medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
Title: Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol in psychosis: A balancing act of the principal phyto-cannabinoids on human brain and behavior? Short title: CBD-THC interaction in psychosis Suhas Ganesh1,2, Jose Cortes-Briones1,2, Ashley M. Schnakenberg Martin1,2, Patrick D Skosnik1,2, Deepak C D’Souza1,2, Mohini Ranganathan*1,2 1 Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine 2 VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT 06516
*Corresponding Author Corresponding Author Contact Information: Mohini Ranganathan Associate Professor Department of Psychiatry Yale University School of Medicine VA Connecticut Healthcare System/116A 950 Campbell Ave West Haven, CT 06516 Email: [email protected] Tel: 203-932-5711 X 2546 Fax: 203-937-4860
Word Count: Abstract: 200 Manuscript without online methods: 4463 Figures: main – 3, supplement – 8 Tables: main – 2, supplement – 2
Keywords: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol, psychosis, electrophysiology, neural noise, Lempel-Ziv complexity
1
NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
Title: Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol in psychosis: A balancing act of the principal phyto-cannabinoids on human brain and behavior? Abstract:
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are the principal phyto-
cannabinoids in the cannabis plant. The differential and possibly antagonistic effects of these
compounds on specific brain and behavioral responses, and the mechanisms underlying their
effects have generated extensive interest in pre-clinical and clinical neuroscience investigations.
In this double-blind randomized placebo-controlled counterbalanced human laboratory
experiment, we examined the effects of three different dose ratios of CBD: THC (1:1, 2:1 and
3:1) on ‘neural noise’, an electrophysiological biomarker of psychosis known to be sensitive to
cannabinoids as well as subjective and psychotomimetic effects. Interestingly, the lowest
CBD:THC ratio (1:1) resulted in maximal attenuation of both THC induced psychotomimetic
effects (PANSS positive - ATS = 7.83, df = 1, pcorr = 0.015) and neural noise (ATS = 8.83, df = 1,
pcorr = 0.009) with an inverse-linear dose response relationship. Further, in line with previous
studies, addition of CBD did not reduce the subjective experience of THC induced “high” (p >
0.05 for all CBD doses).
These novel results demonstrate that CBD attenuates THC induced subjective and objective
effects relevant to psychosis- but in a dose/ratio dependent manner. Given the increasing global
trend of cannabis liberalization and application for medical indications, these results assume
considerable significance given the potential dose related interactions of these key phyto-
cannabinoids.
2 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
Introduction
For millennia, Cannabis sativa, the cannabis plant, has been used for medicinal and
recreational purposes (1) and is one of the most widely used substances today (2, 3). Cannabis
contains over 500 distinct chemical compounds and ~120 phyto-cannabinoids (4) including Δ9-
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), responsible for the psychoactive effects of cannabis, and
cannabidiol (CBD), investigated for its therapeutic effects (5, 6).
The acute effects of cannabis include a wide array of subjective, behavioral, and physiological
effects including euphoria, relaxation, increased appetite, anxiolysis or increased anxiety,
tachycardia, altered spatial and time perception, paranoia, conceptual disorganization, and
hallucinations (7-9).
A large body of evidence supports an association between cannabis exposure and psychosis
outcomes ranging from acute mild psychosis-like symptoms to the development of a frank
psychotic disorder. While data supporting the association between cannabis and psychotic
disorders come from epidemiological studies and clinical observations, human laboratory
studies (HLS) have complemented this literature to provide temporally related evidence of an
association between cannabinoids and psychosis symptoms. Importantly, HLS also permit the
examination of underlying mechanisms and interactions between cannabinoids that are not
feasible in epidemiological studies. Over the past several decades, HLS have carefully
characterized the acute dose-related subjective, cognitive, physiological, neuroendocrine, and
psychophysiological effects of THC (10-16). These experimental studies demonstrate that THC
administration reliably induces transient psychotic-like symptoms (10, 11), cognitive deficits (11-
13), and psychomotor impairments (14, 15).
Unlike THC, CBD has no psychotomimetic or rewarding effects but appears to have sedative
and anxiolytic properties (17-21). Evidence suggests that CBD may have distinct
neurobiological effects compared to THC (22, 23). Interestingly, preclinical data suggest that
CBD appears to ameliorate psychotomimetic symptoms produced by THC (24), sensory gating
3 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
deficits induced by NMDA receptor antagonists (25) and cannabinoid receptor agonists (26),
and hyperlocomotion induced by amphetamine, cocaine, and ketamine, and stereotyped
behavior induced by apomorphine in mice (27). Experimental studies in humans have
demonstrated mixed findings regarding its antipsychotic properties of CBD (28-33).
Cannabis that is high in THC and low in CBD is associated with a greater risk of psychosis (34-
36) and some studies suggest that CBD may attenuate the psychotomimetic and anxiogenic
effects of THC. Pretreatment with CBD has been observed to block the psychotomimetic effects
of THC (26, 37, 38), although with mixed, dose-dependent effects (39). The literature on the
behavioral, cognitive, and neurophysiological effects of THC, CBD, and their combination have
been previously reviewed by us and others (5, 6). We briefly present this literature relevant to
psychosis outcomes below.
In a small within-subject study, Bhattacharya et al (23) demonstrated that pretreatment with
intravenous (IV) CBD (5 mg) attenuated the psychotomimetic effects of IV THC (1.25 mg). The
absence of pharmacokinetic interactions suggested that the observed attenuation was possibly
due to receptor-level interactions (23). In a between-subject, placebo-controlled study (n=48),
Englund et al (40) examined the effects of oral CBD pretreatment (600 mg) on the psychotic
symptoms induced by IV THC (1.5 mg) and found that a significantly lower proportion of
subjects experienced clinically significant THC induced positive symptoms and episodic memory
impairment with CBD pretreatment (40). Hindocha et al (41) examined the interaction of inhaled
THC (8 mg) and CBD (16 mg) on human facial affect recognition in 48 volunteers. The authors
noted that while the THC-CBD combination induced a subjective experience of feeling ‘stoned’
to the same extent as THC, the combination resulted in a significantly lower impairment in affect
processing (41). Haney et al (42) examined the effects of pretreatment with four doses of oral
CBD (0, 200, 400, 800 mg) on reinforcing, positive subjective, and physiological effects of
smoked THC (5.3% - 5.8%) in 31 cannabis smokers and noted that none of the CBD doses
altered any of the THC effects examined. More recently, Solowij et al (43) examined the effect
4 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
of low (4 mg) and high (400 mg) doses of vaporized CBD on the intoxicating effects of vaporized
THC (8 mg) in 36 frequent and infrequent cannabis users. Interestingly, the authors noted that
the low dose of CBD potentiated the intoxicating effects of THC while the high dose of CBD
attenuated the intoxicating effects of THC (43), suggesting that the proportion of THC and CBD
in cannabis may influence subjective and behavioral effects.
