Studies of Cannabinoid-Based Products in ClinicalTrials.gov: A Scoping Review
https://ror.org/01esghr10grid.239585.00000 0001 2285 2675Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY USA
https://ror.org/046rm7j60grid.19006.3e0000 0000 9632 6718UCLA Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids, Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA
https://ror.org/04bd74a48grid.431300.50000 0004 0431 7048SB Pharma Solutions, LLC, Chicago, IL USA
https://ror.org/019rsbe67grid.420760.70000 0004 0410 6136Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Carlsbad, CA USA
Abstract
Background and Objectives
There is increased interest in using cannabinoid-based products for therapeutic purposes. Because of unique regulatory challenges associated with these products, understanding the state of current research is critical to inform future research. The objective of this review was to survey the characteristics of registered studies on ClinicalTrials.gov that describe using cannabinoid-based products as an intervention.
Methods
The scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and guidance. Eligible studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov that used cannabinoid-based products as an intervention included those using approved drugs, compounds (nonapproved drugs/extracts with defined phytocannabinoid content), cannabis (whole cannabis products), and hemp (hemp-derived products and products without defined cannabinoid content). Data were extracted on October 1, 2023, using queries, and a relational database was built. Stratification categories included intervention, disease state, study phase, number of participants, study duration, sponsor, and chronological trends. Statistical analyses were descriptive.
Results
Of 2428 identified records, 879 interventions from 825 unique (non-duplicated) studies were eligible for analysis. Of the 879 eligible for analysis, studies included drugs (n = 287 [32.7%]), compounds (n = 383 [43.6%]), cannabis (n = 178 [20.3%]), and hemp (n = 31 [3.5%]). The most common Medical Subject Headings categories were psychological disorders (n = 170 [20.6%]), pathological conditions—signs and symptoms (n = 153 [18.5%]), nervous system diseases (n = 127 [15.4%]), substance use disorders (n = 97 [11.7%]), and studies in healthy volunteers (n = 77 [9.3%]). Of the 825 unique studies, 521 (63.2%) were early phase 1 to phase 2/3, 103 (12.5%) phase 3, and 40 (4.8%) phase 4; 161 studies (19.5%) were not assigned a phase, including observational and expanded access studies. Sponsors of studies included academic institutions/hospitals (582 studies [70.5%]), pharmaceutical companies/commercial entities (221 [26.8%]), government (21 [2.5%]), and an individual (1 [0.1%]). Most studies (n = 447/825 [54.2%]) had < 50 participants. Mean and median enrollment for studies that provided data (n = 816) were 104 and 41 participants (IQR, 1–81), respectively. Mean and median study duration with applicable data (n = 808) were 837 and 717 days (IQR, 366–1117), respectively. The number of submitted studies per period increased over time (2013 or earlier, n = 168; 2014–2018, n = 220; 2019 and after, n = 437).
Conclusion
Registered studies on ClinicalTrials.gov using cannabinoid-based interventions were typically phase 2, randomized, and small (< 50 participants). The results of this review highlight the diverse nature of clinical studies across disease states and reinforce the need for larger, placebo-controlled studies of cannabinoid-based interventions.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40290-025-00591-w.
Key Points
| This scoping review included 825 unique (non-duplicated) registered studies of cannabinoid-based interventions on ClinicalTrials.gov. |
| Studies of cannabinoid-based interventions were typically run by academic institutions/hospitals, pharmaceutical companies/commercial entities, and the government. |
| The most common therapeutic areas where cannabinoid-based products were investigated were psychological disorders/conditions, nervous system diseases, and substance use disorders. |
| Most studies were small (< 50 participants). |
| The results highlight the diverse nature of clinical studies using cannabinoid-based products and reinforce the need to support larger, placebo-controlled studies of cannabinoid-based interventions. |
Introduction
The past decade has seen an increased interest in the use of cannabis and cannabinoids for therapeutic purposes [1]. Cannabinoid-based products vary widely, from US Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved prescription drugs to a range of nonapproved products, such as hemp oils and vaping devices [2, 3]. While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of medical interventions [4, 5], numerous cannabinoid-based products marketed for medical use have little or no supporting RCT evidence.
