Neuroimaging studies of cannabidiol and potential neurobiological mechanisms relevant for alcohol use disorders: a systematic review
Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
Translational Research in Alcohol, Edith Collins Centre, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia
Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia
Drug and Alcohol Services, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
The underlying neurobiological mechanisms of cannabidiol’s (CBD) management of alcohol use disorder (AUD) remains elusive.
Aim We conducted a systematic review of neuroimaging literature investigating the effects of CBD on the brain in healthy participants. We then theorise the potential neurobiological mechanisms by which CBD may ameliorate various symptoms of AUD.
Methods This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Terms relating to CBD and neuroimaging were used to search original clinical research published in peer-reviewed journals.
Results Of 767 studies identified by our search strategy, 16 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. The results suggest that CBD modulates γ-Aminobutyric acid and glutamate signaling in the basal ganglia and dorso-medial prefrontal cortex. Furthermore, CBD regulates activity in regions associated with mesocorticolimbic reward pathways; salience, limbic and fronto-striatal networks which are implicated in reward anticipation; emotion regulation; salience processing; and executive functioning.
Conclusion CBD appears to modulate neurotransmitter systems and functional connections in brain regions implicated in AUD, suggesting CBD may be used to manage AUD symptomatology.
Untitled section
Keywords: Cannabidiol, Neuroimaging, PET, Alcohol use disorder, Pharmacotherapy
Article notes
Untitled section
Received 2023 Feb 20; Accepted 2024 Mar 3; Collection date 2024.
Introduction
The medical, psychological, and social sequelae of alcohol use disorder (AUD) are major global public health concerns. Harmful alcohol consumption is linked to many physical and mental health complications and is responsible for 5.1% of the global burden of disease (Griswold et al. 2018; WHO 2018, 2021). AUD, particularly when moderate to severe, is a chronic relapsing disorder, characterized by compulsive alcohol-seeking and consumption despite negative repercussions to both physical and mental health (Haber, Riordan, & Morley 2021). A wealth of research suggests that neurobiological changes to various neurotransmitter systems and brain circuits underpin the behaviour and psychology which maintains AUD (Koob & Volkow 2016). Primary neurotransmitter systems influenced by prolonged and heavy alcohol consumption include dopaminergic, γ-aminobutyric acidergic (GABA)-ergic, glutamatergic, serotonergic, and opioidergic (Chastain 2006; Vitale, Iannotti, & Amodeo 2021). Pharmacotherapy can be useful, in conjunction with psychosocial support, for reducing the core symptoms of AUD (such as reducing craving, habitual seeking behaviours, and withdrawal) and achieving abstinence or aiding the control of consumption (Morley et al. 2021). However, there currently exists a paucity of medications available to treat AUD (Morley 2021).
Neuroimaging literature has identified specific neurocircuit and biochemical alterations thought to be responsible for the observed cognitive and behavioural changes associated with AUD. Changes to mesocorticolimbic reward pathways, following steep increases in opioid and D1 signaling into the ventral striatum, leads to increases in reward anticipation and salience attribution to drug-related cues which leads to increased drug-seeking behaviours (Koob & Volkow 2016). Further, reduced signaling of dopaminergic systems in reward and limbic networks leads to negative emotion, anhedonia, and heightened stress (Koob & Volkow 2016). Finally, fronto-striatal network and fronto-cortical dysregulation leads to reduced executive functioning and emotion regulation (Jentsch & Taylor 1999). Understanding the brain correlates of AUD and implementing neuroimaging techniques to identify the methods by which novel pharmacotherapies may modulate these correlates provide a method for more effective and tailored treatments.
Over the past few years there has been an influx of research exploring CBD as a potential pharmacotherapy for a variety of indications due to its wide-ranging therapeutic effects and favourable safety profile (José A Crippa et al. 2018). CBD is the second most abundant chemical constituent of the Cannabis sativa plant and, unlike Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is non-intoxicating and has nil potential for abuse or dependence (Arout, Haney, Herrmann, Bedi, & Cooper, 2022; Bergamaschi et al. 2011; Haney et al. 2016; Leweke et al. 2012; McCartney et al. 2022; Schoedel et al. 2018). CBD has shown to possess affinity for multiple targets including the modulation of serotoninergic, dopaminergic, glutamatergic, GABAergic (Scopinho et al. 2011) and endocannabinoid signaling (Corroon, Felice, & Medicine 2019). This multi-target action of CBD may explain the various therapeutic properties including antiepileptic (Devinsky et al. 2016; Talwar, Estes, Aparasu, & Reddy, 2022), anxiolytic (Berger et al. 2022; Bhattacharyya & et al. 2018; Stefan J. Borgwardt et al. 2008; Paolo Fusar-Poli et al. 2010; Jadoon, Tan, & O’Sullivan 2017; Wilson et al. 2019a), neuroprotective (José A Crippa et al. 2018), and anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects (Mandolini et al. 2018; Mechoulam et al. 2007; Ren et al. 2009). This combination of potential therapeutic effects suggests that CBD might be particularly well suited to management of alcohol use disorder. In fact, CBD may modulate drug craving and seeking behaviours. CBD has been shown to reduce craving and anxiety in heroin users (Hurd et al. 2019), as well as stress and drug cue alcohol reinstatement, voluntary alcohol consumption, withdrawal symptoms and alcohol induced relapse behaviours in preclinical models of alcohol dependence (Viudez-Martínez et al. 2018a, b, c; A. Viudez-Martínez et al. 2018a, b, c ). This suggests that CBD could protect from further damage of alcohol due to its neuroprotective and anti-oxidant properties which could improve executive functioning, but may also modulate key disorder characteristics which precipitate relapse such as heightened anxiety (Skelley et al. 2020) and craving in response to alcohol cues and stressors (Hurd et al. 2019). Neuroimaging techniques provide valuable insights into the structure and function of the brain and may explain the relationship between the pharmacological action of CBD and its behavioural and psychological effects (Hargreaves et al. 2015; Nathan et al. 2014; Wong et al. 2009). However, there has currently been no attempt to compile and compare neuroimaging studies to examine whether the converging neurobiological effects of CBD are relevant to AUD. To establish the current understanding of the neurobehavioral mechanisms of action of CBD on the human brain, and its pharmacotherapeutic potential for AUD, we examined common neuroimaging techniques including, magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, including both functional and structural imaging), single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET). MRI is a non-invasive technique that produces anatomical images of the brain used to investigate both structural and functional aspects of the brain. Structural MRI provides a snapshot of brain anatomy in time while functional MRI (fMRI) can identify brain activity occurring during a variety of cognitive and functional activities of the brain in real-time. Specific cognitive phenomena can be targeted by presenting participants with specific tasks, known as task fMRI (tfMRI) (Heeger & Ress 2002; Linden et al. 1999; Worsley & Friston 1995) or also conducted in task-free paradigms known as resting state fMRI (rsfMRI) (Fox & Raichle 2007; Raichle et al. 2001). Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) is an imaging modality that can identify the presence and density of a variety of neurometabolites in the brain. Finally, nuclear imaging techniques PET and SPECT use radiotracers which are absorbed by the body and the resulting emission of positrons (in the case of PET) and gamma rays (in the case of SPECT) provides a measure of cellular and molecular function. The destination of the radiotracers indicates the location of changes in metabolic and other physiological processes such as blood flow, and regional chemical absorption.
This review aimed to systematically examine studies using these imaging techniques to elucidate the neurobehavioural and neuropsychological effects of CBD, as well as provide insights into the potential mechanism of CBD in the management of key symptoms of AUD.
Methods
This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews (Moher et al. 2009). Prior to the commencement of the data extraction, this review was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO # CRD42021272561). The original protocol can be accessed on the PROSPERO website.
Search strategy
Terms relating to CBD, and neuroimaging were used to search EMBASE, PubMed, Medline and PsycINFO databases. This search strategy used a combination of MeSH heading and key words and used two main sections. These sections related to “cannabidiol” and a section relating to imaging techniques i.e. (MRS OR Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy OR Spectroscopy OR Metabolite Concentrations OR magnetic resonance spectroscopy OR MRS OR functional magnetic resonance imaging OR fMRI OR resting state functional OR magnetic resonance imaging OR rsfMRI OR structural magnetic resonance imaging OR MRI OR magnetic resonance spectroscopy OR PET OR positron emission tomography). The search was re-run in June 2022 to capture any new publications.
Study selection
Once all the database searches had been completed and duplicate studies removed, a multi-stage screening process was performed by one author (TH). Studies were screened in the following order i) title ii) abstract iii) full-text article. Titles were screened to ensure studies used CBD as the active medication and that neuroimaging outcomes were the key measure of interest. Abstracts were then further assessed to ensure only human studies were included. In the final stage, all remaining studies had a full-length text review to ensure that the study satisfied more specific inclusion criteria.
Eligibility criteria
Studies which investigated the effect of CBD on the brain using either MRI, fMRI, MRS, SPECT or PET in human subjects were included. All eligible studies also had to include an experimental group that received CBD which did not fit diagnostic criteria for a mental health disorder. Studies were excluded if they were post-mortem, animal investigations, non-brain MRI studies, or examined the effect of cannabis rather than CBD. Review and non-English articles were excluded. The reference list of all eligible studies was also manually searched to identify any additional publications.
Data extraction
The following data was extracted from all eligible studies: author, year of publication, number of participants in patient and control groups, age, proportion of males and females, clinical condition and diagnosis (patients only), matching factors in controls, neuroimaging paradigm, scanner specifics, outcome variables including: i) structural brain changes; ii) CBD-modulated brain activity (as measured through the blood oxygen level dependent [BOLD] response) or functional connectivity; iii) CBD-induced alterations in metabolites such as glutamate, GABA, and glutamine; iv) CBD-induced alterations in metabolism of blood PET.