Thus far, most of the investigations of THC and CBD interaction in human studies have focused
on either behavioral or cognitive outcomes with only a few investigating neurophysiological
outcomes. In a previous study from our group, we found no differences between THC and
THC+CBD on P50 gating ratio (S2/S1) and evoked power (44). Preclinical studies on the
mechanisms of the interaction between THC and CBD also report mixed results (45-50). The
inherent challenges in modelling an acute behavioral response such as psychotomimetic effects
in preclinical models after exposure to clinically translatable doses of THC and CBD further
complicates the interpretability of these results.
In summary, the emerging data available thus far indicate that CBD may attenuate THC induced
psychotomimetic effects while sparing the other subjective experiences. However, how
CBD:THC ratio influences these interactions remains unstudied. Importantly, despite several
reports comparing THC and CBD effects on psychophysiological outcomes, there are limited
data examining the effects of CBD on THC induced psychosis relevant EEG outcomes. These
interactive effects may also be sensitive to the dose and route of administration of THC and
CBD. For instance, there is significantly greater variability in blood levels with the oral route
(42) compared to IV (23).
In this study, we aimed to examine the effect of IV CBD on a range of IV THC induced
subjective psychotomimetic and rewarding effects as well as a specific psychophysiological
index of psychosis in healthy human participants as described below.
5 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
We have previously shown that neural noise, i.e., the randomness of signals, as captured by
electroencephalography (EEG) signals with Lempel-Ziv complexity (LZC), is strongly related to
the acute psychosis-like effects of THC (51). LZC is a nonlinear measure from information
theory designed to assess the randomness (noise) of signals by counting the minimal number of
distinct signal patterns (words) that are required to fully reconstruct the signal without
information loss (52). LZC approaches zero in signals with regular and recurrent patterns (small
number of distinct patterns) and approaches one as the randomness (large number of distinct
patterns) of signals increases. In addition to predicting THC-induced psychotomimetic
symptoms, increased LZC has been demonstrated in schizophrenia (53, 54) and specifically in
patients in their early stages of illness with higher positive symptoms (55), potentially serving as
an EEG biomarker of psychosis.
We hypothesized that CBD would attenuate THC-induced psychotomimetic effects and neural
noise but not its rewarding effects. We further examined whether these interactions were dose
related by testing three different doses of CBD (CBD:THC ratio 1:1, 2:1, 3:1). Lastly, we
examined correlations between CBD’s effects on the subjective and electrophysiological
psychosis-relevant effects of THC i.e. a) THC-induced psychotomimetic effects and b) THC-
induced increase in neural noise.
Results
Sample Profile: The sample consisted of 28 (13 females) healthy volunteers with a median
(IQR) age of 25.5 (10.25) years. The demographic and clinical details including the race,
handedness, education, anthropometric measures, cannabis, and tobacco use patterns,
schizotypal personality and psychosis proneness scores are presented in table 1. None of the
subjects were cannabis naïve; 7 (25%) subjects reported cannabis use of two or more times per
week. Of the 28 subjects who participated in phase-1, 10 (35.71 %) participated in phase-2 and
received two additional doses of CBD:THC (1:1 and 3:1; supplementary figure 1). The
6 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
demographic and clinical details are presented in table 1 and supplementary table 2. There
were no statistically significant group differences between the 18 subjects who participated only
in the phase-1 and the 10 subjects who participated in both phases of the study (supplementary
table 2).
Behavioral, Subjective, and Physiological Measures
The outcomes of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) positive, negative, general,
and total scores; Clinician Administered Dissociative Symptom Sale (CADSS) - patient rated
(PR) and clinician rated (CR) subscale scores; and subjective experiences measured with
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) – “VAS high” and “VAS anxious”, scores in phase-1 and phase-2 of
the study are listed in table 2.
THC-Induced Psychotomimetic Effects – PANSS Positive Symptom Scores (Table 2):
Phase -1: There was a significant main effect of treatment on PANSS positive change score
(Anova Type Statistic [ATS] = 16.01, df = 2.87, p < 0.00001). Compared to THC, CBD:THC-2:1
resulted in a decreased PANSS positive score, that was not statistically significant in a pairwise
post-hoc comparison (ATS = 0.58, df = 1, p = 0.44) (figure 1a). Thirteen of the 28 subjects had a
clinically meaningful psychotomimetic response to THC. In this ‘responder’ subgroup, the
CBD:THC-2:1 had a significantly lower PANSS positive change score compared to THC alone
(ATS = 9.73, df = 1, p = 0.0018) (figure 1b).
Phase -2: In the analysis of the phase-2 (figure 1c) comparing THC, CBD:THC-1:1, CBD:THC-
2:1, and CBD:THC-3:1, there was a significant main effect of the treatment on the PANSS
positive change score (ATS = 8.73, df = 3.37, p < 0.00001). In post-hoc analysis involving pair-
wise comparisons between THC and the three CBD:THC combinations, the lowest THC-
induced PANSS positive score was noted with CBD:THC-1:1 (ATS = 7.83, df = 1, pcorr = 0.015).
The CBD:THC 2:1 and 3:1 doses also resulted in lower PANSS positive scores compared to the
7 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
THC alone, but the differences were not statistically significant. Overall, there was an inverse
dose response relationship between the CBD dose in the CBD:THC combinations and the
magnitude of attenuation of THC-induced positive symptoms (figure 1c).
There were no differences between THC and CBD:THC conditions in the PANSS negative or
general symptom scores (supplementary figure 2 and 3). Although not statistically significant,
consistent with the above results, THC-induced PANSS general symptom score was also
maximally attenuated in the CBD:THC-1:1 condition (ATS = 5.15, df = 1, pcorr = 0.069). For
PANSS total score, phase -1 responder analyses revealed significantly lower scores with
CBD:THC-2:1 condition compared to THC (ATS = 6.78, df = 1, p = 0.009). In phase-2, PANSS
total score was significantly attenuated only in the CBD:THC-1:1 condition (ATS = 11.11, df = 1,
pcorr = 0.002) (table 2; supplementary figure 4).
Perceptual Alterations – CADSS - Patient Rated and Clinician Rated scales (Table 2):
Phase-1: There was no significant main effect on CBD treatment on THC induced perceptual
alterations. CBD:THC-2:1 resulted in a marginal reduction in the THC CADSS PR and CR
scales, but the differences were not statistically significant.
Phase-2: None of the three CBD:THC combinations were significantly different from the THC
condition on CADSS PR or CR. However, the largest relative reduction in THC-induced
perceptual alteration measured by CADSS CR was noted in CBD:THC-1:1 condition when
compared to the 2:1 and 3:1 ratios, consistent with the pattern observed on PANSS positive
scores (table 2, supplementary figures 6, 7).
