Medicinal cannabis for tics in adolescents with Tourette syndrome
Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Academic Unit of Child Psychiatry Southwest Sydney, South Western Sydney Local Health District and Ingham Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Centre for Community Child Health, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia
Department of General Medicine, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Summary
Medicinal cannabis has been trialled for Tourette syndrome in adults, but it has not been studied in adolescents. This open-label, single-arm trial study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability and signal of efficacy of medicinal cannabis in adolescents (12–18 years), using a Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol ratio of 10:15, with dose varying from 5 to 20 mg/day based on body weight and response. The study demonstrated feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of study procedures, potential benefits and a favourable safety profile, with no serious adverse events. Commonly reported adverse events were tiredness and drowsiness, followed by dry mouth. Statistically significant improvement was observed in parent and clinician reports on tics (paired t-test P = 0.003), and behavioural and emotional issues (paired t-test P = 0.048) and quality of life as reported by the parent and young person (paired t-test P = 0.027 and 0.032, respectively). A larger-scale, randomised controlled trial is needed to validate these findings.
Untitled section
Keywords: Tic disorders, medicinal cannabis, paediatric neurology, tics, clinical trials
Article notes
Untitled section
Received 2024 Jul 9; Revised 2025 Jan 8; Accepted 2025 Feb 3; Collection date 2025 Jul.
Tourette syndrome significantly affects daily functioning and quality of life (QoL) for young people and their families. 1 Although psychotropic medication and behavioural therapies can assist with symptom control, 2 treatment response is variable 3 and side-effects are common, which can affect medication adherence. 4 Alternative interventions are critically needed, and medicinal cannabis has emerged as a potential option in a few studies in adults, with varying results; 5,6 however, the efficacy and safety in young people is unknown. 7
The main objective of this pilot study was to conduct the first evaluation of the feasibility of recruitment, protocol adherence, acceptability of study procedures and signal of efficacy of medicinal cannabis in a Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol ratio of 10:15 for tic symptoms and QoL in adolescents with Tourette syndrome. The secondary objective was to assess its safety and side-effects. The overall goal was to inform future randomised controlled trials.
Method
This was an open-label, single-arm trial of medicinal cannabis, with participants with a body weight <50 kg receiving a maximum Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol dose of 10 mg/day and those with a body weight ≥50 kg receiving a maximum Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol dose of 20 mg/day.
This study was conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and ethical approval was granted from the South-Western Sydney Local Health District Ethics Committee (approval number 2021/ETH11096). It was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (identifier ACTRN12622000031763).
Adolescents aged 12–18 years, with a DSM-5 diagnosis of Tourette syndrome, a total tic severity score of ≥20 on the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) 8 and no change to medication/interventions for the previous 4 weeks were enrolled from 14 April 2022 to 19 October 2023. All participants had been treated with psychotropic medication (and six had also received behavioural treatments), but had failed to achieve meaningful improvement despite appropriate trial at therapeutic doses and duration. All parents and participants (aged >16 years) provided written informed consent. Exclusion criteria included non-English-speaking parents, a personal/family history of serious mental disorders such as psychosis, abnormal liver function, recent illicit drug or certain medication use, pregnancy or breastfeeding, and clinically significant suicidal ideation in the previous 12 months.
Medicinal cannabis oil with a concentration of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol 10 mg/mL and cannabidiol 15 mg/mL (Cann Group, Australia) was used.
The dose was stratified by participant weight (<50 kg and ≥50 kg) at enrolment. The titration schedule included an initial dose of 1 mg/day, followed by uptitration over 21 days by 1 mg every 4–5 days to reach 5 mg/day for participants weighing <50 kg, and 1 mg every 2–3 days to reach 10 mg/day for participants weighing ≥50 kg by day 29. This was administered once daily, with a recommendation for it to be taken in the evening, except when twice a day divided dosage was used where side-effects were experienced. Participants achieving a 55% reduction from baseline on the Parent Tic Questionnaire (PTQ) and a favourable Clinical Global Impression – Improvement score (1 or 2) with tolerable side-effects were considered responders and stayed on this dose until day 85. Non-responders continued uptitration over 21 days, to 10 mg (<50 kg) or 20 mg (≥50 kg).
