an RCT with a 50% chance of receiving a placebo (yes/no).

Statistics

Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics (frequencies, ranges, percentage, means, and standard deviations), calculated with SPSS version 28.

Provision of supplementary information for participants

To align with the concept of patient engagement, we empowered participants by providing them with supplementary information on CBD in lay language and expressed our appreciation for their participation by sending a thank you email following the administration of the survey.

Ethical considerations

The procedures for our recent trial [ref. 14], which included sending voluntary follow-up surveys to the study participants, were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty from the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (Ref. 21-318-1-B).

Results

Patients’ characteristics

The sample of N = 118 (mean age = 70.6 (+ 6.6) years, N = 63 (53.4%) women) – who had agreed to participate – had a mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment score of 22.4 (SD = 1.6), indicating MCI [ref. 16]. The majority of these people (61.9%, n = 73) had a high level of education, according to the International Standard Classification of Education [ref. 17]. Almost one quarter (22.9%, n = 27) were employed. The mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [ref. 18] score was 3.9 (SD = 2.9), indicating the absence of depression. On average, people had normal body weight with a Body Mass Index of 25.6 (SD = 4.6) and had a low level of vascular risk (M = 1.1, SD = 0.9) calculated as the sum of present vascular risk factors, namely, smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, and diabetes. For additional details, see Table 1.

Online survey

The following results refer to data provided by the N = 88 participants who completed the survey. For all the clinical outcomes we assessed, the majority of participants indicated that each outcome was “very important” to them. However, improvement in cognitive abilities was rated as the most important treatment goal (by 87.5% of participants, n = 77) followed by (in descending order) quality of life (63.6%, n = 56), activities of daily living (55.7%, n = 49), sleep (55.7%, n = 49), pain (52.3%, n = 46), mood (52.3%, n = 46), behavior (48.9%, n = 43), and anxiety (43.2%, n = 38). Table 2 presents the detailed importance ratings of the patient-relevant outcomes.

As the least acceptable AE, 55.7% (n = 49) of all participants rated headache as “not at all acceptable”, followed by nausea (46.6%, n = 41), fatigue (35.2%, n = 31), and diarrhea (35.2%, n = 31). Persistent diarrhea was rated as the AE that would most frequently lead to study dropout (indicated by 90.9%, n = 80), followed by severe fatigue (84.1%, n = 74), mild headache (37.5%, n = 33), and mild fatigue (15.9%, n = 14). Table 3 presents the acceptance of AEs and probable study dropout due to non-tolerance of AEs as evaluated by participants.

With respect to additional study investigations, 67.0% of participants (n = 59) stated that they would be willing to undergo blood sampling to assess AD pathology, while only 21.6% (n = 19) agreed to accept a lumbar puncture for this purpose. Additionally, 31.8% (n = 28) and 37.5% (n = 33) of participants, respectively, indicated that they might be willing to accept these additional investigations but would need more information. Table 4 displays the frequencies of participants’ willingness to undergo invasive procedures.

Most of the respondents were in favor of participating in a trial for testing CBD for MCI, as 34.1% (n = 30) indicated their willingness to participate and another 54.5% (n = 47) stated that they might be willing to participate but would need more information. Of those who chose one of the two “yes” answers (“yes” and “basically yes, but more information is needed”), 71.6% (n = 63) stated that they would also participate in the RCT even if the chance of receiving a placebo was 50%. Table 4 presents the frequencies of participants’ willingness to participate in the RCT.

Discussion

This survey aimed to incorporate PE when setting up an RCT to investigate the effectiveness and safety of CBD in treating MCI. In our sample, people with MCI considered improvement in cognitive abilities to be the most important clinical outcome. This finding is consistent with the ICD-11 diagnostic criteria, which identify cognitive impairment as the central symptom of MCI [ref. 19]. To conduct patient-relevant research, our findings support the use of a cognitive assessment tool as the primary endpoint, while also considering additional patient-relevant outcomes – such as quality of life, sleep, and activities of daily living – as key secondary endpoints.