Subjective Effects – VAS “High” and “Anxious” (Figures 2a and 2b):
“High”: In phase-1, there was a main effect of the treatment on subjective experience of high
(ATS = 43.03, df = 2.24, p <0.00001), but there was no significant difference between the THC
and the CBD:THC-2:1 in the post-hoc analysis (ATS = 0.13, df = 1, p = 0.72).
8 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
In phase-2, there was a main effect of treatment (ATS 17.57, df = 2.97, p < 0.00001) on “High”.
However, there was no difference between the THC and the three CBD:THC combinations –
CBD:THC-1:1 (ATS = 2.04, df = 1, pcorr = 0.45), 2:1 (ATS = 0.11, df = 1, pcorr > 0.99) and 3:1
ratios (ATS = 3.96, df = 1, pcorr = 0.14).
“Anxiety”: In phase-1, there was a main effect of treatment but no significant difference
between THC and CBD:THC-2:1 conditions (table 2). However, in phase-2, THC-induced
anxiety was maximally attenuated with the combination of CBD:THC-3:1 and this difference was
statistically significant (ATS = 10.41, df = 1, pcorr = 0.004) (supplementary figure 5).
Physiological Effects: In phase-1, there was a main effect of treatment (ATS = 37.9, df = 2.5,
p = <0.00001) and both THC and CBD:THC-2:1 resulted in a significant increase in heart rate at
+15 minutes. However, there was no difference between THC and CBD:THC-2:1 conditions in
the post hoc analysis (ATS = 2.44, df = 1, p = 0.12).
Similarly, in the phase-2, all treatment conditions resulted in a robust increase in heart rate
compare to placebo but there was no statistically significant difference between THC and
CBD:THC conditions (supplementary figure 8).
Neural Noise (Table 2 and Figures 3a and 3b):
Phase-1: There was a main effect of treatment on LZC with an increase in LZC noted in both
the THC and the CBD:THC-2:1 conditions compared to placebo (ATS = 5.66, df = 2.52, p =
0.0015). Post-hoc analysis revealed that the CBD:THC-2:1 condition had a lower median LZC
compared to THC alone, although the differences were not statistically significant (ATS = 0, df =
1, p = >.05) (figure 3A). A similar pattern was observed among THC PANSS responders, where
we noted a modest but statistically non-significant reduction in the reduction in LZC (ATS = 0.2,
df = 1, p > 0.05).
9 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
Phase-2: There was a main effect of treatment (ATS = 2.68, df = 3.3, p = 0.04) and all three
CBD:THC combinations resulted in a lower median LZC compared to THC alone (figure 3B).
Post-hoc analysis revealed that the maximal attenuation of THC-induced increase in LZC was in
the CBD:THC-1:1 condition and this difference was statistically significant (ATS = 8.83, df = 1,
pcorr = 0.009), consistent with the pattern observed with the THC induced PANSS positive
scores.
Relationship Between CBD Attenuation of Positive Symptoms and Attenuation of Neural
Noise:
Correlations between changes in PANSS positive and total scores and changes in LZC were
examined in the phase-1 subjects and phase-1 responders. Small statistically non-significant
positive correlations were noted between change in LZC and change in positive symptoms from
placebo to THC condition in phase-1 (r = 0.13, p > 0.05) and in the subsample of phase-1
responders (r = 0.28, p > 0.05). Among the responders a large, marginally significant correlation
was noted between change in LZC and change in the PANSS total symptoms (r = 0.64, p =
0.07). There were no correlations between change in positive or total symptom scores with
change in LZC from THC to CBD:THC conditions in Phase-1 or Phase-1 responders.
Discussion
We present novel results demonstrating dose dependent interactions between IV CBD and IV
THC on subjective and objective, psychosis and reward related measures, in this double-blind,
randomized, placebo-controlled two-phase human laboratory study in healthy individuals.
Pretreatment with IV CBD 5mg (~ 2:1 CBD: THC ratio) attenuated THC induced
psychotomimetic symptoms without affecting any other subjective, behavioral or cognitive
effects. This attenuation was particularly notable in those ‘responders’ who developed a
clinically meaningful psychotomimetic response to THC alone (≥ 3 increase in PANSS positive
10 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
symptoms). Furthermore, we found that the maximal attenuation of THC induced
psychotomimetic symptoms resulted from the lowest tested dose of CBD (2.5 mg) (~ 1:1 CBD:
THC ratio) and an inverse linear dose-response relationship was observed between CBD dose
and attenuation of THC induced psychotomimetic response.
Consistent with the effects on THC induced psychotomimetic response, CBD treatment was
associated with a decrease in THC induced neural noise, a biomarker of drug induced
psychotomimetic effects (51). We observed that the largest decrease in neural noise was also
with the lowest dose of CBD (2.5 mg) (~ 1:1 CBD: THC ratio), similar to the psychotomimetic
response. However, there was no correlation between the decreases in the neural noise and
subjective psychotomimetic effects of THC. Finally, in contrast to psychotomimetic symptoms, it
is noteworthy that none of the doses of CBD decreased the rewarding effects of THC.
The results of this study provide novel insights into the intricate psychopharmacology of
cannabinoids important for future studies on cannabis and cannabinoid psychopharmacology as
discussed below.
CBD and THC Interactive Behavioral Effects: The attenuation of THC induced
psychotomimetic effects by CBD pretreatment, is in agreement with the findings of two earlier
studies (Bhattacharya et al (23), and Englund et al (40)). Both studies used PANSS positive
symptom subscale to measure THC-induced psychotomimetic effects similar to this study.
Bhattacharya et al examined the interactive effects of single doses of IV THC (1.25mg) and IV
CBD (5 mg), while Englund et al. tested 600 mg of oral CBD 210 minutes prior to IV THC (1.5
mg). Given the oral bioavailability of CBD is ~6% (56), the dose in Englund et al, would be
equivalent to ~3.6 mg of IV CBD although, additional variability of the peak plasma
concentration and half-life is recognized with the oral route (21, 56). Thus, both these studies
examined higher CBD:THC ratios ( ~2.4-4:1) compared to ~2:1 in phase-1 of our study and 1:1
and 3:1 in Phase -2. Further, it was the lowest CBD:THC ratio (1:1) examined in phase-2,
11 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
associated with the maximal attenuation of THC-induced psychotomimetic effects with an
inverse linear dose response relationship between CBD and THC induced psychotomimetic
effects. These data would suggest that equivalent ratio (1:1) of CBD:THC in herbal cannabis
may result in the least psychotomimetic effects. However, since we did not examine lower
CBD:THC ratio < 1 in this study, it is not possible to estimate the impact of lower CBD
concentrations in most current herbal cannabis.