The policies, laws, and regulations surrounding cannabinoid-based products are complex [6, 7], but there is heightened interest in identifying an evidence-based pathway to approval [8, 9]. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) products are excluded from the FDA dietary supplement definition because they are active ingredients in approved medications [10]. The FDA also announced a new regulatory pathway for CBD [11], which could encourage further studies to guide regulatory decisions.
Most systematic reviews/meta-analyses of cannabis- or CBD-based product trials focus on specific diseases [12–17]. However, a recent scoping review of registered cannabinoid-based product trials found an increase in the number and variety of clinical trials across disease states but did not examine the different cannabinoid-based products or study rigor [18]. Because of the unique regulatory challenges and marketing of nonapproved cannabinoid-based products [6], understanding the state of current clinical research will help guide the safe and effective use of cannabinoid-based products and inform research and regulatory paradigms.
We analyzed the scope and characteristics of clinical studies that investigate cannabinoid-based products using high-level stratification by intervention, disease state, and characteristics that best predict the trajectory to an FDA New Drug Application.
Methods
Data Source and Search Strategy
The nature of the clinical trial criteria and characteristics data did not allow for the calculation of risk of bias or effect measures as in a traditional systematic review/meta-analysis [19, 20]. As an alternative, this scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and guidance [21, 22]. The search strategy identified studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov that used cannabis and cannabinoid-based products as an intervention. The dataset was created by using intervention terms (both Medical Subject Headings [MeSH] and non-MeSH) based on ClinicalTrials.gov search expansion schema.
Intervention Category Definitions
Definitions of cannabis-derived products vary in the literature; after surveying other reviews and guidelines [23–27], we developed definitions for 4 cannabinoid-based product intervention categories: drug, compound, cannabis, and hemp. Drugs included plant-based or synthetic versions of phytocannabinoids that have regulatory approval in at least 1 market. Compounds included nonapproved drug products and extracts with defined cannabinoid content (i.e., mg/mL or similar). Cannabis referred to all whole cannabis plant products regardless of administration route or cannabinoid content. Products that are smoked or vaped were included in the cannabis category. Hemp included hemp oil, hemp-derived, or “broad spectrum” without defined cannabinoid content. Clinical studies involving devices, procedures, surgery, radiation, behavior, genetics, and/or diagnostic tests were excluded, as were studies that did not use cannabis or cannabinoid-based products as the intervention. Detailed definitions of the cannabinoid-based product intervention categories and associated keywords used for searches are included in the Supplementary Materials.
Data Extraction and Management
All cross-sectional analyses were performed on data extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov on October 1, 2023. All identified studies were exported using the ClinicalTrials.gov application programming interface queries. Records were screened for inclusion based on intervention-associated data elements. Studies were categorized by intervention type: (1) drugs, (2) compounds, (3) cannabis, and (4) hemp. An initial screening was conducted to determine whether studies met criteria for each intervention type (see Appendix 1 for ClinicalTrials.gov search details). In addition to the list of National Clinical Trial IDs (NCTIds), two additional databases—the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT; available at https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org) and Clinical Drug Experience Knowledgebase (CDEK; available at https://www.cdek.liu.edu/org/)—were used to assist with cleaning and grouping. All data extraction and cleaning were performed by one reviewer, with confirmation of changes, classifications, and inclusion/exclusion done by other reviewers. Analysis of MeSH disease category included using a combination of all selected categories for all studies, and a reviewer determined single condition and category based on primary outcome.
All entries investigating cannabis use disorder were removed unless they used a cannabinoid-based intervention (e.g., CBD). Secondary data cleaning was conducted to standardize predetermined fields for grouping and accuracy. The list of NCTIds, derived from initial screening, was used to query ClinicalTrials.gov for further analysis of full records. Duplicate studies were removed if they did not contain an appropriate intervention category.
Studies were stratified chronologically by intervention category, study phase and status, participant enrollment, study duration, disease/condition, and sponsor type. Similar categories were examined in previous cross-sectional analyses of ClinicalTrials.gov studies [28, 29]. Stratification categories may not be relevant for all indications, given the variation across study characteristics. Sponsors were categorized as academic/hospital, commercial (i.e., companies manufacturing products other than drugs), government, individual, and pharmaceutical. The home country of study sponsors was determined using the CDEK database or internet searching if necessary. Detailed definitions of study phases, status options, and funders are included in the Supplementary Materials and Figure S1).