In clinical routine settings, the diagnosis of MCI is made on the basis of the results of clinical assessments such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment [ref. 16] or Mini-Mental-State-Examination [ref. 20]. According to German guidelines for the diagnosis of AD [ref. 10], it is strongly recommended that either a lumbar puncture for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analyses or positron emission tomography (PET) imaging are additionally performed to collect and examine AD biomarkers, including amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and neurodegeneration [ref. 10]. However, PET imaging is extremely expensive [ref. 21], has only limited availability, is time consuming, and is therefore hardly possible in the context of larger RCTs, while lumbar puncture is invasive and may cause side effects [ref. 22–ref. 24]. We were therefore interested in whether people with MCI would be willing to accept a lumbar puncture as an additional investigation in an RCT using CBD. Non-surprisingly, only one fifth of participants indicated their willingness to undergo CSF analyses and another third of patients asked for further information (although written patient information on lumbar puncture was already included in the survey). By contrast, blood sampling was much more accepted by this group of participants, suggesting that, as an alternative to CSF analyses, plasma levels of AD biomarkers should be used to confirm a diagnosis of MCI, although, until now, promising plasma biomarkers for AD (e.g., phosphorylated tau 217; p-tau217) have still been slightly less sensitive than CSF analyses and PET imaging [ref. 25]. Additional advantages of blood sample analyses are generally lower costs and general accessibility [ref. 26].

With respect to AEs, people with MCI have indicated persistent diarrhea and severe fatigue as AEs that have led to study drop out. This information is important, as the most common side effects of high dose treatments of CBD are diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and headache, among others [ref. 27–ref. 29]. So far, no RCTs have been available to investigate the efficacy and safety of CBD in people with MCI. Accordingly, the optimal dose of CBD is also unknown. Based on effects of CBD in other psychiatric indications, it can be assumed that higher doses may be more effective [ref. 30]. However, the results of this survey clearly indicate that, in an RCT, the dose titration of CBD should consider the importance of AEs, such as diarrhea and severe fatigue.

Interestingly, in general, participating in an RCT to test the use of CBD seems to be highly attractive to people with MCI. In addition, our results emphasize the need for involvement and informed decision-making, as more than half of the participants requested additional information before participating in the study. As most of the individuals expressed their willingness to participate even if given a placebo, a placebo-controlled trial for CBD appears to be feasible.

Although our study provided valuable insights into PE for planning a trial to test the use of CBD to treat MCI, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our study. First, due to the inability to match responses with participants, our sample description included individuals who did not participate in the survey, thus rendering it an inaccurate representation of those who indeed completed it. Second, the survey assessments were hypothetical, making different decisions (e.g., regarding treatment discontinuation due to certain side effects) in an actual study possible. Third, our sample consisted of individuals who had already participated in a non-pharmacological trial for MCI, and so they were familiar with the study procedures. Thus, the sample may have been biased because of their general willingness to participate in a clinical trial, and such willingness may have influenced their responses to some extent.

Conclusions

In summary, this study is the first to incorporate PE into a trial on the use of CBD for MCI, as there are currently no existing PE activities in this area. It provides valuable insights into the concerns, aims, and needs of people with MCI and offers initial implications for planning and conducting future studies involving this population. Our main message is to encourage the incorporation of PE activities in the drug research process, not only to reflect the goals and needs of patients but also to improve the quality of research.