In contrast to the psychotomimetic response, the experience of subjective effect of high was not
significantly different in any of the three CBD:THC dose ratios. This relative absence of effects
of CBD on ‘high’ and other related subjective effects has been demonstrated previously by
Hindocha et al (41) and Haney et al (42). Using inhalational administration of CBD 16 mg and
THC 8 mg (CBD: THC 2:1), Hindocha et al, noted that the subjective feeling of being ‘stoned’
was not altered by the combination of CBD and THC compared to THC alone. Similarly, Haney
et al, noted that oral CBD (200, 400 and 800 mg) administered 90 minutes prior to smoked
cannabis (5.3-5.8% THC), did not alter the subjective effects of ‘high’ and ‘good effect’
associated with THC. In contrast, Solowij et al (43), reported that low dose vaporized CBD (4
mg) augmented the intoxicating effects of vaporized THC (8 mg) while a higher dose of
vaporized CBD (400 mg) resulted in an attenuation of the intoxicating effects measured with
CADSS clinician-rated subscale. These effects were specifically prominent in the infrequent
cannabis users. In contrast, in our analyses none of the CBD:THC combinations were
significantly different on the CADSS subscale scores. It is of interest that Solowij et al observed
an augmentation of intoxication at a CBD:THC ratio of 1: 2 (THC dominant) and attenuation of
intoxication at a ratio of 50:1- both ratios that we did not test, but suggest that a wide dose
range of CBD:THC should be further studied. Lastly, we noted a statistically significant
difference between the THC and CBD:THC (3:1) condition on subjective effects of anxiety.
Although, both 2.5 mg and 7.5 mg produced greater anxiolysis compared to the 5 mg condition
12 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
in the phase-2 analysis (Supplementary figure 5)- this was statistically significant only with the
higher CBD dose. This is consistent with the inverted U-shaped dose-response of CBD on
anxiety that has been previously reported by Linares et al, using 150 mg, 300 mg and 600 mg of
oral cannabidiol in a simulated public speaking test (57).
CBD and THC and Neural Noise: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine neural
noise (LZC), an electrophysiological correlate of psychosis, to assess the effects of THC, CBD,
and their interaction. Neural noise has been shown to be elevated in acute phases of
schizophrenia (54, 55) and we have previously demonstrated it to be strongly correlated with
THC-induced psychotomimetic effects, specifically with positive- and disorganization-like
symptoms (51). We now demonstrate that CBD-related attenuation of the psychotomimetic
effects of THC was mirrored by a similar attenuation of THC-induced noise. Further,
examination of dose-related effects demonstrates a trend towards an inverted U-shaped
response as CBD 2.5 mg and CBD 7.5 mg resulted in a larger attenuation of neural noise
compared to CBD 5 mg. Future studies in larger samples with a wider range of dose ratios of
CBD:THC will be needed to delineate this nonlinear dose-response relationship. CBD treatment
has been associated with improvement in psychotic symptoms in patients with psychotic
disorders in some clinical trials but not others (58-61). Whether CBD treatment has an effect on
the elevated neural noise observed in acute schizophrenia, has not been reported thus far.
Future studies that integrate psychophysiological measures of neural noise may shed further
light on the potential neural mechanisms by which CBD exerts its antipsychotic effects in
specific subpopulations of psychosis.
Possible Mechanisms of CBD Antagonism of THC-Induced Psychotomimetic Effects:
Several pre-clinical and clinical studies have demonstrated opposing effect of CBD on specific
THC-induced behavioral, cognitive, and biological outcomes. The opposing effects of THC and
CBD on human cognition has been extensively reviewed (5, 6, 62) and the opposing effects on
13 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
specific cognitive domains are possibly mediated via differential effects of these compounds on
functional connectivity between prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and dorsal striatum (63). We
discuss findings from preclinical, molecular, human imaging studies relevant to the opposing
effects of CBD on THC-induced psychotomimetic effects. In rodents, co-administration of CBD
has been demonstrated to attenuate acute THC-induced c-Fos expression in multiple brain
regions (48). c-Fos is one of the immediate early genes with altered expression during learning
and memory and has also been proposed to be a biomarker of schizophrenia (64, 65). More
relevant to the timescale of the psychotomimetic response to THC, acute intra-PFC infusion of
CBD has been shown to reverse the cognitive impairments caused by glutamatergic
antagonism suggesting that the therapeutic effects of CBD may be relevant only during
pathologically aberrant states (47). In contrast, striatal glutamate increase has been shown in
human studies to be a marker of THC-induced acute psychotomimetic response (66). More
recently, a regional specificity in THC-CBD interaction relevant to alleviation of psychotomimetic
response has been demonstrated by Wall et al (67). Using resting state functional magnetic
resonance imaging, the authors noted that CBD:THC combination resulted in alleviation of THC
induced functional connectivity disruption, specifically in the limbic sub-division of the striatum
but not in the associative and sensorimotor sub-striatal networks (67). Taken together, the
findings suggest that restoring cortical-striatal balance of glutamatergic tone may be a potential
underlying mechanism of CBD action in attenuating THC-induced acute psychotomimetic
response.
CBD has been demonstrated to act via various receptor and enzymatic mechanisms in several
biological pathways. In addition to CB1 receptors, CBD has been shown to have effects on the
Adenosine receptor A2A and 5 hydroxy tryptamine receptor 1A (5HT-1A), GPR 55, and several
receptors of the TRPV family in the brain (68-70). However, the antagonism of THC induced
psychotomimetic effects by CBD is possibly mediated through negative allosteric modulation of
14 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
CB1 receptor (70). The precise mechanisms of THC and CBD interactions at the receptor level
in the brain still needs to be characterized in future studies that employ both human receptor
imaging studies as well as preclinical studies that permit in vivo assay of molecular and
neurochemical alterations under simultaneous drug exposure conditions.
Clinical and Public Health Relevance of the Findings: The results of our human laboratory
study align with and confirm some of the previous findings in epidemiological studies on the
effect of CBD content in cannabis on psychotic experience in the community. Morgan and
Curran analyzed hair samples in 140 individuals and noted higher schizophrenia-like positive
symptoms in persons with THC-alone detected in hair samples compared to persons with both
THC and CBD (71). In another study, Morgan et al, demonstrated that compared to low
CBD:THC (~ 1:100) cannabis users, high CBD:THC (~1:3) cannabis users had reduced
attentional bias towards food and drug stimuli. However, there were no differences between the
groups in the subjective feeling of being ‘stoned’ (72). The authors suggested that relatively
higher CBD:THC ratio may a have protective effect against developing cannabis dependence.