Quality assessment
Risk of bias was assessed by the AXIS for cross-sectional studies or the Cochrane Risk of Bias (Sterne et al. 2019) for randomised trials with both crossover and parallel designs. The risk of bias assessment was assessed independently by two authors (KM and JW) and any discrepancies were resolved by discussion between the two authors with consultation available from a third party if required.
Results
General overview of study selection process
The primary search identified 767 records from four databases see Fig. 1 in Appendix . After removing duplicates, 599 items remained. Titles were screened first and items that did meet eligibility criteria were removed leaving 113 studies. After screening abstracts, 53 studies remained. Finally, the full-texts were screened leaving 16 studies for inclusion in the review. Before publication, a secondary search in June 2022 identified four new studies that were included in the final version of the review. The 20 included studies all administered CBD orally with 19 studies dosing 600 mg CBD and one 400 mg CBD. Fourteen of the 20 included studies were task-based fMRI, four were rsfMRI, one study was an MRS study, and one study used SPECT imaging Although search terms related to SPECT were not included in the search strategy, this study was included due to its pertinence to the focus of this review. Additionally, various studies were used the same or similar participant samples as depicted by the colour categorisations of the outer ring of the sunburst plot (Fig. 2 in the Appendix). In “Functional MRI” section we detail functional (subdivided into rsfMRI and different task paradigms) and neurochemical findings (Tables 1 and 2).
| ID | Title | Design | Medication | Scanner details | Results (CBD only) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fMRI: Task Based | |||||
| 1a | Borgwardt, S. J. et al. 2008 | DBPC pseudo-randomized, repeated measures, within-subject design. 1-month washout | THC 10 mg or CBD 600 mg or placebo | 1.5 T Sigma (GE) | CBD deactivated the left temporal cortex and insula. These effects were not related to changes in anxiety, intoxication, sedation, and psychotic symptoms. Trend for less anxiety following CBD relative to placebo (p = 0 .06) |
| 1b | Bhattacharyya, S. et al. 2009 | DBPC pseudo-randomized, repeated measures, within-subject design. 1-month washout | THC 10 mg or CBD 600 mg or placebo | 1.5 T Sigma (GE) | CBD induced trend in modulation of insula, mediotemporal gyrus, lingual gyrus, precuneus and precentral gyrus during encoding blocks and in hippocampus during recall blocks but did not survive threshold for less than 1 false positive |
| 1c | Bhattacharyya, S. et al. 2010 | DBPC pseudo-randomized, repeated measures, within-subject design. 1-month washout | THC 10 mg or CBD 600 mg or placebo | 1.5 T Sigma (GE) | CBD attenuated amygdala response while observing fearful which correlated with an anxiolytic effect (r = 0.551, p = 0.017). CBD also decrease amygdala response also correlated with reductions in galvanic skin response while and intensely fearful faces (r = 0.524; p = 0.049)Right temporal cortex, parahipcampal gyrus, insula and caudate were augmented by CBD during response inhibition taskWhile listening to speech CBD the superior temporal cortex was augmented by CBDDuring visual processing the occipital lobe was augmentedDuring verbal recall CBD was associated with a trend increase in activity in the striatum compared to placebo |
| 1d | Bhattacharyya, S. et al. 2012 | DBPC pseudo-randomized, repeated measures, within-subject design. 1-month washout | THC 10 mg or CBD 600 mg or placebo | 1.5 T Sigma (GE) | CBD attenuated activation in the left medial prefrontal cortex and augmented activation in the right caudate, parahippocampal gyrus, insula, precentral gyrus and thalamus, relative to placebo during oddball salience processing. CBD also reduced response latencies |
| 1e | Bhattacharyya, S. et al. 2014 | DBPC pseudo-randomized, repeated measures, within-subject design. 1-month washout | THC 10 mg or CBD 600 mg or placebo | 1.5 T Sigma (GE) | CBD increased fronto-striatal connectivity but decreased mediotemporal-prefrontal connectivity during oddball salience processing |
| 1f | Fusar Poli et al. 2009 | DBPC pseudo-randomized, repeated measures, within-subject design. 1-month washout | THC 10 mg or CBD 600 mg or placebo | 1.5 T Sigma (GE) | CBD attenuated the BOLD signal in the amygdala and anterior and posterior cingulate cortex while subjects were processing intensely fearful faces, and its suppression of the amygdalar and anterior cingulate response was correlated with the concurrent reduction in SCR fluctionations. CBD also reduced activity compared to placebo in the posterior lobe of the cerebellum for 50% fearful face stimuli |
| 1 g | Fusar-Poli, P. et al. 2010 | DBPC pseudo-randomized, repeated measures, within-subject design. 1-month washout | THC 10 mg or CBD 600 mg or placebo | 1.5 T Sigma (GE) | In the placebo condition, BMS identified a model with driving inputs entering via the anterior cingulate and forward intrinsic connectivity between the amygdala and the anterior cingulate as the best fit. CBD but not D9-THC disrupted forward connectivity between these regions during the neural response to fearful faces |
| 1 h | Winton-Brown, T. et al. 2011 | DBPC pseudo-randomized, repeated measures, within-subject design. 1-month washout | THC 10 mg or CBD 600 mg or placebo | 1.5 T Sigma (GE) | CBD had no significant symptomatic effects in anxiety, intoxication, and positive psychotic symptoms. CBD was associated with activation in right temporal cortex during auditory processing |
| 2a | Wilson, R. et al. 2019 | DBRPC parallel-arm study | CHR received 600 mg CBD or matched placebo, while HC received no treatment | GeneralElectric Signa HDx 3.0 T MRI scanner | CBD attenuated the hyperactivity in the left insula/parietal operculum for CHR participants and was associated with overall slowing of reaction time |
| 2b | Davies. C 2022 | DBRPC parallel-arm study | CHR received 600 mg CBD or matched placebo, while HC received no treatment | GeneralElectric Signa HDx 3.0 T MRI scanner | Healthy controls showed a significant negative relationship between cortisol and parahippocampal activation (p = 0.023). During fear processing, increases in cortisol levels induced by social stress led to lower parahippocampal activation. This relationship was significantly different in placebo compared to healthy controls (p = 0.033) but not CBD conditions vs healthy controls (p = 0.67) |
| 2c | Bhattacharyya 2018 | DBRCT, parallel-arm study | CHR received 600 mg CBD or matched placebo, while HC received no treatment | GeneralElectric Signa HDx 3.0 T MRI scanner | In the CBD group activation was greater than in the placebo group but lower than in the control group in the right caudate during encoding and in the parahippocampal gyrus and midbrain during recall. The level of activation in the CBD group was thus intermediate to that in the other 2 groups |
| 2d | Davies C 2020 | DBRCT, parallel-arm study | CHR received 600 mg CBD or matched placebo, while HC recived no treatment | GeneralElectric Signa HDx 3.0 T MRI scanner | During fear processing, CHR participants receiving CBD showed greater activation than HC but lower activation than those who received placebo in the parahippocampal gyrus. CHR participants receiving CBD showed lower activation than HC but higher activation than those who received placebo in the striatum |
| 3a | Lawn, W. et al. 2020 | DBRPC repeated measures, crossover design | 600 mg oral dose of CBD and matched placebo | 3-Tesla Siemens Prisma MRI Scanner | There was insufficient evidence to suggest that CBD altered reward-related brain activity |
| 3b | Bloomfeild.M 2022 | DBRPC repeated measures, crossover design | 600 mg oral dose of CBD and matched placebo | 3-Tesla Siemens Prisma MRI Scanner | There was insufficient evidence to suggest that CBD altered brain regions associated with emotional processing or responding to emotional faces |
| fMRI: Resting State | |||||
| 3c | Michael A P Bloomfield et al 2020 | DBRPC repeated measures, crossover design | 600 mg CBD or placebo | 3-Tesla Siemens Prisma MRI Scanner | CBD increased CBF in the hippocampus (p = 0.004). There was no effect on memory task performance, but there was a significant correlation whereby greater CBD-induced increases in orbitofrontal CBF were associated with reduced reaction time on the 2-back working memory task ( r = − 0.73, p = 0.005) |
| 3d | Matthew B Wall 2022 | DBRPC repeated measures, crossover design | 600 mg CBD or placebo | 3-Tesla Siemens Prisma MRI Scanner | Compared to placebo, CBD was associated with a relative increase between areas in the posterior parietal lobes, parietooccipital sulcus, the left posterior cingulate and areas of the striatum involved in associationCBD also led to decreased connectivity was found in the right hemisphere insula and lateral frontal cortex. Furthermore, CBD relatively decreased connectivity from the striatum sensorimotor seed-region and left cerebellum |
| 4 | Grimm, O. et al. 2018 | Subject observer- blinded, RCT Crossover | 10 mg THC vs CBD 600 mg vs placebo | 3-Tesla Siemens Trio | Increase in front striatal coupling during intake of 600 mg CBD. ROI-putamen showed increased activity with three clusters in the frontal lobe |
| 5a | Pretzsch, C. M. et al. 2019 | DBRPC, repeated-measures, cross-over study | 600 mg CBD or placebo | 3 T GE Excite II | Primarily driven by the ASD group, with no significant change in controls, CBD significantly increased fALFF in the right fusiform gyrus (p = 0.041) and in the cerebellar vermis VI (p = 0.048). Within the ASD group only, CBD also significantly altered vermal functional connectivity with several of its subcortical (striatal) and cortical targets |