Tics were evaluated using the clinician-administered YGTSS 8 and parent-administered PTQ. 9 Acceptability and adverse events were ascertained using a weekly log and the Modified Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (LAEP) questionnaire. 10 Clinicians completed Clinical Global Impression – Severity and Improvement scales and the Premonitory Urge for Tics Scale (PUTS). 11 Tics and associated features and comorbid conditions were assessed by a clinician, using the National Hospital Interview Schedule (NHIS), 12 and parents completed the ADHD Rating Scale, 13 the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) 14 for behavioural and emotional issues, and the Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome-Quality of Life Scale (GTS-QOL). 15 Urine testing for illicit drugs and blood tests for urea and electrolytes at screening and liver function during screening and on day 85 were done. See Supplementary Table 1 for the schedule of activities.
We conducted equivalence tests for tic-related symptoms and QoL by using paired t-tests with two-sided P-values. Comparisons of baseline features for responders and non-responders, as well as experience of adverse events, were conducted with Mann–Whiney U-tests. Effect sizes were estimated for both types of statistical tests. Given that this is a feasibility study, we employed exploratory analyses designed to guide the development of a larger trial. To align with the study’s preliminary nature, these analyses did not account for covariates, and adjustments for multiple testing were not performed.
Results
The mean age of the ten participants was 14.4 years (range 12–18 years, s.d. = 1.71). As per NHIS score at baseline, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was present in six (60%) participants, obsessive–compulsive disorder was present in five (50%) participants, anxiety was present in nine (90%) participants, autism was present in four (40%) participants, intellectual disability was present in three (30%) participants and depression was present in three (30%) participants. The feasibility of recruitment was demonstrated, and the study procedures were found to be acceptable as evidenced by 100% attendance at clinic visits and completion of questionnaires on time, as per protocol. One participant (non-responder at day 29) withdrew on day 49, as the family went on overseas holidays and the medicinal cannabis could not be continued. Of the ten participants, seven did not respond to the low dose, necessitating uptitration. Although two had adverse events necessitating reduction back to the low dose, no participants experienced any serious adverse events. There was no difference between responders and non-responders in terms of needing uptitration to the higher dose. The most commonly reported adverse events were blurred vision, dry mouth, increased appetite and decreased motivation (22% for all). These were followed by unsteadiness, restlessness, headache, concentration, shaky hands, weight gain, dizziness, sleepiness, weight loss, confusion, euphoria and disorientation (11% for all), based on a two-point change in LAEP score at each symptom level. Side-effects reported outside of those determined by the LAEP were tiredness and drowsiness (40%), followed by dry mouth (30%). Of those who reported drowsiness, one reported this at days 22 and 29 (on the lower dose), but as it did not interfere with their activities, no dose change was made. Three patients reported drowsiness after uptitration of the dose (non-responders); two improved after splitting into twice daily dosage, whereas the other improved following reduction in dose.
There was positive signal of efficacy with a statistically significant improvement in parent and self-reported tics and QoL, as well as behavioural/emotional issues as per the SDQ (Table 1). The clinician-reported YGTSS impairment scores (Supplementary Fig. 1) and parent-reported severity scores remained statistically significant even under a conservative Bonferroni correction (adjusted threshold P < 0.005). Premonitory urges and ADHD symptoms showed no significant difference. The baseline SDQ score was associated with treatment response (P = 0.0236), and baseline GTS-QOL score also showed a marginal association with treatment response, indicating a potential role of baseline characteristics in outcomes. The adverse events LAEP score on day 85 did not differ between responders and non-responders (z = 1.03, P = 0.3051, r = 0.33). The effect size was estimated to be 1.37 for the YGTSS data, leading to a power of 0.84. See Supplementary Table 2 for details.