Schubart et al have also reported an inverse relationship between CBD content and the severity
of positive psychotic experiences in a large Dutch community study. Interestingly, highest CBD
concentration that the authors noted in their sample was CBD:THC of 1:2 and the lowest being
1: 81.5 (73). Taken together, the results of our investigation and these naturalistic studies
suggest that relatively higher CBD:THC ratio up to 1:1 may optimally protect against
psychotomimetic and dependence forming effects while minimally affecting the subjective
affective experiences of THC in cannabis. This hypothesis needs further investigation and has
the potential to inform harm reduction strategies and regulations for marketing of cannabis with
specific CBD:THC ratios especially given the increasing legalization of recreational cannabis
and medicinal cannabinoids in the US and the rest of the world. The attenuation of
psychotomimetic effects of THC at 1:1 ratio of CBD:THC is of particular interest as this is the
15 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
ratio of CBD:THC in the currently approved nabiximol preparations for the treatment of spasticity
in Multiple Sclerosis (74, 75).
A few limitations should be considered while interpreting the results of our study. The dose
related effects of CBD (phase 2) were tested in a small sub-sample of subjects. Although we
observed a large and significant effect for CBD attenuation of THC psychotomimetic symptoms
and neural noise at the lowest dose (1:1) tested, this needs to be replicated in a larger study
perhaps with a wider dose range CBD:THC ratios ( for instance ratios <1). Although consistent
with some population-based studies, the generalizability of these results to the effects of
cannabis exposure in the real-world setting remains complicated by the potential moderating
effect of other phyto-cannabinoids and chemical compounds in herbal cannabis. Further, IV
administration of THC and CBD, chosen for more precise and reliable delivery of these
compounds limits the generalizability to the typical smoked or oral routes of cannabis
consumption. This study focused on specific psychosis related behavioral and
psychophysiological interactions of CBD and THC. A recent study has demonstrated a
significant impairment in driving performance up to 2 hours after administration of CBD:THC
(1:1) cannabis (76). Thus, despite potential benefits of 1:1 CBD:THC ratio on psychosis
outcomes, a wider range of motor and real-life performance effects warrants further study.
Finally, future studies need to examine repeated or chronic dosing effects of CBD and THC
combinations to fully understand the range of interactions in humans.
Conclusions: CBD attenuates THC-induced psychotomimetic symptoms in healthy humans
and the effect is more notable in those who develop a robust psychotomimetic response with
THC. Further, amongst the CBD:THC dose ratios studied, a 1:1 ratio produces maximal
attenuation of psychotomimetic effects compared to 2:1 and 3:1 with an inverse linear dose
response. The attenuation of psychotomimetic symptoms is mirrored by a similar attenuation of
THC-induced increase in neural noise, an electrophysiological biomarker of psychosis. Lastly,
16 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
none of the CBD doses tested resulted in attenuation of the THC-induced subjective experience
of ‘high’. Future studies in larger samples with a wider range of dose ratios and longer dosing
paradigms are needed to systematically examine the spectrum of interactive effects between
CBD and THC.
Online methods
Study Design: This was a two-phase, double-blind, randomized, counterbalanced, placebo-
controlled cross-over trial. In phase-1, all subjects participated in the four test days where they
received one of 4 drug conditions (Placebo, THC [0.035mg/Kg; ~2.5mg in a 70kg individual],
CBD 5mg, THC ~2.5mg + CBD 5 mg) on each test day separated by at least 3 days. Subjective,
behavioral, physiological, and EEG data were collected before and at several time points after
drug administration on each test day. In phase-2, a subsample of subjects from phase-1
participated in two additional test-days to specifically examine the interactions of THC with two
additional doses of CBD (THC ~2.5mg + CBD 2.5 mg, THC ~2.5mg + CBD 7.5 mg). A
representation of the study design is presented in supplementary figure 1. The study protocol
was approved by the Human Investigations Committee at the Yale University and the Human
Subjects Study committee of the VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS). The study was
carried out at the Neurobiological studies unit of the VACHS under an existing IND for the
administration of THC (#51671) and CBD (#101185).
Participants: The subjects consisted of 28 (13 females) healthy volunteers recruited using
methods consistent with our previous HLS (77, 78). After obtaining written informed consent,
subjects underwent a detailed medical and psychiatric evaluation, laboratory tests,
electrocardiogram, and urine toxicology. Structured Clinical Interview (SCID) for DSM-IV (non-
17 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
patient) for healthy controls was conducted to exclude psychiatric diagnoses. General
intelligence was assessed with National Adult Reading Test. Subjects were asked to explicitly
consent to identifying a collateral informant for verification of inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Cannabis naïve individuals were excluded from the study to avoid the theoretical risk of de novo
exposure in the laboratory. Similarly, subjects with major DSM IV axis 1 disorders were
excluded to avoid the potential risk of illness exacerbation.
Drugs - THC Dose, Rate, and Route of Administration: The route, dose, and rate of
administration of THC influence its behavioral and cognitive effects (78). The THC doses used
in our studies (78) produced blood levels comparable to those achieved by recreational
cannabis use and mimic the time course of plasma THC levels associated with the clinical “high”
from smoking 0.5-1.5 of a standard NIDA cannabis cigarette (79-81). Even with standardized-
pace smoking procedures, subjects are still able to titrate the dose of cannabinoids they receive
and in doing so, negate attempts to deliver a uniform dose (82). The IV route of administration
was chosen to reduce inter and intra-individual variability in plasma THC levels with the inhaled
route and to mimic the time course of plasma THC levels associated with the clinical “high” (78).
The dose chosen for this study was based on several previous studies conducted by our group
and has been demonstrated to be well tolerated by subjects while producing transient but
reliable psychotomimetic effects (83). THC [0.035 mg/kg (~ 2.5 mg in a 70 kg individual)], was
administered IV over 20 minutes into a rapidly flowing infusion of normal saline. Similar doses in
previous studies have produced clinically and statistically significant behavioral and cognitive
effects. Placebo administration involved an equal volume - 2ml of 190 proof ethanol.
CBD Dose, Rate, and Route of Administration: In experimental studies, CBD has been safely
administered to healthy humans in doses ranging from 15 mg to 600mg (oral) per day (20, 84-
97) alone and in combination with THC and is known to have been tolerated well with no
significant adverse effects. Previous studies have also demonstrated that IV CBD is well
18 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
tolerated at the dose ranges used in this study (2.5 – 7.5 mg), and have produced effects
similar to oral CBD (23). While most studies have administered CBD orally, the low and
variable oral bioavailability of CBD presents a limitation. For instance, the oral absorption of
CBD of 600 mg produces plasma levels of 4.7 (SD=7) and 17 (SD=29) ng/ml at 1 and 2 hours
post-administration, respectively (22). Thus, in this study 3 active doses of IV CBD were
administered, on separate test days. In an average weighing individual, the three doses of
CBD, 2.5mg, 5mg, and 7.5mg IV, resulted in CBD:THC ratios equivalent to 1:1, 2:1, and 3:1,
respectively. Additional details regarding the source, preparation, storage, stability, and
quantitative analysis of cannabidiol doses are presented in the supplementary methods.