| MRS | |||||
| 5b | Pretzsch, C. M. et al. 2019 | DBRPC, repeated-measures, cross-over study | 600 mg CBD or placebo | 3 T GE Excite II | Across regions, CBD increased GABA + in controls, but decreased GABA + in ASD; the group difference in change in GABA + in the DMPFC was significant |
| PET | |||||
| 6 | Crippa J. et al. 2004 | DBRCT | 400 mg CBD | Double-detector SOPHAs DST system | CBD was associated with an increased parahippocampal gyrus blood flow. CBD conditions also showed decreased blood flow to a mediotemporal cluster including the left amygdala-hippocampal complex, hypothalamus, and a cluster in the left posterior cingulate gyrus blood flow |
| Sample ID | Name | Participants | Age (mean [sd]) | Sex (female%) | Recruited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fMRI: Task Based | |||||
| 1a | Borgwardt, S. J. et al. 2008 | 15 healthy men | 26.7 [5.7] | 0% | Recruited through advertisement in the local media |
| 1b | Bhattacharyya, S. et al. 2009 | 15 healthy men | 26.67 [5.7] | 0% | Recruited through advertisement in the local media |
| 1c | Bhattacharyya, S. et al. 2010 | 15 healthy men | 26.7 [5.7] | 0% | Recruited through advertisement in the local media |
| 1d | Bhattacharyya, S. et al. 2012 | 15 healthy men | 26.67 [5.7] | 0% | Recruited through advertisement in the local media |
| 1e | Bhattacharyya, S. et al. 2014 | 15 healthy men | 26.67 [5.7] | 0% | Recruited through advertisement in the local media |
| 1f | Fusar Poli et al. 2009 | 15 healthy men | 26.67 [5.7] | 0% | Recruited through advertisement in the local media |
| 1 g | Fusar-Poli, P. et al. 2010 | 15 healthy men | 26.67 [5.7] | 0% | Recruited from advertisement in the local media |
| 1 h | Winton-Brown, T. et al. 2011 | 14 healthy men | 26.7 [5.7] | 0% | Recruited advertisements in local media |
| 2a | Wilson, R. et al. 2019 | 19 HC and 33 CHR | 23.9 [4.15] | 41% | HC recruited by local advertisement while CHR were recruited from early intervention services in the UK |
| 2b | Davies. C 2022 | 19 HC and 33 CHR | 23.4 [4.8]; 24.3 [4.73] | 49%; 42% | HC recruited by local advertisement while CHR were recruited from early intervention services in the UK |
| 2c | Bhattacharyya 2018 | 19 HC and 33 CHR | 23.4 [4.8]; 24.3 [4.73] | 49%; 42% | HC recruited by local advertisement while CHR were recruited from early intervention services in the UK |
| 2d | Davies C 2020 | 19 HC and 33 CHR | 23.4 [4.8]; 24.3 [4.73] | 49%; 47.4% | HC recruited by local advertisement while CHR were recruited from early intervention services in the UK |
| 3a | Lawn, W. et al. 2020 | 23 healthy participants | 23.74 [4.2] | 52% | Recruited through public advertisement |
| 3b | Bloomfeild.M 2022 | 24 healthy participants | 23.6 [4.12] | 50% | Recruited through public advertisement |
| fMRI: Resting State | |||||
| 3c | Michael A P Bloomfield et al 2020 | 15 healthy participants | 24 [5] | 60% | Recruited through online adverts, posters and word-of-mouth |
| 3d | Matthew B Wall 2022 | 23 healthy participants | 23.8 [4.3] | 52% | online adverts, posters and word-of-mouth |
| 4 | Grimm, O. et al. 2018 | 16 HC | NA | 0% | Recruited via local advertisement |
| 5a | Pretzsch, C. M. et al. 2019 | 17 neurotypicals, 13 ASD | 28.47 [6.55]; 30.85 [9.79] | 0% | na |
| MRS | |||||
| 5b | Pretzsch, C. M. et al. 2019 | 17 neurotypicals, 17 ASD | 28.47 [6.55]; 31.29 [9.94] | 0% | na |
| PET | |||||
| 6a | Crippa 2004 | 10 healthy volunteers | 29.8 [5.1] | 0% | Postgraduate students |
Functional MRI (fMRI)
Resting state fMRI
Four resting state fMRI studies (Bloomfield et al. 2020; Grimm et al. 2018; Pretzsch, Voinescu, et al. 2019; Wall et al. 2022) were identified. These studies examined brain activation by either measuring spontaneous low frequency fluctuations in BOLD signal while participants remain at rest in a MRI machine or cerebral blood flow (CBF) via the use of a technique called arterial spin labelling (ASL; (Barbier, Lamalle, & Décorps 2001)).
Firstly, in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled (DBRCT) crossover study, 13 males with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 17 neurotypical males (mean [SD] age = 30.85 [9.79] years and 28.47 [6.55] years for ASD and neurotypical participants, respectively) received a single dose of 600 mg CBD or placebo (Pretzsch, Voinescu, et al., 2019). Participants were scanned 2 h after drug administration. CBD significantly increased spontaneous fluctuations in BOLD signal across both groups in the right fusiform gyrus (p = 0.041) and in the cerebellar vermis (p = 0.048) which post-hoc analyses demonstrated were driven by an effect in participants with ASD (pFWE = 0.029 and pFWE = 0.045; for fusiform and vermis clusters, respectively). Following a post-hoc seed-based analysis of functional connectivity in these regions of interest (ROIs), CBD was not shown to have a significant effect on vermal or fusiform functional connectivity with any other regions for neurotypical participants.
In another study (Grimm et al. 2018), 16 healthy male participants (demographic information not available) were included in a DBRCT crossover study with three separate arms and one-week intervals between scans. Participants were scanned 75 min following the consumption of either 10 mg THC, 600 mg CBD, or matched placebo. Seed-based analysis on four ROIs in the striatum, including the caudate (left and right) and putamen (left and right) were examined for connectivity with the rest of the brain. CBD administration led to an increase of fronto-striatal functional connectivity relative to placebo. Specifically, relative to placebo, those who were administered CBD showed a significant increase in connectivity between the right putamen seed (p < 0.03), and three clusters in the right prefrontal cortex (PFC). However, the analysis did not establish directionality.
In a crossover DBRCT, 15 participants (mean [SD] age = 24.1 [5.0] years, female = 60%) were administered either 600 mg CBD or placebo on separate days. The washout period was not reported, however, based on previous studies using the same sample, we can infer that the washout period was ≥ 1-week. Regional CBF was measured at rest 3 h after drug administration (Bloomfield et al. 2020). Compared to placebo, CBD administration significantly increased CBF in the hippocampus (15 mL/100 g/min [CI 5.78–24.21, p = 0.004]). CBF increased in the orbitofrontal cortex (p = 0.019) by 10.04 mL/100 g/min (CI, 1.90–18.19). However, only the effect in the hippocampus survived Bonferroni correction.
Finally, a crossover DBRCT was used to examine the effects of CBD on the striato-cortical connectivity of 23 healthy participants administered 600 mg CBD or a matched placebo (≥ 1-week washout period) 150 min before an MRI scan (mean [SD] age 23.8 [4.3] years, female = 53%)(Wall et al. 2022). CBD significantly decreased functional connectivity between subregions of the striatum, including limbic striatum activity with the lateral frontal cortex and the right hemisphere insula (p < 0.05), and between the sensorimotor striatum and cerebellum (p < 0.05). However, increased connectivity was observed between the associative striatum (regions receiving information from the associative areas of the cortex) and posterior parietal lobes (extending into the parieto-occipital sulcus and into the left posterior cingulate) (p < 0.05).
Task based fMRI
Task-fMRI was the most common paradigm used to investigate the effect of CBD, with 14 of the 20 included studies employing task-fMRI. However, these 14 task fMRI studies comprised of data pertaining from three participant samples. In eight studies (Bhattacharyya et al. 2012; Bhattacharyya et al. 2014; Bhattacharyya et al. 2009; Bhattacharyya et al. 2010; S. J. Borgwardt et al. 2008; P. Fusar-Poli et al. 2010; Fusar-Poli et al. 2009; T. T. Winton-Brown et al. 2011), 15 male participants (mean [SD] age 26.7 [5.7]) were scanned using a crossover DBRCT, pseudo randomisation and a within group study design. Participants were either given THC 10 mg, CBD 600 mg or placebo 1 h prior to a task-fMRI scan with 1-month intervals between scanning sessions. Furthermore, four studies (Bhattacharyya, Wilson, Appiah-Kusi, O'Neill, et al., 2018; Davies et al. 2020; Wilson et al. 2019b) scanned one sample consisting of 19 healthy controls (HC) and 33 clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis (mean [SD] age of 23.4 [4.8] and 24.3 [4.73]; 49% and 42% female, respectively). In these DBRCT parallel-arm studies, CHR participants were given 600 mg CBD or placebo, while HC did not receive any medication, 3 h prior to a scan. Finally, two more studies (Bloomfield et al. 2022; Lawn et al. 2020) examined 24 participants (mean [SD] age 23.6 [4.12], female = 50%), however, the study by Lawn et al. (2020) excluded one participant because they did not complete the MID task correctly (mean [SD] age 23.74 [4.2], female = 52%). In this crossover DBRCT, participants were given 600 mg oral dose of CBD or matched placebo and were scanned 150 min later with a 7-day washout period. Experimental tasks applied across all three participant samples included go/no-go (Bhattacharyya et al. 2010; S. J. Borgwardt et al. 2008), oddball tasks (Bhattacharyya et al. 2012, 2014), verbal paired memory (Bhattacharyya et al. 2009, 2010), fearful faces tasks (Bhattacharyya et al. 2010; Bloomfield et al. 2022; Davies et al. 2022; Davies et al. 2020; P. Fusar-Poli et al. 2010; Fusar-Poli et al. 2009), monetary incentive delay (Lawn et al. 2020; Wilson et al. 2019b), and passive visual and auditory presentations (T. T. Winton-Brown et al. 2011). The results are summarised by experimental task here.