Data Analysis and Presentation
Clinical trial characteristics were assessed in 3 temporal subsets based on trial start dates (2013 and earlier, 2014–2018, and 2019 and later), coinciding with the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills that established and expanded protections for hemp research in the USA [30]. Individual items are referred to as “study records” when duplicates are included and “unique studies” when duplicates are not included. The number of records used in an analysis was dependent on available data, with values of missing methodological characteristics inferred on the basis of other available data. For example, for studies reporting an interventional model of single group and number of groups as 1, allocation was designated as nonrandomized, and blinding was designated as open. Missing values were excluded from descriptive summaries unless containing values such as “not applicable” or “none.”
Descriptive statistics (number and percentage) were used to describe the characteristics of identified studies including total number of studies involving each intervention, study status, study design (study type and phase), location, conditions/disease under investigation (MeSH headings), participant enrollment, study duration, sponsoring institution, and chronological trends.
Results
Distribution and Intervention Categories
Of 2428 records identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, 1549 were excluded (1082 were duplicates appearing in multiple searches but without multiple applicable interventions, and 467 did not investigate a cannabinoid-based intervention or assess for drug development purposes). Thus, 879 study records that used a cannabinoid-based intervention—including duplicates that had multiple applicable interventions—were included in this analysis. Of these, 825 studies were unique (i.e., did not include duplicates; Fig. 1). Data are presented for unique studies in all analyses except by intervention, for which data are presented for study records, including duplicates.
Study sponsors from the USA, Canada, Israel, Germany, and Australia contributed to 724 (88%) of the 825 total studies, and the USA had the highest contribution by far with 531 studies (64%). In comparison with the overall ClinicalTrials.gov database (N = 550,005), unique studies (n = 825) were more likely to be interventional (90.4% [n = 746] vs 76.4% [n = 420,224]) or expanded access program (EAP) studies (0.8% [n = 7] vs < 0.2% [n = 1005]), and less likely to be observational (8.7% [n = 72] vs 23.2% [n = 127,847]) [31]. Characteristics of studies investigating cannabinoids are summarized in Table 1. Phase 1–3 studies comprised more than half of all unique studies. When stratified by intervention category, drugs were studied proportionally more often in the phase 3 and 4 study records, whereas cannabis skewed toward phase 1 and 1/2. Studies were typically randomized, phase 2, and registered with a sample size of < 50 participants. Drugs were studied proportionally more in interventional studies, whereas cannabis skewed more toward observational studies. Among interventional studies, similar proportions of studies were randomized and nonrandomized. Search counts by individual product and category are shown in Table 2. The majority of phase 3 and 4 trials had MeSH categories of pathological conditions, nervous system diseases, psychiatric disorders, and musculoskeletal diseases (Fig. S2). Psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders were investigated in a greater proportion of phase 1 studies compared with other conditions.Drugs (n = 287) Compounds (n = 383) Cannabis (n = 178) Hemp (n = 31) All unique studies (n = 825) Status (n) Completed 166 121 68 11 352 Active 78 158 70 16 294 Terminated 29 54 20 1 99 Unknown 14 50 20 3 80 Study type Interventional 279 364 130 27 746 Randomizedb 216 294 101 19 589 Nonrandomized 18 11 10 2 40 Not applicable 45 59 19 6 117 Observational 4 16 48 