Test-Day Procedures: An overview of the schedule of test-days is presented in supplementary
table 1. Subjects were instructed to fast overnight and to report to the test facility at 8 am.
Subjects were not permitted to drive to and from the test facility. Exclusions (like urine drug and
pregnancy test) were confirmed on each test morning. IV lines were inserted, and baseline
behavioral, subjective, physiological, and neurochemical assessments described below were
collected. CBD (active or placebo) was administered over 2 minutes immediately followed by
THC (active or placebo) through an IV line over 20 minutes. Outcome measures were repeated
periodically as described below and enumerated in supplementary table 1.
Behavioral and Subjective Measures
Psychosis and perceptual alterations: Positive, negative, and general symptoms were
assessed using the positive, negative, and general symptoms subscales of the Positive and
Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (98). Perceptual alterations were measured using the
Clinician Administered Dissociative Symptoms Scale (CADSS) (99). The CADSS is a scale
consisting of 19 self-report items and 8 clinician-rated items (0 = not at all, 4 = extremely) that
we have previously shown to be sensitive to the psychotomimetic effects of THC (78) (fig. 1).
19 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
The scale captures alterations in environmental/time/body perception, feelings of unreality, and
memory impairment.
Subjective Effects of Cannabis: Feeling states associated with cannabis intoxication were
measured using a self-reported visual analog scale of four feeling states (“high” and “anxious”)
associated with cannabis effects (99-101). Subjects were asked to score the perceived intensity
of their current feeling states by making a mark on a 100 mm line printed on a paper sheet (0
mm from the line’s left end = ‘not at all’; 100 mm from the left = ‘extremely’). These data were
captured to validate that the experiment is relevant to cannabis effects and to determine how
CBD pretreatment alters the subjective effects of THC.
Long-term follow-up of cannabis use: Subjects were evaluated 1 and 3 months after study
completion to document whether study participation altered future cannabis consumption (78).
EEG Paradigm and Data Acquisition
Electroencephalography (EEG) data were recorded at the scalp using a 64-channel (extended
10-20 system) ActiveTwo Biosemi system (Biosemi B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands) at a sampling
rate of 1024 Hz with an on-line low-pass filter of 256 Hz to prevent aliasing of high frequencies.
All electrodes were referenced during recording to a common-mode signal (CMS) electrode
between and then subsequently re-referenced to the nose offline.
During recordings, subjects were seated in a comfortable chair in front of a monitor in a
darkened, sound-attenuated, electromagnetically shielded booth while listening to auditory
stimuli were delivered through via insert earphones (Etymotic Research, Inc., Elk Grove Village,
IL, USA) as part of an auditory oddball task described elsewhere (102, 103). Briefly, the task
consisted of a series of frequent (83.33%) ‘standard’ tones, infrequent (8.33%) ‘target’ tones,
and infrequent (8.33%) task-irrelevant ‘novel’ distractor sounds presented with a 1250 ms
stimulus onset asynchrony in three separate blocks of 180 stimuli each. Standard tones were
500 ms in duration, target tones were 500 ms in duration, and novel distractor sounds ranged
20 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
between 175 and 250 ms in duration. All stimuli were presented binaurally using an intensity of
80 dB SPL (C weighting). The task was presented using Presentation software
(Neurobehavioral Systems, Berkeley, CA, USA). EEG collection was continuously monitored on
a screen outside the recording booth to detect drowsiness. Only EEG data preceding each
stimulus were used for neural noise (LZC) estimation.
EEG Preprocessing
In order to minimize the confounding effects that artifactual contamination could have on
measuring neural noise in EEG signals, raw data were cleaned and only Cz was used for
analyses, given that this electrode tends to be the least contaminated by artifactual noise
resulting from muscle activity (104). Raw EEG data were preprocessed following standard
procedures as described elsewhere (51, 103). Briefly, EEG data were band-pass filtered (0.5-
100Hz) with a windowed sinc FIR filter (-6dB/Hz), 60Hz line noise was removed using a multi-
tapering technique (105), muscle artifacts were cleaned using a canonical correlation analysis-
based blind source separation technique (106), and eye movement and blink artifacts were
removed with an adaptive filtering technique (107). Data were segmented in 1250ms epochs
time-locked to stimulation onset, with a 250ms pre-stimulus baseline. A ±95 μV criterion was
used to remove bad trials.
Neural Noise (LZC) Computation:
Following previous work from our group on the psychotic-like effects of THC (51), we calculated
neural noise (LZC) on the pre-stimulus (-250s to -1ms) preparatory baseline period of each trial
of an P300 oddball task. In that study, we showed that LZC during each trial’s the
expectation/focused attention period was strongly related to the psychotomimetic effects of THC
(51). The calculation of LZC of a real-valued signal requires to encode it into a symbolic
sequence. Following previous work (51), we used the median-crossing approach which is robust
21 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
against outliers to binarize the pre-stimulus segment (-250ms to -1ms) of each trial’s EEG signal
at Cz. LZC was calculated using Lempel and Ziv’s exhaustive parsing algorithm (52) and then
normalized between 0 and 1. Each subject’s LZC value was obtained by averaging LZC across
trials. EEG analyses were conducted using Matlab 2020b (MathWorks, Natick, MA,USA)
custom scripts and the EEGLab toolbox (108).
Statistical Analyses:
The distribution of each outcome variable was visually examined for normality with histogram,
box, and whisker plot and normality was tested using Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics. The
behavioral and subjective data (PANSS, CADSS, VAS feeling states) were examined as the
change from baseline at post-infusion 15 minutes (P15) time-point, as both the physiological
and psychological effects of THC have been shown to peak around this time in IV infusion
studies (78). This time-point was also closest to the post-infusion EEG measure at +25 minutes.