Go/No go and oddball tasks
In go/no go tasks, participants are required to respond to appropriate, target “go” stimuli and not respond to inappropriate, “no-go” stimuli (Rubia et al. 2006). The number of false responses to “no-go” indicates inhibition capacity. Go/no-go tasks can be combined with oddball tasks to measure participants’ responses to novel stimuli, and ability to discriminate between salient or non-salient information. To do this, participants are presented with a series of repetitive stimuli that are irregularly interrupted by novel stimuli (the oddball stimulus) thereby providing information about how participants respond to novelty. S. J. Borgwardt et al., (2008) reported no significant drug effects on the combined go/no-go and oddball task performance, although there were different activation patterns on the ‘no-go’ relative to oddball trials between placebo and CBD conditions. Placebo administration revealed significant hyperactivation in the inferior and medial frontal gyri, the anterior insula, the anterior cingulate gyrus, and the supplementary motor area for ‘no-go’ compared to oddball condition (p < 0.0025). CBD administration showed hyperactivation in middle and superior temporal gyrus, insula, and posterior cingulate gyrus for ‘no-go’ compared to oddball condition (p < 0.0025). In comparison to placebo and for ‘no-go’ relative to oddball trials, CBD was associated with reduction in activity in the left insula and left superior and transverse temporal gyri (p < 0.01). Bhattacharyya et al. (2012), in a secondary analysis of S. J. Borgwardt et al., (2008), reported results from a go/no-go task with added oddball stimuli to account for the novelty of ‘no-go’stimuli. Response latencies across all task conditions were significantly reduced in CBD groups compared to placebo (p = 0.01) with a trend towards higher reduction in response latency to oddball than standard stimuli (p > 0.01). During the task, CBD attenuated activation in clusters in the left medial PFC (p = 0.01) and augmented activation in clusters in the right caudate, parahippocampal gyrus, insula, precentral gyrus, and thalamus (p = 0.02), relative to placebo. In a follow-up analysis, seed clusters in the inferior frontal, dorsal, striatal and posterior hippocampal foci were selected as ROIs due to their involvement in processing deviant, rare or novel stimuli (Rubia, Smith, Brammer, & Taylor, 2007) and were shown to be functionally connected to multiple brain regions during the oddball task (Bhattacharyya et al. 2014). CBD attenuated functional connectivity from the inferior frontal gyrus seed cluster with a cluster with peaks in the left anterior lobe of the cerebellum, left thalamus, and lingual gyrus (p < 0.001) and attenuated functional connectivity with the right insula (p = 0.043). In the dorsal striatum seed cluster CBD augmented the functional connectivity of the left dorsal striatum with the body of the left caudate nucleus and the left inferior frontal gyrus (p = 0.008) and attenuated functional connectivity with the left anterior cingulate and the left medial frontal gyrus (p = 0.007). In the hippocampal seed cluster, functional connectivity of the left posterior hippocampal cluster with the left parahippocampal gyrus was augmented by CBD (p = 0.0045), whereas the functional connectivity between the right parahippocampal gyrus, the left posterior cingulate, and the tail of the left caudate was attenuated in the CBD condition (p = 0.004).
Verbal paired memory task
The verbal paired memory tasks used in the selected articles were adapted from the paired associate learning subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised (Wechsler 1987). This task primarily assesses episodic memory and induces activity in various areas associated with memory. Bhattacharyya et al. (2009) investigated the impact of CBD on mediotemporal and PFC activation during a verbal paired association task. Performance on the task was not significantly affected by treatment. However, CBD administration did modulate regions associated with memory consolidation and including insula, mediotemporal gyrus, lingual gyrus, precuneus, and precentral gyrus activation during repeated encoding (p < 0.05) and the hippocampus during recall blocks relative to placebo (p = 0.01).
A similar study incorporating the verbal paired memory task by task (Bhattacharyya, Wilson, Appiah-Kusi, O'Neill, et al., 2018), in which CHR participants who received CBD demonstrated greater activation in the precentral gyrus compared to placebo, coupled with reduced activation in the parahippocampus extending to the superior temporal gyrus and cerebellum (p = 0.003) and precentral gyrus (p ≤ 0.003) during encoding phases. Additionally, CHR participants who received CBD showed greater activation than placebo in regions including the medial frontal gyrus, right precentral gyrus and adjacent cingulate gyrus, and the left cingulate gyrus and caudate body (p ≤ 0.002) during the recall phase of the task (Bhattacharyya, Wilson, Appiah-Kusi, O'Neill, et al., 2018). Generally, these activation patterns signified a trend towards the normalisation of activity in these regions and resembling activation patterns observed in HC.
Fearful faces
During the fearful faces task, images of faces that exhibit varying levels of fearful expressions are presented to the participants to elicit activity associated with emotional processing and anxiety responses (Keedwell, et al. 2005; Morris et al. 1996). Fusar-Poli et al. (2009) demonstrated that CBD reduced activity in the amygdala (p = 0.0012) and the anterior and posterior cingulate cortex (p = 0.00065 and p = 0.000432 respectively) while participants were processing intensely fearful faces. Moreover, CBD reduced activity in the posterior lobe of the cerebellum for moderately fearful face stimuli compared to placebo. Concurrently recorded electrodermal psychophysiological responses also demonstrated reduced skin conductance response (SCR) fluctuations for intensely fearful expression stimuli (p < 0.05) but not neutral or mildly fearful faces. This reduction of SCR fluctuations is a proxy for physiological arousal (Bach, Friston, & Dolan, 2010). The suppression of amygdala as well as the anterior cingulate covaried with the reductions in the number of SCR fluctuations (r = 0.524; p = 0.049) and, as reported in a later study (Bhattacharyya et al. 2010), a trend level anxiolytic effect as indexed by the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (r = 0.551, p = 0.017). Finally, the effect of CBD in modulating prefrontal-subcortical connectivity during emotion processing was investigated in a follow-up analysis (P. Fusar-Poli et al. 2010). CBD treatment led to significant disruption of forward connectivity between the amygdala and anterior cingulate observed in the placebo group while participants responded to fearful faces (p = 0.035).
In a DBRCT parallel arm study, the effect of CBD on both the mediotemporal and striatal function (Davies et al. 2020) was examined. Subsequently, the relationship between mediotemporal function and serum cortisol level during the fearful faces paradigm was examined in the same sample but using different techniques (Davies et al. 2022). During the processing of fearful faces, CHR participants in the placebo condition experienced greater activity in parahippocampal gyrus (p ≤ 0.003) and reduced activity in the striatum (p ≤ 0.002) compared to HC. Moreover, CHR participants receiving CBD, versus those who received placebo, showed hypoactivation in the parahippocampal gyrus and amygdala (p ≤ 0.002) and greater activation in the putamen (p ≤ 0.001). In the healthy control group, higher cortisol induced by social stress led to lower parahippocampal activation (p = 0.023). CHR participants who received placebo showed a statistically significant difference between parahippocampal activation and cortisol when compared to controls who did not receive any treatment (p = 0.033). When CHR participants received CBD, they showed a similar relationship between cortisol and parahippocampal activation compared to healthy controls (p = 0.67). Conversely, Bloomfield et al (2022) demonstrated no significant drug effects on brain responses to emotional faces from any category (open-mouth happy/angry/neutral) when comparing CBD to placebo administered groups. However, this task did slightly differ from the previous face task as it used happy, fearful and neutral faces from the NimStim stimulus set (Tottenham et al. 2009).
Monetary incentive delay
Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) tasks present stimuli as cues that precede a monetary reward stimulus and can be used to measure the anticipation and feedback phases of reward processing (Knutson & Greer 2008). (Wilson et al. 2019a) demonstrated that CBD attenuated the observed hyper-activity in the left insula/parietal operculum in the CHR group which occurred during reward and loss anticipation stages of the task (p = 0.035) (Wilson et al. 2019). Additionally, (Lawn et al. 2020) revealed that a whole brain analysis resulted in insufficient statistical evidence to suggest that CBD modulated reward-related brain activity to a greater degree than placebo.
Passive listening and viewing of stimuli
Viewing and listening passively during an fMRI scan allows for the investigation of the neural correlates of visual and auditory processing (Brown et al. 2004). T. Winton-Brown et al. (2011) investigated the effect of CBD on visual (checkboards) and auditory processing (speech). During passive auditory processing, CBD increased activation in temporal cortex bilaterally extending medially to the insulae and caudally to the hippocampi and parrahipocampal gyri compared to placebo (p ≤ 0.007). During auditory processing, CBD also reduced activation in posterolateral parts of the left superior temporal gyri-incorporating portions of supramarginal gyrus, the insula, and posterior middle temporal gyrus (p = 0.002). During passive visual processing, CBD increased activation in the right occipital lobe, with the largest increases in the lingus gyrus, cuneus, and middle and inferior occipital gyrus (p = 0.0065). This study demonstrates that CBD modulates a variety of regions during passive visual and auditory processing.
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS)
(Pretzsch, Freyberg, et al. 2019) investigated the effects of 600 mg of CBD on GABA and Glx (glutamine/glutamate) (N = 34 with ASD, mean [SD] age of 28.47 [6.55] years; N = 17 neurotypical controls) measured 2 h after drug administration. In the basal ganglia (BG), CBD increased Glx in both groups (puncorr = 0.070); in the DMPFC, CBD decreased Glx in both groups (puncorr = 0.055). There was a significant voxel × drug interaction effect (puncorr = 0.033) in both groups, CBD increased Glx in the BG and decreased Glx in the DMPFC (this effect did not survive Bonferroni-correction). CBD increased GABA + in the control group (surviving Bonferroni-correction (pcorr = 0.004)). This group × drug interaction was largely driven by changes in the DMPFC (puncorr = 0.038).
SPECT
The search revealed only one study that had utilised SPECT methodology. Crippa et al. examined 400 mg of CBD versus placebo in a crossover DBRCT (N = 10, 7 day washout period) on resting blood flow using SPECT 110 min post-drug administration (J. A. Crippa et al. 2004). ROIs associated with limbic and paralimbic networks were selected a priori. Compared to placebo, CBD decreased uptake of a radiotracer contrast in clusters in the medio portion of the left amygdala-hippocampal complex and uncus extending into the hypothalamus and the superior section of the left posterior cingulate gyrus (p < 0.001). CBD also showed comparably increased activity in a cluster in the mediotemporal cortex including the left parahippocampal gyrus extending to include the left fusiform gyrus (p < 0.001). CBD was also associated with decreased subjective anxiety and increased mental sedation (p < 0.001) however there was no correlation between the mood scales and the ECD uptake (Table 1) .