| Outcome | Baseline mean (s.d.) | Day 29 mean (s.d.) | Day 85 mean (s.d.) | Day 29 versus baseline | Day 85 versus baseline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tic severity (clinician rated), YGTSS impairment | 74.11 (5.68) | 45.33 (8.38) | P = 0.0035, d = 1.36 | ||
| Tic severity (parent reported), YGTSS severity | 35.22 (2.97) | 20.89 (13.80) | P = 0.0160, d = 1.01 | ||
| Tic severity (parent reported), PTQ a | 69.80 (5.06) | 43.70 (10.68) | 40.11 (10.10) | P = 0.0141 | P = 0.0038, d = 1.34 |
| Quality of life, GTS-QOL (parent reported) | 74.50 (7.40) | 50.40 (8.05) | P = 0.0272, d = 0.83 | ||
| Quality of life, GTS-QOL (self-reported) | 76.70 (6.18) | 54.50 (7.68) | P = 0.0326, d = 0.8 | ||
| Quality of life, life satisfaction (parent reported) | 41.75 (4.77) | 54.50 (9.66) | P = 0.1094, d = 0.65 | ||
| Quality of life, life satisfaction (child reported) | 52.63 (4.95) | 58.34 (8.93) | P = 0.4913, d = 0.26 | ||
| ADHD symptoms, ADHD rating scale | 32.78 (4.22) | 25.44 (4.75) | P = 0.0631, d = 0.72 | ||
| Emotional and behavioural problems, SDQ-difficulty | 29.22 (2.12) | 25.89 (1.67) | P = 0.0485, d = 0.78 | ||
| Premonitory urge symptoms, PUTS | 25.33 (2.13) | 24.00 (1.64) | P = 0.6238, d = 0.17 | ||
| Outcome | Baseline mean (s.d.) | Day 29 mean (s.d.) | Day 85 mean (s.d.) | Day 29 versus baseline | Day 85 versus baseline |
| Tic severity (clinician rated), YGTSS impairment | 74.11 (5.68) | 45.33 (8.38) | P = 0.0035, d = 1.36 | ||
| Tic severity (parent reported), YGTSS severity | 35.22 (2.97) | 20.89 (13.80) | P = 0.0160, d = 1.01 | ||
| Tic severity (parent reported), PTQ a | 69.80 (5.06) | 43.70 (10.68) | 40.11 (10.10) | P = 0.0141 | P = 0.0038, d = 1.34 |
| Quality of life, GTS-QOL (parent reported) | 74.50 (7.40) | 50.40 (8.05) | P = 0.0272, d = 0.83 | ||
| Quality of life, GTS-QOL (self-reported) | 76.70 (6.18) | 54.50 (7.68) | P = 0.0326, d = 0.8 | ||
| Quality of life, life satisfaction (parent reported) | 41.75 (4.77) | 54.50 (9.66) | P = 0.1094, d = 0.65 | ||
| Quality of life, life satisfaction (child reported) | 52.63 (4.95) | 58.34 (8.93) | P = 0.4913, d = 0.26 | ||
| ADHD symptoms, ADHD rating scale | 32.78 (4.22) | 25.44 (4.75) | P = 0.0631, d = 0.72 | ||
| Emotional and behavioural problems, SDQ-difficulty | 29.22 (2.12) | 25.89 (1.67) | P = 0.0485, d = 0.78 | ||
| Premonitory urge symptoms, PUTS | 25.33 (2.13) | 24.00 (1.64) | P = 0.6238, d = 0.17 |
Discussion
The results of this study, the first of its kind in adolescents with Tourette syndrome, has provided preliminary evidence of feasibility and acceptability of the study design for use of medicinal cannabis in adolescents, as well as indicating a potential favourable impact on tic symptoms and QoL. Although there is emerging evidence supporting the use of cannabis-based interventions in the management of Tourette syndrome in adults, 5,6 this study uniquely contributes to the evidence on the benefits and safety of medicinal cannabis in adolescents with Tourette syndrome.