The PANSS positive symptoms, VAS high, and EEG neural noise (LZC) were tested as the
primary outcomes and the remaining PANSS measures, CADSS patient and clinician rated
scores, VAS scores and physiological measures of outcome (pulse, blood pressure) were
examined as secondary outcomes. The effects of treatment condition on the outcome measures
were tested using linear mixed model with treatment as a within subject fixed factor and subject
ID included in the model as a random variable. For the analysis of phase-1 data, the drug-
condition factor involved four levels (Placebo, THC, CBD, CBD:THC-2:1) and in phase-2 it
involved testing two additional levels in a subsample of participants (CBD:THC-1:1 CBD:THC-
3:1). As previously described (40, 109), we examined the CBD attenuation of positive symptoms
in a subsample of “THC-responders”, i.e. those who had a clinically significant psychotomimetic
response to THC, defined as a change in PANSS positive score ≥ +3 with THC alone in phase-
1. In the event of non-normal distribution of outcome residuals or a singular model fit due to
22 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
invariant variance-covariance structure, non-parametric model for the analysis of factorial
experiments (Brunner et al, 2002) (110) was used to examine the drug-condition effects. Both
these models offer the advantage of greater flexibility in fitting correlated factor structure in
repeated measures and are optimal when data are missing at random. Further, the latter non-
parametric models are also robust for smaller sample sizes (111-113). Post-hoc comparisons
were defined a priori for the comparison between THC and CBD:THC-2:1 condition in the
analysis of phase-1 data and between THC and the three different CBD doses in the CBD:THC
combinations for the analysis of phase-2 data. Bonferroni corrections were applied for multiple
comparisons within outcome domains. The relationship between CBD attenuation of THC-
induced positive symptoms and neural noise was visually examined with scatter plots and the
relationship was measured using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Data were plotted and
analyzed in R version 4.0.1 (R: A language and environment for statistical computing) using
packages Tidyverse (114), lme4 (115), lmerTest (116), and nparLD (113).
23 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
References:
1. Bonini SA, Premoli M, Tambaro S, Kumar A, Maccarinelli G, Memo M, et al. (2018): Cannabis sativa: A comprehensive ethnopharmacological review of a medicinal plant with a long history. J Ethnopharmacol. 227:300-315. 2. Radhakrishnan R, Wilkinson ST, D’Souza DC (2014): Gone to Pot – A Review of the Association between Cannabis and Psychosis. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 5:54. 3. SAMHSA (2011): Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. In: Administration SAaMHS, editor. Rockville, MD. 4. ElSohly MA, Radwan MM, Gul W, Chandra S, Galal A (2017): Phytochemistry of Cannabis sativa L. Prog Chem Org Nat Prod. 103:1-36. 5. Boggs DL, Nguyen JD, Morgenson D, Taffe MA, Ranganathan M (2018): Clinical and Preclinical Evidence for Functional Interactions of Cannabidiol and Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol. Neuropsychopharmacology. 43:142-154. 6. Colizzi M, Ruggeri M, Bhattacharyya S (2020): Unraveling the Intoxicating and Therapeutic Effects of Cannabis Ingredients on Psychosis and Cognition. Front Psychol. 11:833. 7. Adams IB, Martin BR (1999): Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction. 91:1585-1614. 8. Hollister LE (1986): Health aspects of cannabis. Pharmacol Rev. 38:1-20. 9. Iversen L (2003): Cannabis and the brain. Brain. 126:1252-1270. 10. D'Souza DC, Fridberg DJ, Skosnik PD, Williams A, Roach B, Singh N, et al. (2012): Dose-Related Modulation of Event-Related Potentials to Novel and Target Stimuli by Intravenous [Delta]9-THC in Humans. Neuropsychopharmacology. 37:1632-1646. 11. D'Souza DC, Perry E, MacDougall L, Ammerman Y, Cooper T, Wu Y-t, et al. (2004): The psychotomimetic effects of intravenous delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in healthy individuals: implications for psychosis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 29:1558-1572. 12. Ranganathan M, D’Souza D (2006): The acute effects of cannabinoids on memory in humans: a review. Psychopharmacology. 188:425-444. 13. Ranganathan M, Radhakrishnan R, Addy PH, Schnakenberg-Martin AM, Williams AH, Carbuto M, et al. (2017): Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) impairs encoding but not retrieval of verbal information. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. 79:176-183. 14. McDonald J, Schleifer L, Richards JB, de Wit H (2003): Effects of THC on behavioral measures of impulsivity in humans. Neuropsychopharmacology. 28:1356.
24 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
15. Ramaekers JG, Moeller M, van Ruitenbeek P, Theunissen EL, Schneider E, Kauert G (2006): Cognition and motor control as a function of Δ 9-THC concentration in serum and oral fluid: limits of impairment. Drug and alcohol dependence. 85:114-122. 16. Sherif M, Radhakrishnan R, D'Souza DC, Ranganathan M (2016): Human Laboratory Studies on Cannabinoids and Psychosis. Biol Psychiatry. 79:526-538. 17. de Souza Crippa JA, Zuardi AW, Garrido GE, Wichert-Ana L, Guarnieri R, Ferrari L, et al. (2004): Effects of cannabidiol (CBD) on regional cerebral blood flow. Neuropsychopharmacology. 29:417-426. 18. Skelley JW, Deas CM, Curren Z, Ennis J (2019): Use of cannabidiol in anxiety and anxiety-related disorders. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 19. Atakan Z (2012): Cannabis, a complex plant: different compounds and different effects on individuals. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2:241-254. 20. Borgwardt SJ, Allen P, Bhattacharyya S, Fusar-Poli P, Crippa JA, Seal ML, et al. (2008): Neural basis of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol: effects during response inhibition. Biol Psychiatry. 64:966-973. 21. Millar SA, Stone NL, Yates AS, O'Sullivan SE (2018): A Systematic Review on the Pharmacokinetics of Cannabidiol in Humans. Front Pharmacol. 9:1365. 22. Fusar-Poli P, Crippa JA, Bhattacharyya S, Borgwardt SJ, Allen P, Martin-Santos R, et al. (2009): Distinct effects of {delta}9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on neural activation during emotional processing. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 66:95-105. 23. Bhattacharyya S, Morrison PD, Fusar-Poli P, Martin-Santos R, Borgwardt S, Winton-Brown T, et al. (2010): Opposite effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on human brain function and psychopathology. Neuropsychopharmacology. 35:764-774. 24. Russo E, Guy GW (2006): A tale of two cannabinoids: the therapeutic rationale for combining tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Med Hypotheses. 66:234-246. 25. Long LE, Malone DT, Taylor DA (2006): Cannabidiol reverses MK-801-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology. 31:795-803. 26. Skosnik PD, Hajós M, Cortes-Briones JA, Edwards CR, Pittman BP, Hoffmann WE, et al. (2018): Cannabinoid receptor-mediated disruption of sensory gating and neural oscillations: a translational study in rats and humans. Neuropharmacology. 135:412-423. 27. Zuardi AW, Crippa JA, Hallak JE, Moreira FA, Guimaraes FS (2006): Cannabidiol, a Cannabis sativa constituent, as an antipsychotic drug. Braz J Med Biol Res. 39:421-429. 28. Boggs DL, Surti T, Gupta A, Gupta S, Niciu M, Pittman B, et al. (2018): The effects of cannabidiol (CBD) on cognition and symptoms in outpatients with chronic schizophrenia a randomized placebo controlled trial. Psychopharmacology. 235:1923-1932. 29. Zuardi AW, Crippa J, Hallak J, Bhattacharyya S, Atakan Z, Martin-Santos R, et al. (2012): A critical review of the antipsychotic effects of cannabidiol: 30 years of a translational investigation. Curr Pharm Des. 18:5131-5140. 30. Zuardi AW, Hallak JE, Dursun SM, Morais SL, Sanches RF, Musty RE, et al. (2006): Cannabidiol monotherapy for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Journal of Psychopharmacology. 20:683-686. 31. Leweke F, Piomelli D, Pahlisch F, Muhl D, Gerth C, Hoyer C, et al. (2012): Cannabidiol enhances anandamide signaling and alleviates psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia. Translational psychiatry. 2:e94-e94. 32. McGuire P, Robson P, Cubala WJ, Vasile D, Morrison PD, Barron R, et al. (2018): Cannabidiol (CBD) as an adjunctive therapy in schizophrenia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Psychiatry. 175:225-231. 33. Wilson R, Bossong MG, Appiah-Kusi E, Petros N, Brammer M, Perez J, et al. (2019): Cannabidiol attenuates insular dysfunction during motivational salience processing in subjects at clinical high risk for psychosis. Translational psychiatry. 9:1-10.