Quality assessment
Table 2 depicts the risk of bias as per each domain of the Cochrane RoB (Sterne et al. 2019). The randomisation processes for all studies were rated as having a low risk of bias (Domain 1). Some concerns were noted with respect to period and crossover effects (domain S) whereby some studies reported limited washout periods (e.g. 1-week ( Bloomfield et al. 2022; J. A. Crippa et al. 2004; Grimm et al. 2018; Lawn et al. 2020; Wall et al. 2022) or did not provide sufficient information regarding the washout period (Bloomfield et al. 2020). Although the half-life of CBD has previously been suggested to be up to 32 h (Ujváry & Hanuš, 2016) suggesting that 7 days may be a sufficient washout period, recent work showed that CBD has a long window of detection in plasma of up to 4 weeks post-drug administration (McCartney et al. 2022). No studies were considered to have risk of bias due to deviations from intended interventions (Domain 2) and there was low risk of bias due to missing data (Domain 3). Some potential concerns of bias in the outcomes that were measured (Domain 4) only were due to the potential of residual response due to test design. Concerns noted in the selection of reported results (Domain 5) were due to the majority of studies having no published pre-determined statistical analysis plan which may suggest potential vulnerability to selective analyses and reporting biases particularly relevant to fMRI data Table 3.
| Reference | Domain 1; bias arising from the randomization process | Domain S; Risk of bias arising from period and carryover effects | Domain 2; bias due to deviations from the intended intervention | Domain 3; bias due to missing outcome data | Domain 4; bias in measurement of the outcome | Domain 5; bias in selection of the reported results | Overall risk of bias judgement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crossover | |||||||
| Bhattacharyya et al 2009 | Low | Some concerns | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Some concerns |
| Bhattacharyya et al 2010 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low |
| Bhattacharyya et al 2012 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Some concerns | Low |
| Bhattacharyya et al. 2014 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low |
| Bhattacharyya et al 2018 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Bloomfield et al 2020 | Low | Some concerns | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low |
| Bloomfield et al 2022 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Borgwardt et al 2008a, b | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low | Some concerns | Some concerns |
| Crippa et al 2004 | Low | Some concerns | Some concerns | Low | Low | Some concerns | Some concerns |
| Fusar Poli et al. 2009 | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low | Some concerns | Some concerns |
| Fusar-Poli et al 2010 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Some concerns |
| Grimm et al 2018 | Low | Some concerns | Some concerns | Some concerns | Low | Some concerns | Some concerns |
| Lawn et al 2020 | Low | Some concerns | Low | Some concerns | Low | Low | Some concerns |
| Pretszch et al. 2019 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Pretzsch 2019 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Wall et al 2022 (Study 1) | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Wall et al 2022 (Study 2) | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Winton-Brown et al 2011 | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low | Some concerns | Some concerns |
| Parallel | |||||||
| Davies et al 2020 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Davies et al 2022 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns |
| Wilson et al 2019 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Some concerns |
Discussion
This review synthesised neuroimaging literature examining the effects of CBD on neurobiology in healthy subjects and to further consider whether CBD may have promise in the management of AUD. We identified 20 neuroimaging studies that examined CBD in a healthy sample since 2004 which revealed broad modulatory effects across several brain regions and networks. Below we synthesise these results according to neuroimaging modality and then in light of converging neurobiological correlates associated with addictive behaviours.
Functional MRI was by far the most common neuroimaging modality accounting for 90% of the studies reviewed. Resting state fMRI was the focus of four studies presented in this review. Three studies demonstrated that CBD significantly modulated functional connectivity (Grimm et al. 2018) (Wall et al. 2022) and CBF (Bloomfield et al. 2020). CBD was shown to increase fronto-striatal coupling, from a seed in the right putamen to the PFC (Grimm et al. 2018); as well as increasing connectivity between “associative” striatum and parietal regions (Wall et al. 2022). Furthermore, CBD was observed to increase CBF to the hippocampus (Bloomfield et al. 2020). CBD was also demonstrated to produce minor decreases in functional connectivity in limbic and sensorimotor regions (Wall et al. 2022). However, one study showed non-significant differences between CBD and placebo on whole brain BOLD activity (Pretzsch, Voinescu, et al. 2019).Fourteen Task-based fMRI articles, published between 2008 – 2022, used task paradigms to examine reward processing, salience attribution, emotion regulation and executive functioning following CBD administration. During go/no-go and oddball tasks, which tests response inhibition and salience attribution, CBD was found to reduce activity in the left insula and left superior and transverse temporal gyri (S. J. Borgwardt et al. 2008). Further, while reducing response latencies, CBD was demonstrated to attenuate activation in left medial PFC and augment activation in right caudate, parahippocampal gyrus, insula, precentral gyrus and thalamus (Bhattacharyya et al. 2012). Increased fronto-striatal connectivity and reduced mediotemporal-prefrontal connectivity was also reported during attentional salience tasks following CBD administration (Bhattacharyya et al. 2014). During a learning and memory, verbal paired task, CBD was observed to modulate insula, midtemporal gyrus, lingual gyrus, precuneus, and precentral gyrus during repeated encoding phases and modulated hippocampus during recall. However, none of these results reached threshold for less than one false positive cluster (Bhattacharyya et al. 2009). During an emotional regulation and processing task, CBD administration led to a lower number of SCR fluctuations for intensely fearful stimuli, but not neutral or mildly fearful stimuli. This lower SCR covaried with reduced activity in the amygdala and anterior and posterior cingulate cortex (Fusar-Poli et al. 2009). Additionally, CBD was found to disrupt forward connectivity between the amygdala and anterior cingulate while participants responded to fearful faces (P. Fusar-Poli et al. 2010). This result is supported by another study by (Davies et al. 2022) whereby CBD administration decreased activation in the parahippocampal gyrus and amygdala and increased activation in the putamen during emotion processing in a CHR sample, and also normalised the relationship between cortisol and parahippcampal activation. This effect of CBD on brain activity during emotional processing was not replicated in a later study (Bloomfield et al. 2022), however, this study did not yield a significant task effect in response to neutral vs fear faces unlike previous studies which may explain the conflicting results. Functional MRI during MID tasks, which probe anticipation and feedback of reward processing, yielded mixed results. While CBD slowed reaction times in one study with attenuation of the hyperactivation of left insula/parietal operculum in a CHR sample (Wilson et al. 2019b), another study failed to observe any significance differences in whole brain modulation (Lawn et al. 2020).Only two other studies were identified by the search strategy, focusing on neurometabolie presence and cerebral blood flow. One study used MRS (Pretzsch, Freyberg, et al. 2019). This study demonstrated that CBD modulates primary inhibitory and excitatory neurometabolites by increasing the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA + in BG and DMPFC while increasing the excitatory Glx (glutamate + glutamine) in the BG but decreasing in the DMPFC relative to placebo-treated individuals. Additionally, one SPECT imaging study satisfied the inclusion criteria to be included in this review (J. A. Crippa et al. 2004). These authors found that CBD decreased cerebral blood flow to clusters in the medio portion of the left amygdala-hippocampal complex and uncus extending into the hypothalamus and the superior section of the left posterior cingulate gyrus. CBD was also shown to increase activity in a cluster in the mediotemporal cortex including the left parahippocampal gyrus extending to include the left fusiform gyrus.
These results suggest that CBD may modulate certain neurobiological correlates of addictive behaviors. There is a well-researched link between chronic heavy alcohol use impairs reward processing, salience attribution, emotion regulation and executive functioning (including inhibition control, working memory and self-monitoring) through the perturbation of various brain networks implicated in the development and maintenance of AUD (Koob & Volkow 2016). Some of these networks include the mesocorticolimbic (MCL), salience, fronto-striatal, and the limbic networks (Koob & Volkow 2016). These networks rely on various neurotransmitter systems including dopamine, opioid, endocannabinoid, serotonin, GABA, and glutamate systems. It has previously been suggested that CBD may normalise this perturbed neurocircuitry and subsequently support positive behavioural changes (Fagundo et al. 2013). Here, neuroimaging findings support the notion that CBD may modulate neurocircuitry implicated in the maintenance of AUD.
Mesocorticolimbic and salience attribution networks, which are responsible for reward processing and salience attribution, are functionally and anatomically linked (McCutcheon et al. 2019). The cannabinoid 1 receptors (CB1R), of which CBD is a negative allosteric modulator (NAM), are commonly located on the presynaptic terminals of dopaminergic neurons (Fitzgerald et al. 2012; Laprairie et al. 2015). Therefore, CBD may normalise the increased reward and salience attribution to alcohol associate cues by down regulating dopaminergic signalling in both the MCL and salience network. Evidence of this can be seen through CBD’s effect on the insula which is a major junction for both the mesolimbic (McCutcheon et al. 2019) and salience networks (Goulden et al. 2014; Peyron, Laurent, & Garcia-Larrea, 2000; Seeley et al. 2007). Various studies presented in this review suggest that CBD may attenuate both insula activity (Wilson et al. 2019a); Bhattacharyya et al. 2012) and functional connectivity (Wall et al. 2022). Thus, CBD may act to normalise hyper-signalling in the insula found in those with AUD, reducing both salience attribution and the reward processing. Indeed, the insula has been shown to have a major role in interoception (Critchley 2004) and patients with lesions in the insula have been observed to show attenuated craving and abstinence from cigarettes (Naqvi et al. 2007). Furthermore, CBD was shown to modulate the hypothalamus, the amygdala, the thalamus, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the hippocampus which may be an indication that CBD may not only modulate the salience and reward processing but also emotion regulation.