4 72 Expanded access 4 3 0 0 7 Phase (n) Early phase 1 18 35 6 1 54 Phase 1 48 69 38 1 144 Phase 1/2 17 28 18 1 61 Phase 2 80 120 32 6 222 Phase 2/3 14 24 3 2 40 Phase 3 60 33 10 1 103 Phase 4 27 12 4 1 40 Not applicable 23 62 67 18 161 Participant enrollment (n) < 50 143 211 109 14 447 50–100 59 71 20 9 150 101–150 23 41 17 2 77 151–200 20 17 7 1 41 201–300 17 14 10 4 43 301–400 12 8 4 0 21 401–600 4 10 5 0 19 601–1000 4 2 0 1 7 1001–2000 0 3 4 0 7 2001–3000 0 1 2 0 3 > 3000 0 1 0 0 1 Category Search Initial search count (n) Excluded (n) Final record count (n) Drugs Sativex® (nabiximols) 66 3 63 Epidiolex® (cannabidiol) 401 326 76 Cesamet™ (nabilone) 34 1 33 Marinol® (dronabinol) 295 179 116 Compounds Cannabidiol 401 127 273 Tetrahydrocannabinol 295 209 86 Cannabigerol 7 2 5 Cannabinol 8 2 6 Cannabichromene 1 0 1 Cannabidiolic acid 0 0 0 Cannabigerolic acid 0 0 0 Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid 0 0 0 Cannabinolic acid 0 0 0 Cannabidivarin 8 1 7 Tetrahydrocannabivarin 4 0 4 Cannabigerovarin 0 0 0 Cannabichromevarin 0 0 0 Cannabicyclol 0 0 0 Cannabis Cannabis 872 694 178 Hemp Hemp oil 36 5 31 Total 2428 1549 879a
Conditions/Disease in Registered Studies
Overall, there were 1756 records associated with the 18 MeSH headings assigned to the 825 unique studies (Table S1). The top 5 most common MeSH categories were psychiatric disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, traumatic stress disorders; n = 170 [20.6%]), pathological conditions—signs and symptoms (e.g., pain, neuropathies, nausea; n = 153 [18.5%]), nervous system diseases (e.g., epilepsy, multiple sclerosis; n = 127 [15.4%]), substance use disorders (e.g., opioid-related disorders, alcohol use disorder; n = 97 [11.7%]), and healthy (e.g., pharmacokinetics; n = 77 [9.3%]). When only a single condition was included in a study, the most common MeSH categories were pain (n = 147 [27.3%]), substance-related disorders (n = 68 [12.6%]), and epilepsy (n = 60 [11.1%]) (Table S2).
When stratified by intervention category, studies investigating compounds, cannabis, and hemp were more often associated with MeSH categories of psychiatric disorders (275 of 362 studies [76%]), substance use disorders (165 of 205 studies [80%]), and healthy (129 of 163 studies [79%]), whereas studies investigating drugs were more commonly associated with neoplasms (26 of 40 studies [65%]) and immune system disorders (31 of 59 studies [53%]) (Figs 2A, B).
Study Participant Enrollment
For participant enrollment analyses, nine studies were excluded, owing to lack of data or recording of an extreme outlier value, resulting in the inclusion of 816 unique studies. The mean and median enrollment for all unique studies (n = 816) was 104 and 41 participants (interquartile range [IQR] 1–81), respectively. Median enrollment for interventional studies (which does not include observational and EAP studies [n = 746]; see Table 1) was 40 participants (IQR 18–95). Our analysis shows a lower median enrollment in comparison with the median enrollment of approximately 60 participants in ClinicalTrials.gov overall [28, 32–34]. When stratified by phase, median enrollment was 52 participants (IQR 30–100) for phase 2–3 trials, 120 participants (IQR 36–288) for phase 3 trials, and 70 participants (IQR 23–179) for phase 3–4 trials (Fig. 3A). These enrollments are lower than the overall ClinicalTrials.gov median enrollment of 119 participants (IQR 50–315) reported for phase 3–4 trials in a large review [34]. However, other overall ClinicalTrials.gov reported values vary widely, such as a phase 3 median enrollment of 252 participants (IQR 99–550) in a 2018 study [33].
When stratified by intervention category (n = 870 study records, including duplicates), median enrollment (IQR) was 48 participants (0–96) for drugs, 40 (0–80) for compounds, 40 (0–81) for cannabis, and 54 (20–88) for hemp (Fig. 3B). There were no noticeable differences in enrollment between intervention categories.