The identification of baseline SDQ difficulty score as a predictor for treatment response adds valuable insights, emphasising the importance of considering individual characteristics when tailoring treatment plans.
The absence of differences in the adverse events score between responders and non-responders raises interesting questions about the metabolism and pharmacological effects of medicinal cannabis, and its link to treatment outcomes. The long-term impact of medicinal cannabis on neurodevelopmental trajectories also deserves further exploration.
The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the study limitations related to the small sample size and lack of controls, and the open-label uncontrolled nature of the study. However, having demonstrated the recruitment feasibility, acceptability of study procedures, potential benefits and favourable safety profile, this study paves the way for larger randomised controlled trials to validate the findings.
Supporting information
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the Cann Group for providing the study drug free of charge. The Cann Group had no influence on the study design, execution, analysis and publication of the results.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material can be found at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.35
Data availability
Data are available upon request. No patients were involved in the design or conduct or reporting or dissemination plans of our research.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of interest
None.
References
Untitled section
References
- 1. Vermilion J, Augustine E, Adams HR, Vierhile A, Lewin AB, Thatcher A, et al. Tic disorders are associated with lower child and parent quality of life and worse family functioning. Pediatr Neurol 2020; 105: 48–54.
- 2. Robertson MM, Eapen V, Singer HS, Martino D, Scharf MJ, Paschou P, et al. Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2017; 3: 16097.
- 3. Piacentini J, Woods DW, Scahill L, Wilhelm S, Peterson AL, Chang S, et al. Behavior therapy for children with tourette disorder: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2010; 303: 1929–37.
- 4. Bachmann CJ, Roessner V, Glaeske G, Hoffmann F. Pharmacological interventions in Tourette syndrome. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2015; 24: 199–207.
- 5. Abi-Jaoude E, Bhikram T, Parveen F, Levenbach J, Lafreniere-Roula M, Sandor P. A double-blind, randomized, controlled crossover trial of cannabis in adults with Tourette syndrome. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res 2023; 8: 835–45.
- 6. Mosley PE, Webb L, Suraev A, Hingston L, Turnbull T, Foster K, et al. Tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol in Tourette syndrome. NEJM Evid 2023; 9: EVIDoa2300012.
- 7. Rice LJ, Cannon L, Dadlani N, Cheung MMY, Einfeld SL, Efron D, et al. Efficacy of cannabinoids in neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders among children and adolescents: a systematic review. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2024; 33: 505–26.
- 8. Leckman JF, Riddle MA, Hardin MT, Ort SI, Swartz KL, Stevenson J, et al. The Yale global tic severity scale: initial testing of a clinician-rated scale of tic severity. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1989; 28: 566–739.
- 9. Ricketts EJ, McGuire JF, Chang S, Bose D, Rasch MM, Woods DW, et al. Benchmarking treatment response in Tourette’s disorder: a psychometric evaluation and signal detection analysis of the parent tic questionnaire. Behav Ther 2018; 49: 46–56.
- 10. Panelli RJ, Kilpatrick C, Moore SM, Matkovic Z, D’Souza WJ, O’Brien TJ. The Liverpool adverse events profile: relation to AED use and mood. Epilepsia 2007; 48: 456–63.
- 11. Woods DW, Piacentini J, Himle MB, Chang S. Premonitory Urge for Tics Scale (PUTS): initial psychometric results and examination of the premonitory urge phenomenon in youths with tic disorders. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2005; 26: 397–403.
- 12. Robertson MM, Eapen V. The national hospital interview schedule for the assessment of Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 1997; 6: 203–26.
- 13. DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD, Reid R. ADHD Rating Scale 5 for Children and Adolescents: Checklists, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation. Guilford Publications, 2016.
- 14. Goodman R. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1997; 38: 581–6.
- 15. Cavanna AE, Schrag A, Morley D, Orth M, Robertson MM, Joyce E, et al. The Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome-Quality of Life Scale (GTS-QOL): development and validation. Neurology 2008; 71.
Associated Data
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data are available upon request. No patients were involved in the design or conduct or reporting or dissemination plans of our research.