Prolonged alcohol use can commonly lead to negative emotional states and impairment in limbic neurocircuitry and emotional processing (Jansen et al. 2019; Oscar-Berman & Marinković, 2007). Several studies have observed heightened activation in the amygdala in those with AUD relative to controls during fMRI affect reactivity tasks (Gilman et al. 2008; O'Daly et al. 2012). Across the studies included in this review, CBD induced modulation of the hippocampus during recall (Bhattacharyya et al. 2009); attenuation of the amygdala and ACC during fearful faces paradigms (Bhattacharyya et al. 2010; Bloomfield et al. 2022; Davies et al. 2022; Davies et al. 2020; P. Fusar-Poli et al. 2010; Fusar-Poli et al. 2009); decreased connectivity between the amygdala and the anterior cingulate during emotion processing (P. Fusar-Poli et al. 2010); normalisation of parahippocampal activity during encoding processes (Bhattacharyya, Wilson, Appiah-Kusi, O'Neill, et al. 2018) and fear processing (Davies et al. 2020); and the relationship between cortisol and parahippocampal activity in CHR participants during fear processing (Davies et al. 2022). These results support the idea that CBD administration demonstrates interactions with limbic, particularly amygdala and ACC, activity as well as the functional connectivity between the amygdala and ACC. This modulation of the limbic network may be due to a number of mechanisms such as NAM action on CB1Rs (Campos & Guimarães 2008; Russo et al. 2005), alterations 5-HT1A in the amygdala and hippocampus and/or the release of pro-opiomelanocortin, corticotropin-releasing factor and glucocorticoid receptor gene expression following acute stress exposure (Viudez-Martínez, García-Gutiérrez, & Manzanares 2018).
Finally, CBD may induce improvements in reward processing, salience attribution and emotion regulation due to top-down control through increased fronto-striatal functional connectivity. In this review, several studies demonstrated increased fronto-striatal connectivity following CBD administration (Bhattacharyya et al. 2014; Grimm et al. 2018) (Wall et al. 2022) and therefore, improved executive functioning. In the context of AUD, deficits in executive functioning have been thought to be due to deficits of GABAergic signalling from the PFC (George et al. 2012). Further, glutamatergic projections from the PFC to the VTA in rats controls dopaminergic activity in the mesocortical pathway (Geisler & Wise 2008). This excitatory signalling to the VTA has been suggested to be involved in increasing conditioned behaviour and incentive salience in the presence of alcohol related cues (Lapish, Seamans, Judson Chandler, & Research 2006). To this degree, one study demonstrated CBD to increase GABAergic but decrease glutaminergic signalling from the DMPFC (Pretzsch, Freyberg, et al. 2019) which may therefore be relevant to alcohol recovery by improving both executive functioning and reducing cue induced craving and conditioned alcohol-seeking behaviour.This review identified several limitations in the studies that have utilised neuroimaging methods to examine the effect of CBD on the brain. Firstly, with regards to fMRI studies, there was a lack of consistency of imaging tasks and substantial methodological heterogeneity across the studies which therefore limit conclusions regarding CBD-induced neurobiological modulations to be relatively task specific. In addition, the 20 studies found in our search were obtained from only 6 different participant samples following completion of long neuroimaging protocols (see the outer ring of the sunburst plot, See Appendix Fig. 2). Thus, it is possible that the literature base may be subject to some bias due to sample specific effects and limited heterogeneity. Comprehensive and longer neuroimaging protocols may be vulnerable to task fatigue (Wylie, et al. 2020) and poorer data collection due to movement artifacts and scanner drift (Kopel et al. 2019). Moreover, there was diversity with regards to the timing between drug administration, scan time and also washout periods between sessions in crossover studies. In addition, the lack of pre-published protocols may lead to selective analyses which may be particularly relevant for fMRI studies. Additionally, as a meta-analysis could not be conducted due to the number of outcome variables, there may be involuntary bias in reporting results which were unintentionally favoured. Finally, while this review provides evidence for CBD’s modulation of neurocircuitry implicated in AUD-related behaviours, certain results suggest some non-significant results (Bloomfield et al. 2022; Lawn et al. 2020) and some are conflicting (Bloomfield et al. 2020; J. A. Crippa et al. 2004). Further, as results presented here may not translate to effects in AUD clinical profiles, directly examining the effect of CBD in AUD participants is required before determining the mechanisms by which CBD may function as a therapeutic use in this population. Recommendations for future research include publication of protocols to reduce deviation from protocol bias and selective analyses, optimised study design to reduce participant fatigue, ensuring a sufficiently long washout period between the crossover sessions, and consistent drug-scan administration time relative to peak plasma CBD concentrations.
In conclusion, previous research suggests that CBD may affect salience, reward, emotion generation and regulation and executive control (including inhibition control, working memory and self-monitoring) processes. These processes are highly relevant to alcohol seeking behaviours, suggesting that CBD may have potential in the management of alcohol use disorder. Although not supported by all the studies presented, the majority of the neuroimaging literature presented in this systematic review suggests that CBD may normalise these processes through its effect on mesocorticolimbic, limbic, salience and fronto-striatal signalling. Various limitations may explain some of the discrepancy in results including heterogenous methodological designs, the same or similar participant samples being used across different studies, variable drug administration times, possible carryover effects and participant fatigue due to long imaging protocols. Given the relevance of the networks affected by CBD in this review in alcohol seeking behaviour and relapse, research into the effect of CBD on brain and behaviour in populations with AUD to determine any potential role for management is warranted.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable
Untitled section
Appendix
Search terms used to search on 06/10/22.
EMBASE (253):
(MRS or Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy or Spectroscopy or Metabolite Concentrations or magnetic resonance spectroscopy or MRS or functional magnetic resonance imaging or fMRI or resting state functional or magnetic resonance imaging or rsfMRI or structural magnetic resonance imaging or MRI or magnetic resonance spectroscopy or PET or positron emission tomography).mp. and (cannabidiol.mp. or (exp cannabidiol/ or exp cannabidiol derivative/)) [mp = title, abstract, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer, device trade name, keyword, floating subheading word, candidate term word].
PUBMED (228):
Search: (MRS OR Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy OR Spectroscopy OR Metabolite Concentrations OR magnetic resonance spectroscopy OR MRS OR functional magnetic resonance imaging OR fMRI OR resting state functional OR magnetic resonance imaging OR rsfMRI OR structural magnetic resonance imaging OR MRI OR magnetic resonance spectroscopy OR PET OR positron emission tomography) AND (cannabidiol).
PSYCINFO (185):
(MRS or Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy or Spectroscopy or Metabolite Concentrations or magnetic resonance spectroscopy or MRS or functional magnetic resonance imaging or fMRI or resting state functional or magnetic resonance imaging or rsfMRI or structural magnetic resonance imaging or MRI or magnetic resonance spectroscopy or PET or positron emission tomography).mp. and (exp Cannabinoids/ or cannabidiol.mp.) [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh].
Medline (101):
(MRS or Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy or Spectroscopy or Metabolite Concentrations or magnetic resonance spectroscopy or MRS or functional magnetic resonance imaging or fMRI or resting state functional or magnetic resonance imaging or rsfMRI or structural magnetic resonance imaging or MRI or magnetic resonance spectroscopy or PET or positron emission tomography).mp. and (cannabidiol.mp. or exp Cannabidiol/).
[mp = title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, floating sub-heading word, keyword heading word, organism supplementary concept word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms].
Funding
This study was funded by an Australian Government Research Training Program and the National Health and Medical Research Council Synergy Program.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
There are no competing interests to declare.
Footnotes
Footnote Group
References
Untitled section
References
- Arout CA, Haney M, Herrmann ES, Bedi G, Cooper ZDJBJ. A placebo-controlled investigation of the analgesic effects, abuse liability, safety and tolerability of a range of oral cannabidiol doses in healthy humans. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022;88(1):347–355. doi: 10.1111/bcp.14973.
- Bach DR, Friston KJ, Dolan RJJI. Analytic measures for quantification of arousal from spontaneous skin conductance fluctuations. Int J Psychophysiol. 2010;76(1):52–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.01.011.
- Barbier EL, Lamalle L, Décorps M. Methodology of brain perfusion imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(4):496–520. doi: 10.1002/jmri.1073.
- Bergamaschi MM, Queiroz RHC, Chagas MHN, De Oliveira DCG, De Martinis BS, Kapczinski F, Nardi AE. Cannabidiol reduces the anxiety induced by simulated public speaking in treatment-naive social phobia patients. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011;36(6):1219–1226. doi: 10.1038/npp.2011.6.
- Berger M, Li E, Rice S, Davey CG, Ratheesh A, Adams S, Spelman T, Kevin R. Cannabidiol for treatment-resistant anxiety disorders in young people an open-label trial. J Clin Psychiatry. 2022;83(5):42111. doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m14130.
- Bhattacharyya S, Crippa JA, Allen P, Martin-Santos R, Borgwardt S, Fusar-Poli P, McGuire PK. Induction of psychosis by Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol reflects modulation of prefrontal and striatal function during attentional salience processing. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69(1):27–36. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.161.
- Bhattacharyya S, Falkenberg I, Martin-Santos R, Atakan Z, Crippa JA, Giampietro V, McGuire P 2014. Cannabinoid Modulation of Functional Connectivity within Regions Processing Attentional Salience. Neuropsychopharmacology. 23. 10.1038/npp.2014.258
- Bhattacharyya S, Fusar-Poli P, Borgwardt S, Martin-Santos R, Nosarti C, O'Carroll C, McGuire P. Modulation of mediotemporal and ventrostriatal function in humans by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol a neural basis for the effects of Cannabis sativa on learning and psychosis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66(4):442–451. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.17.
- Bhattacharyya S, Morrison PD, Fusar-Poli P, Martin-Santos R, Borgwardt S, Winton-Brown T, McGuire PK. Opposite effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on human brain function and psychopathology. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2010;35(3):764–774. doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.184.