Study Duration
For study duration analyses, 17 of the 879 studies identified were excluded, owing to lack of data or recording of an extreme outlier value, resulting in inclusion of 862 study records including duplicates. Mean and median duration for unique studies (n = 808) were 837 days and 717 days (IQR 366–1117), respectively. A total of 402 studies (49.8%) had actual completion dates, and 398 (49.3%) had estimated completion dates; eight studies (1.0%) reported a study duration but not whether their completion date was estimated or actual. Median duration of studies with actual completion dates was 579 days (IQR, 274–1014). When stratified by intervention category, the longest studies with actual completion dates were those that investigated cannabis (Fig. S3A). Median study duration was shorter for compound studies versus drug studies, although compound studies had more outliers (> 1.5 × IQR). The longest median (IQR) study durations were for early phase 1 (832 days [IQR 330–1343]) and phase 1/2 (821 days [504–1051]) studies (Fig. S3B).
Sponsoring Institution
A total of 267 different sponsors (Appendix 2) were listed across the studies. Of the 825 unique studies, 581 (70.4%) were sponsored by academic institutions/hospitals, 168 (20.4%) by pharmaceutical companies, 54 (6.5%) by commercial entities, 21 (2.5%) by government, and 1 (0.1%) by an individual.
Results for sponsoring institutions stratified by intervention category and study phase are shown in Figure S4. The proportion of study records including duplicates (n = 879) in which the study was sponsored by academic institutions/hospitals was 60.0% for drug studies (172 of 287 studies), 74.4% for compound studies (285 of 383 studies), 82.0% for cannabis studies (146 of 178 studies), and 64.5% for hemp studies (20 of 31 studies) (Fig. S4A). When unique studies (n = 825) were stratified by phase, pharmaceutical companies sponsored most of the phase 3 trials, whereas academic institutions/hospitals sponsored more diverse phases of trials, and commercial entities sponsored the lowest proportion of registered clinical trials (Fig. S4B).
Chronological Trends
The number of registered cannabis studies increased chronologically during the three time periods investigated, with 168 studies initiated up to 2013 (mean and median participant enrollment, 91 and 42 [IQR 24–85]), 199 studies from 2014–2018 (89 and 36 [IQR 18–80]), and 450 studies from 2019 (116 and 50 [IQR 20–104]). The overall trend showed an increasing number of studies when plotted by actual or estimated start date (Fig. S5).
Discussion
To understand the state of current cannabinoid-based product research, this cross-sectional scoping review investigated trends and characteristics of clinical studies using a cannabinoid-based intervention that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Most studies were typically randomized, phase 2, and small (n ≤ 50), with the most common MeSH categories being psychiatric disorders, pathological conditions—signs and symptoms, nervous system diseases, and substance use disorders. There was an increase in the number of studies initiated per year between 2000 and 2023, with the largest increase observed between 2015 and 2019. The general trend toward an increasing number of registered studies investigating a cannabinoid-based product is most likely due to the expansion of the clinical trial definition by the National Institutes of Health in 2014 to include any research study enrolling human participants [35], and greater scientific and medical interest in studying these intervention types in recent years [1].
Cannabis sativa has a long history of medical and recreational use and is a complex plant, containing over 500 distinct compounds [36]; cannabis-based products are thus unique in their complexity, number, and variety of uses. For instance, although CBD and THC are sometimes assumed to exert similar effects [37], they have distinct mechanisms of action and physiological impacts [38]. Clinical research on a plant with such varied constituents and effects presents challenges not encountered when studying an isolated compound, which is typical of most studies registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.
Despite these differences between cannabinoid-based products and other drugs/supplements, trends and distributions for clinical trials investigating cannabinoid-based products are generally aligned with the overall ClinicalTrials.gov database, with some differences. While the proportions of unique studies classified as phase 1, 2, or 3 roughly followed trends in the larger ClinicalTrials.gov database, there was a greater number of early, phase 1 studies in the current analysis in comparison with overall trials [28], likely because cannabinoid-based product research is a relatively new clinical field. As more cannabinoid-based drugs progress through the FDA-approval pathway, and with the potential change of cannabis scheduling from Schedule I to Schedule III, the number of phase 4 studies will likely increase and thereby expand the cannabinoid science knowledge base with real-world evidence (RWE).