References

1. SD Faulkner, F Somers, M Boudes, B Nafria, P Robinson. Using patient perspectives to Inform Better Clinical Trial Design and Conduct: current trends and future directions. Pharmaceut Med, 2023. [PubMed]
2. O Zvonareva, C Cravet, DP Richards. Practices of patient engagement in drug development: a systematic scoping review. Res Involv Engagem, 2022. [DOI | PubMed]
3. T Etgen, D Sander, H Bickel, H Förstl. Mild cognitive impairment and dementia: the importance of modifiable risk factors. Dtsch Arztebl Int, 2011. [PubMed]
4. Y Inui, K Ito, T Kato. Longer-term investigation of the value of 18F-FDG-PET and magnetic resonance imaging for predicting the conversion of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease: a multicenter study. J Alzheimer’s Dis, 2017. [DOI | PubMed]
5. C Gillis, F Mirzaei, M Potashman, MA Ikram, N Maserejian. The incidence of mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and data synthesis. Alzheimer’s Dement, 2019
6. AA Tahami Monfared, MJ Byrnes, LA White, Q Zhang. Alzheimer’s Disease: Epidemiology and Clinical Progression. Neurol Ther, 2022. [DOI | PubMed]
7. WJ Jansen, R Ossenkoppele, DL Knol, BM Tijms, P Scheltens, FR Verhey. Prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology in persons without dementia: a meta-analysis. JAMA, 2015. [DOI | PubMed]
8. KBXS Hirschman, C Feudtner, JH Karlawish. How does an Alzheimer’s disease patient’s role in medical decision making change over time?. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol, 2005. [DOI]
9. AA Tahami Monfared, MJ Byrnes, LA White, Q Zhang. The Humanistic and Economic Burden of Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurol Ther, 2022. [DOI | PubMed]
10. 10.DGN. DGPPN, editors. S3-Leitlinie Demenzen – Langfassung [S3-Guideline Dementia – Long version]2023.
11. 11.Abate G, Uberti D, Tambaro S. Potential and limits of cannabinoids in alzheimer’s disease therapy. Biology (Basel). 2021;10(6):542.
12. F Modaresi, K Talachian. The characteristics of clinical trials on Cannabis and cannabinoids: a review of trials for therapeutic or Drug Development purposes. Pharmaceut Med, 2022. [PubMed]
13. E Maa, P Figi. The case for medical marijuana in epilepsy. Epilepsia, 2014. [DOI | PubMed]
14. P Scheerbaum, S Book, M Jank, E Hanslian, M DellO’ro, J Schneider. Computerised cognitive training tools and online nutritional group counselling for people with mild cognitive impairment: study protocol of a completely digital, randomised, controlled trial. BMJ Open, 2022. [DOI]
15. 15.Leiner DJ. SoSci Survey (Version 3.5.02) [Computer software]. 2024 [Available from: https://www.soscisurvey.de
16. ZS Nasreddine, NA Phillips, V Bedirian, S Charbonneau, V Whitehead, I Collin. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2005. [DOI | PubMed]
17. 17.UNESCO Institute for Statistics: International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 2011, Montréal, 2012.
18. K Kroenke, RL Spitzer, JBW Williams. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med, 2001. [DOI | PubMed]
19. 19.(WHO) WHO. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. 11th ed. ed2021.
20. M Folstein, S Folstein, P Mc Hugh. Mini-mental State: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res, 1975. [DOI | PubMed]
21. J Contador, AM Vargas-Martinez, R Sanchez-Valle, M Trapero-Bertran, A Llado. Cost-effectiveness of Alzheimer’s disease CSF biomarkers and amyloid-PET in early-onset cognitive impairment diagnosis. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 2023. [DOI | PubMed]
22. JM Costerus, MC Brouwer, D van de Beek. Technological advances and changing indications for lumbar puncture in neurological disorders. Lancet Neurol, 2018. [DOI | PubMed]
23. AERD Monserrate, S Ma, C Xiong, JM Noble, JM Ringman. Factors associated with the onset and persistence of post-lumbar puncture headache. JAMA Neurol, 2015. [DOI | PubMed]
24. BL Wright, JT Lai, AJ Sinclair. Cerebrospinal fluid and lumbar puncture: a practical review. J Neurol, 2012. [DOI | PubMed]
25. F Gonzalez-Ortiz, PCL Ferreira, A Gonzalez-Escalante, L Montoliu-Gaya, P Ortiz-Romero, PR Kac. A novel ultrasensitive assay for plasma p-tau217: performance in individuals with subjective cognitive decline and early Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement, 2024. [DOI | PubMed]
26. F Gonzalez-Ortiz, PR Kac, WS Brum, H Zetterberg, K Blennow, TK Karikari. Plasma phospho-tau in Alzheimer’s disease: towards diagnostic and therapeutic trial applications. Mol Neurodegener, 2023. [DOI | PubMed]
27. E Chesney, D Oliver, A Green, S Sovi, J Wilson, A Englund. Adverse effects of cannabidiol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication Am Coll Neuropsychopharmacol, 2020. [DOI]
28. G Madeo, A Kapoor, R Giorgetti, FP Busardo, J Carlier. Update on Cannabidiol Clinical toxicity and adverse effects: a systematic review. Curr Neuropharmacol, 2023. [DOI | PubMed]
29. 29.Souza JDR, Pacheco JC, Rossi GN, de-Paulo BO, Zuardi AW, Guimaraes FS, et al. Adverse effects of oral cannabidiol: an updated systematic review of Randomized controlled trials (2020–2022). Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(12):2598.
30. I Dammann, C Rohleder, FM Leweke. Cannabidiol and its potential evidence-based Psychiatric benefits – a critical review. Pharmacopsychiatry, 2024. [DOI | PubMed]