- Bhattacharyya S, Wilson R, Appiah-Kusi E, et al. Effect of cannabidiol on medial temporal, midbrain, and striatal dysfunction in people at clinical high risk of psychosis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiat. 2018;75(11):1107–1117. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.2309.
- Bloomfield MAP, Green SF, Hindocha C, Yamamori Y, Yim JLL, Jones APM, Freeman TP. The effects of acute cannabidiol on cerebral blood flow and its relationship to memory: An arterial spin labelling magnetic resonance imaging study. J Psychopharmacol. 2020;34(9):981–989. doi: 10.1177/0269881120936419.
- Bloomfield MAP, Yamamori Y, Hindocha C, Jones APM, Yim JLL, Walker HR, Freeman TP. The acute effects of cannabidiol on emotional processing and anxiety: a neurocognitive imaging study. Psychopharmacol. 2022;239(5):1539–1549. doi: 10.1007/s00213-022-06070-3.
- Borgwardt SJ, Allen P, Bhattacharyya S, Fusar-Poli P, Crippa JA, Seal ML, McGuire PK. Neural Basis of DELTA-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol: Effects During Response Inhibition. Biological Psychiatry. 2008;64(11):966–973. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.05.011.
- Brown S, Martinez MJ, Parsons LMJN. Passive music listening spontaneously engages limbic and paralimbic systems. Neuroreport. 2004;15(13):2033–2037. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200409150-00008.
- Campos AC, Guimarães FSJP. Involvement of 5HT1A receptors in the anxiolytic-like effects of cannabidiol injected into the dorsolateral periaqueductal gray of rats. Psychopharmacol (Berl) 2008;199(2):223–230. doi: 10.1007/s00213-008-1168-x.
- Chastain G. Alcohol, Neurotransmitter Systems, and Behavior. J Gen Psychol. 2006;133(4):329–335. doi: 10.3200/GENP.133.4.329-335.
- Corroon J, Felice. The Endocannabinoid System and its Modulation by Cannabidiol (CBD) Altern Ther Health Med. 2019;25:6–14.
- Crippa JA, Guimarães FS, Campos AC, Zuardi AW. Translational investigation of the therapeutic potential of cannabidiol (CBD): toward a new age. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2009. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02009.
- Crippa JA, Zuardi AW, Garrido GE, Wichert-Ana L, Guarnieri R, Ferrari L, Filho Busatto G. Effects of cannabidiol (CBD) on regional cerebral blood flow. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004;29(2):417–426. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300340.
- Critchley HD. The human cortex responds to an interoceptive challenge. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(17):6333–6334. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0401510101.
- Davies C, Appiah-Kusi E, Wilson R, Blest-Hopley G, Bossong MG, Valmaggia L, Bhattacharyya S. Altered relationship between cortisol response to social stress and mediotemporal function during fear processing in people at clinical high risk for psychosis: a preliminary report. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2022;272(3):461–475. doi: 10.1007/s00406-021-01318-z.
- Davies C, Wilson R, Appiah-Kusi E, Blest-Hopley G, Brammer M, Perez J, Bhattacharyya S. A single dose of cannabidiol modulates medial temporal and striatal function during fear processing in people at clinical high risk for psychosis. Transl Psychiatry. 2020;10(1):311. doi: 10.1038/s41398-020-0862-2.
- Devinsky O, Marsh E, Friedman D, Thiele E, Laux L, Sullivan J, Cilio MR. Cannabidiol in patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy: an open-label interventional trial. Lancet Neurology. 2016;15(3):270–278. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00379-8.
- Fagundo AB, De la Torre R, Jiménez-Murcia S, Agüera Z, Pastor A, Casanueva FF, Pino-Gutiérrez A. Modulation of the endocannabinoids N-arachidonoylethanolamine (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) on executive functions in humans. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066387.
- Fitzgerald ML, Shobin E, Pickel VMJP. Cannabinoid modulation of the dopaminergic circuitry: implications for limbic and striatal output. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2012;38(1):21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2011.12.004.
- Fox MD, Raichle ME. Spontaneous fluctuations in brain activity observed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007;8(9):700–711. doi: 10.1038/nrn2201.
- Fusar-Poli P, Allen P, Bhattacharyya S, Crippa JA, Mechelli A, Borgwardt S, McGuire P. Modulation of effective connectivity during emotional processing by Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2010;13(4):421–432. doi: 10.1017/s1461145709990617.
- Fusar-Poli P, Crippa J, Bhattacharyya S, Borgwardt SJ, Allen P, Martin-Santos R, McGuire PK. Distinct effects of A9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on neural activation during emotional processing. Arch General Psychiatry. 2009;66(1):95–105. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2008.519.
- Geisler S, Wise RA. Functional implications of glutamatergic projections to the ventral tegmental area. Rev Neurosci. 2008;19(4–5):227–244. doi: 10.1515/revneuro.2008.19.4-5.227.
- George O, Sanders C, Freiling J, Grigoryan E, Vu S, Allen CD, Koob GFJP. Recruitment of medial prefrontal cortex neurons during alcohol withdrawal predicts cognitive impairment and excessive alcohol drinking. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(44):18156–18161. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1116523109.
- Gilman JM, Ramchandani VA, Davis MB, Bjork JM, Hommer DW. Why we like to drink: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of the rewarding and anxiolytic effects of alcohol. J Neurosci. 2008;28(18):4583–4591. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0086-08.2008.
- Goulden N, Khusnulina A, Davis NJ, Bracewell RM, Bokde AL, McNulty JP, Mullins PGJN. The salience network is responsible for switching between the default mode network and the central executive network: replication from DCM. Neuroimage. 2014;99:180–190. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.052.
- Grimm O, Loffler M, Kamping S, Hartmann A, Rohleder C, Leweke M, Flor H. Probing the endocannabinoid system in healthy volunteers: Cannabidiol alters fronto-striatal resting-state connectivity. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2018;28(7):841–849. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.04.004.
- Griswold MG, Fullman N, Hawley C, Arian N, Zimsen SRM, Tymeson HD, Gakidou E. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet. 2018;392(10152):1015–1035. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31310-2.
- Haber P, Riordan B, Morley KC. Providing care and management for patients with alcohol problems: treatments, interventions, relapse prevention, aftercare, and long-term follow-up. Med J Aust. 2021;215(Suppl 7):S3–S32. doi: 10.5694/mja2.51254.
- Haney M, Malcolm RJ, Babalonis S, Nuzzo PA, Cooper ZD, Bedi G, Sparenborg S. Oral cannabidiol does not alter the subjective, reinforcing or cardiovascular effects of smoked cannabis. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2016;41(8):1974–1982. doi: 10.1038/npp.2015.367.
- Hargreaves R, Hoppin J, Sevigny J, Patel S, Chiao P, Klimas M, Verma A. Optimizing central nervous system drug development using molecular imaging. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;98(1):47–60. doi: 10.1002/cpt.132.
- Heeger DJ, Ress D. What does fMRI tell us about neuronal activity? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3(2):142–151. doi: 10.1038/nrn730.
- Hurd YL, Spriggs S, Alishayev J, Winkel G, Gurgov K, Kudrich C, Salsitz EJ. Cannabidiol for the reduction of cue-induced craving and anxiety in drug-abstinent individuals with heroin use disorder: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2019;176(11):911–922. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.18101191.
- Jadoon KA, Tan GD, O’Sullivan SE. A single dose of cannabidiol reduces blood pressure in healthy volunteers in a randomized crossover study. JCI Insight. 2017;2(12):e93760. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.93760.
- Jansen JM, van den Heuvel OA, van der Werf YD, De Wit SJ, Veltman DJ, Van Den Brink W, Goudriaan AE. Emotion processing, reappraisal, and craving in alcohol dependence: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:227. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00227.
- Jentsch JD, Taylor JR. Impulsivity resulting from frontostriatal dysfunction in drug abuse: implications for the control of behavior by reward-related stimuli. Psychopharmacol. 1999;146(4):373–390. doi: 10.1007/PL00005483.
- Keedwell PA, Andrew C, Williams SC, Brammer MJ, Phillips ML. A double dissociation of ventromedial prefrontal cortical responses to sad and happy stimuli in depressed and healthy individuals. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;58(6):495–503. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.035.
- Knutson B, Greer SM. Anticipatory affect: neural correlates and consequences for choice. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1511):3771–3786. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0155.
- Koob GF, Volkow ND. Neurobiology of addiction: a neurocircuitry analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3(8):760–773. doi: 10.1016/s2215-0366(16)00104-8.
- Kopel R, Sladky R, Laub P, Koush Y, Robineau F, Hutton C, Scharnowski FJN. No time for drifting: Comparing performance and applicability of signal detrending algorithms for real-time fMRI. Neuroimage. 2019;191:421–429. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.058.
- Lapish CC, Seamans JK, Judson Chandler L. Glutamate-dopamine cotransmission and reward processing in addiction. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2006;30(9):1451–1465. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00176.x.
- Laprairie R, Bagher A, Kelly M, Denovan-Wright E. Cannabidiol is a negative allosteric modulator of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor. Br J Pharmacol. 2015;172(20):4790–4805. doi: 10.1111/bph.13250.
- Lawn W, Hill J, Hindocha C, Yim J, Yamamori Y, Jones G, Bloomfield MA. The acute effects of cannabidiol on the neural correlates of reward anticipation and feedback in healthy volunteers. J Psychopharmacol. 2020;34(9):969–980. doi: 10.1177/0269881120944148.
- Leweke F, Piomelli D, Pahlisch F, Muhl D, Gerth C, Hoyer C, Koethe D. Cannabidiol enhances anandamide signaling and alleviates psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia. Translational Psychiatry. 2012;2(3):e94–e94. doi: 10.1038/tp.2012.15.