There was also a trend toward trials that are not applicable to the drug development process in the current analysis, such as studies of devices or behavioral interventions. Additionally, studies listing an academic or healthcare institution as a sponsor made up > 70% of all studies, contrasting with a ClinicalTrials.gov analysis reporting that the greatest proportion of studies was sponsored by industry (49.2%) [39]. This unexpected finding may also be due to cannabinoid-based product research being a relatively new clinical field for pharmaceutical industries. Furthermore, trials studying the whole cannabis plant may have less pharmaceutical industry support than trials investigating a single compound.
Leveraging RWE to inform RCTs can streamline evidence generation and optimize care [40, 41]. However, it is important to recognize that real-world uses of cannabinoid-based products are not always supported by clinical trial evidence, and RCTs remain the gold standard for clinical evaluation [4, 5]. This discrepancy between clinical evidence and real-world use of cannabinoid-based products for specific conditions can pose a substantial public health risk because these products may not be rigorously evaluated for risk:benefit ratio. Furthermore, RCTs are critical for accurately defining efficacy in an unbiased manner. Real-world use of cannabinoid-based products, by contrast, is often influenced by marketing claims for therapeutic benefits of different cannabis chemo-variations and constituents across conditions, and the placebo effect can substantially contribute to purported effects of cannabinoid-based products that have not undergone rigorous clinical trial investigation [42].
A limitation of this study is that the cross-sectional analysis may not reflect all ongoing clinical studies related to cannabinoid-based products because studies may have varying requirements for registration based on factors such as intervention type, funding source, and geographical location [43]. There is also the potential for inconsistent or incomplete reporting within ClinicalTrials.gov due to a historic lack of comprehensive reporting policies and reporting noncompliance [43]. Since its launch in 2000, ClinicalTrials.gov has undergone a substantial evolution in its database structure and individual study records, so comparing study characteristics over time is challenging. Studies may not be included in our analysis if essential elements or key words were not included at the time of registration, and misclassification may lead to some inappropriate conclusions. Nevertheless, our rigorous study process, including examination of studies over time, attempted to minimize these potential biases.
This scoping review highlights the diversification of clinical studies on cannabinoid-based products over the past 2 decades, with a growing number of studies exploring potential therapeutic benefits of cannabinoids for various diseases. The vast majority of studies were interventional, suggesting that investigators were able to conduct these studies despite the regulatory barriers to studying cannabinoid-based products. Clinical trials investigating cannabinoid-based products were generally aligned with trends for all trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, with some differences, including sponsor breakdown and study phase distribution. These findings demonstrate that cannabinoid-based product research is still early despite widespread use of such products across the USA for medical indications. Furthermore, these studies are driven primarily by academic institutions, suggesting that pharmaceutical companies play a less active role in developing these drugs for the FDA-approval pipeline. The wide range of cannabis-derived interventions and pathological conditions identified in this review highlight the importance of well-characterized interventions, carefully selected patient populations, and use of appropriate controls and outcome measures to increase the rigor of future studies of cannabis-based products.
Conclusions
This study has outlined substantial implications for the future recognition and acceptance of cannabinoid-based drugs as safe and effective therapies. We anticipate that the number of phase 4 studies will increase as additional cannabinoid-based drugs progress through the approval pathway, which can provide further insights into real-world safety and effectiveness. Overall, this scoping review highlights the diverse nature of clinical studies using cannabinoid-based products and reinforces the need to support larger, placebo-controlled studies of cannabinoid-based interventions.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
Medical writing support for the development of this manuscript, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Sachi Yim, PhD, and Ritu Pathak, PhD, and editing support by Celia K. Nelson, ELS, all from Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company, and funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Funding
This study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Declarations
Conflicts of interest
MH has been a consultant for Anebulo Pharmaceuticals, is a stockholder of and on the scientific advisory board for PleoPharma and has received cannabis capsules from Tilray for research on neuropathic pain. ZDC reports receiving study drug and study supplies from Canopy Growth Corporation, True Terpenes, and Storz & Bickel. HV is an employee of SB Pharma Solutions, LLC. CH was employed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., at the time the study was conducted. JLT is an employee of Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and holds stock and/or stock options in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, plc.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent to publish
Not applicable
Availability of data and material
All relevant data are provided within the manuscript and supporting files.
Code availability
Not applicable