- Linden DE, Prvulovic D, Formisano E, Völlinger M, Zanella FE, Goebel R, Dierks T. The functional neuroanatomy of target detection: an fMRI study of visual and auditory oddball tasks. Cereb Cortex. 1999;9(8):815–823. doi: 10.1093/cercor/9.8.815.
- Mandolini GM, Lazzaretti M, Pigoni A, Oldani L, Delvecchio G, Brambilla P. Pharmacological properties of cannabidiol in the treatment of psychiatric disorders: a critical overview. Epidemiol Psychiatric Sci. 2018;27(4):327–35. 10.1017/S2045796018000239.
- McCartney D, Suraev AS, Doohan PT, Irwin C, Kevin RC, Grunstein RR, Kevin RC, McGregor IS. Effects of cannabidiol on simulated driving and cognitive performance: a dose-ranging randomised controlled trial. J Psychopharmacol. 2022;36(12):1338–1349. doi: 10.1177/02698811221095356.
- McCutcheon RA, Nour MM, Dahoun T, Jauhar S, Pepper F, Expert P, Mehta MA. Mesolimbic dopamine function is related to salience network connectivity: an integrative positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance study. Biol Psychiatry. 2019;85(5):368–378. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.09.010.
- Mechoulam R, Peters M, Murillo-Rodriguez E, Hanuš LO. Cannabidiol – Recent Advances. Chem Biodivers. 2007;4(8):1678–1692. doi: 10.1002/cbdv.200790147.
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123–130.
- Morley KC. Commentary on Donoghue: Low prescribing rates of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder limit potential public health impact. Addiction. 2021 doi: 10.1111/add.15532.
- Morley KC, Perry CJ, Watt J, Hurzeler T, Leggio L, Lawrence AJ, Haber P. New approved and emerging pharmacological approaches to alcohol use disorder: a review of clinical studies. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2021;22:1–13. doi: 10.1080/14656566.2021.1892641.
- Morris JS, Frith CD, Perrett DI, Rowland D, Young AW, Calder AJ, Dolan RJJN. a differential neural response in the human amygdala to fearful and happy facial expressions. Nature. 1996;383(6603):812–815. doi: 10.1038/383812a0.
- Naqvi NH, Rudrauf D, Damasio H, Bechara AJS. Damage to the Insula Disrupts Addiction to Cigarette Smoking. Science. 2007;315(5811):531–534. doi: 10.1126/science.1135926.
- Nathan PJ, Phan KL, Harmer CJ, Mehta MA, Bullmore ET. Increasing pharmacological knowledge about human neurological and psychiatric disorders through functional neuroimaging and its application in drug discovery. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2014;14:54–61. doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2013.11.009.
- O'Daly OG, Trick L, Scaife J, Marshall J, Ball D, Phillips ML, Duka T. Withdrawal-associated increases and decreases in functional neural connectivity associated with altered emotional regulation in alcoholism. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2012;37(10):2267–2276. doi: 10.1038/npp.2012.77.
- Oscar-Berman M, Marinković K. Alcohol: effects on neurobehavioral functions and the brain. Neuropsychol Rev. 2007;17(3):239–257. doi: 10.1007/s11065-007-9038-6.
- Peyron R, Laurent B, Garcia-Larrea L. Functional imaging of brain responses to pain A review and meta-analysis (2000) Neurophysiol Clin. 2000;30(5):263–288. doi: 10.1016/S0987-7053(00)00227-6.
- Pretzsch CM, Freyberg J, Voinescu B, Lythgoe D, Horder J, Mendez MA, Heasman M. Effects of cannabidiol on brain excitation and inhibition systems; a randomised placebo-controlled single dose trial during magnetic resonance spectroscopy in adults with and without autism spectrum disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019;44(8):1398–1405. doi: 10.1038/s41386-019-0333-8.
- Pretzsch CM, Voinescu B, Mendez MA, Wichers R, Ajram L, Ivin G, McAlonan GM. The effect of cannabidiol (CBD) on low-frequency activity and functional connectivity in the brain of adults with and without autism spectrum disorder (ASD) J Psychopharmacol. 2019;33(9):1141–1148. doi: 10.1177/0269881119858306.
- Raichle ME, MacLeod AM, Snyder AZ, Powers WJ, Gusnard DA, Shulman GL. A default mode of brain function. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98(2):676–682. doi: 10.1073/pnas.98.2.676.
- Ren Y, Whittard J, Higuera-Matas A, Morris CV, Hurd YL. Cannabidiol, a Nonpsychotropic Component of Cannabis, Inhibits Cue-Induced Heroin Seeking and Normalizes Discrete Mesolimbic Neuronal Disturbances. J Neurosci. 2009;29(47):14764–14769. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4291-09.2009.
- Rubia K, Smith AB, Brammer MJ, Taylor E. Temporal lobe dysfunction in medication-naive boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder during attention allocation and its relation to response variability. Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62(9):999–1006. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.02.024.
- Rubia K, Smith AB, Woolley J, Nosarti C, Heyman I, Taylor E, Brammer M. Progressive increase of frontostriatal brain activation from childhood to adulthood during event-related tasks of cognitive control. Hum Brain Mapp. 2006;27(12):973–993. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20237.
- Russo EB, Burnett A, Hall B, Parker KK. Agonistic properties of cannabidiol at 5-HT1a receptors. Neurochem Res. 2005;30(8):1037–1043. doi: 10.1007/s11064-005-6978-1.
- Schoedel KA, Szeto I, Setnik B, Sellers EM, Levy-Cooperman N, Mills C. Abuse potential assessment of cannabidiol (CBD) in recreational polydrug users: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Epilepsy Behav. 2018;88:162–171. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2018.07.027.
- Scopinho AA, Guimarães FS, Corrêa FM, Resstel LB. Cannabidiol inhibits the hyperphagia induced by cannabinoid-1 or serotonin-1A receptor agonists. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2011;98(2):268–272. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2011.01.007.
- Seeley WW, Menon V, Schatzberg AF, Keller J, Glover GH, Kenna H, Greicius MD. Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. J Neurosci. 2007;27(9):2349–2356. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5587-06.2007.
- Skelley JW, Deas CM, Curren Z, Ennis J. Use of cannabidiol in anxiety and anxiety-related disorders. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2020;60(1):253–261. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2019.11.008.
- Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. bmj. 2019:366.
- Talwar A, Estes E, Aparasu R, Reddy DS. Clinical efficacy and safety of cannabidiol for pediatric refractory epilepsy indications: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Exp Neurol. 2022;359:114238. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114238.
- Tottenham N, Tanaka JW, Leon AC, McCarry T, Nurse M, Hare TA, Nelson C. The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Res. 2009;168(3):242–249. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2008.05.006.
- Ujváry I, Hanuš L. Human metabolites of cannabidiol: a review on their formation, biological activity, and relevance in therapy. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2016;1(1):90–101. doi: 10.1089/can.2015.0012.
- Vitale RM, Iannotti FA, Amodeo P. The (poly) pharmacology of cannabidiol in neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders: Molecular mechanisms and targets. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(9):4876. doi: 10.3390/ijms22094876.
- Viudez-Martínez A, García-Gutiérrez MS, Fraguas-Sánchez AI, Torres-Suárez AI, Manzanares J. Effects of cannabidiol plus naltrexone on motivation and ethanol consumption. Br J Pharmacol. 2018;175(16):3369–3378. doi: 10.1111/bph.14380.
- Viudez-Martínez A, García-Gutiérrez MS, Manzanares J. Cannabidiol regulates the expression of hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis-related genes in response to acute restraint stress. J Psychopharmacol. 2018;32(12):1379–1384. doi: 10.1177/0269881118805495.
- Viudez-Martínez A, García-Gutiérrez MS, Navarrón CM, Morales-Calero MI, Navarrete F, Torres-Suárez AI, Manzanares J. Cannabidiol reduces ethanol consumption, motivation and relapse in mice. Addict Biol. 2018;23(1):154–164. doi: 10.1111/adb.12495.
- Wall MB, Freeman TP, Hindocha C, Demetriou L, Ertl N, Freeman AM, Bloomfield MA. Individual and combined effects of cannabidiol and Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol on striato-cortical connectivity in the human brain. J Psychopharmacol. 2022;36(6):732–744. doi: 10.1177/02698811221092506.
- Wechsler D. Wechsler memory scale-revised. New York: The psychological corporation; 1987.
- WHO . Global status report on alcohol and health. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2018.
- WHO . Global alcohol action plan 2022–2030 to strengthen implementation of the Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2021.
- Wilson R, Bossong MG, Appiah-Kusi E, Petros N, Brammer M, Perez J, Bhattacharyya S. Cannabidiol attenuates insular dysfunction during motivational salience processing in subjects at clinical high risk for psychosis. Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9(1):1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0534-2.
- Wilson R, Bossong MG, Appiah-Kusi E, Petros N, Brammer M, Perez J, Bhattacharyya S. Cannabidiol attenuates insular dysfunction during motivational salience processing in subjects at clinical high risk for psychosis. Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9(1):203. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0534-2.
- Winton-Brown T, Allen P, Bhattacharrya S, Borgwardt SJ, Fusar-Poli P, Crippa JA, McGuire PK. Modulation of Auditory and Visual Processing by Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol: an fMRI Study. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011;36(7):1340–1348. doi: 10.1038/npp.2011.17.
- Wong DF, Tauscher J, Gründer G. The role of imaging in proof of concept for CNS drug discovery and development. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2009;34(1):187–203. doi: 10.1038/npp.2008.166.
- Worsley KJ, Friston KJ. Analysis of fMRI time-series revisited—again. Neuroimage. 1995;2(3):173–181. doi: 10.1006/nimg.1995.1023.
- Wylie GR, Yao B, Genova HM, Chen MH, DeLuca J. Using functional connectivity changes associated with cognitive fatigue to delineate a fatigue network. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78768-3.
Associated Data
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.