25 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
34. Di Forti M, Marconi A, Carra E, Fraietta S, Trotta A, Bonomo M, et al. (2015): Proportion of patients in south London with first-episode psychosis attributable to use of high potency cannabis: a case-control study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2:233-238. 35. Di Forti M, Morgan C, Dazzan P, Pariante C, Mondelli V, Marques TR, et al. (2009): High-potency cannabis and the risk of psychosis. British Journal of Psychiatry. 195:488-491. 36. Di Forti M, Sallis H, Allegri F, Trotta A, Ferraro L, Stilo SA, et al. (2014): Daily Use, Especially of High-Potency Cannabis, Drives the Earlier Onset of Psychosis in Cannabis Users. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 40:1509-1517. 37. Bhattacharyya S, Morrison PD, Fusar-Poli P, Martin-Santos R, Borgwardt S, Winton-Brown T, et al. (2010): Opposite effects of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on human brain function and psychopathology. Neuropsychopharmacology. 35:764-774. 38. Englund A, Morrison PD, Nottage J, Hague D, Kane F, Bonaccorso S, et al. (2013): Cannabidiol inhibits THC-elicited paranoid symptoms and hippocampal-dependent memory impairment. Journal of psychopharmacology. 27:19-27. 39. Solowij N, Broyd S, Greenwood L-m, van Hell H, Martelozzo D, Rueb K, et al. (2019): A randomised controlled trial of vaporised Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol alone and in combination in frequent and infrequent cannabis users: acute intoxication effects. European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience. 269:17-35. 40. Englund A, Morrison PD, Nottage J, Hague D, Kane F, Bonaccorso S, et al. (2013): Cannabidiol inhibits THC-elicited paranoid symptoms and hippocampal-dependent memory impairment. J Psychopharmacol. 27:19-27. 41. Hindocha C, Freeman TP, Schafer G, Gardener C, Das RK, Morgan CJ, et al. (2015): Acute effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and their combination on facial emotion recognition: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in cannabis users. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 25:325-334. 42. Haney M, Malcolm RJ, Babalonis S, Nuzzo PA, Cooper ZD, Bedi G, et al. (2016): Oral Cannabidiol does not Alter the Subjective, Reinforcing or Cardiovascular Effects of Smoked Cannabis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 41:1974-1982. 43. Solowij N, Broyd S, Greenwood LM, van Hell H, Martelozzo D, Rueb K, et al. (2019): A randomised controlled trial of vaporised Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol alone and in combination in frequent and infrequent cannabis users: acute intoxication effects. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 269:17-35. 44. Skosnik PD, Hajos M, Cortes-Briones JA, Edwards CR, Pittman BP, Hoffmann WE, et al. (2018): Cannabinoid receptor-mediated disruption of sensory gating and neural oscillations: A translational study in rats and humans. Neuropharmacology. 135:412-423. 45. Jacobs DS, Kohut SJ, Jiang S, Nikas SP, Makriyannis A, Bergman J (2016): Acute and chronic effects of cannabidiol on Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(9)-THC)-induced disruption in stop signal task performance. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 24:320-330. 46. Wright MJ, Jr., Vandewater SA, Taffe MA (2013): Cannabidiol attenuates deficits of visuospatial associative memory induced by Delta(9) tetrahydrocannabinol. Br J Pharmacol. 170:1365-1373. 47. Szkudlarek HJ, Desai SJ, Renard J, Pereira B, Norris C, Jobson CEL, et al. (2019): Delta-9- Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol produce dissociable effects on prefrontal cortical executive function and regulation of affective behaviors. Neuropsychopharmacology. 44:817-825. 48. Todd SM, Arnold JC (2016): Neural correlates of interactions between cannabidiol and Delta(9) - tetrahydrocannabinol in mice: implications for medical cannabis. Br J Pharmacol. 173:53-65. 49. Todd SM, Zhou C, Clarke DJ, Chohan TW, Bahceci D, Arnold JC (2017): Interactions between cannabidiol and Delta(9)-THC following acute and repeated dosing: Rebound hyperactivity,
26 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
sensorimotor gating and epigenetic and neuroadaptive changes in the mesolimbic pathway. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 27:132-145. 50. Varvel SA, Wiley JL, Yang R, Bridgen DT, Long K, Lichtman AH, et al. (2006): Interactions between THC and cannabidiol in mouse models of cannabinoid activity. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 186:226-234. 51. Cortes-Briones JA, Cahill JD, Skosnik PD, Mathalon DH, Williams A, Sewell RA, et al. (2015): The psychosis-like effects of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol are associated with increased cortical noise in healthy humans. Biol Psychiatry. 78:805-813. 52. Lempel A, Ziv J (1976): On the Complexity of Finite Sequences. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. 22:75-81. 53. Li Y, Tong S, Liu D, Gai Y, Wang X, Wang J, et al. (2008): Abnormal EEG complexity in patients with schizophrenia and depression. Clin Neurophysiol. 119:1232-1241. 54. Fernandez A, Lopez-Ibor MI, Turrero A, Santos JM, Moron MD, Hornero R, et al. (2011): Lempel- Ziv complexity in schizophrenia: a MEG study. Clin Neurophysiol. 122:2227-2235. 55. Fernandez A, Gomez C, Hornero R, Lopez-Ibor JJ (2013): Complexity and schizophrenia. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 45:267-276. 56. Perucca E, Bialer M (2020): Critical Aspects Affecting Cannabidiol Oral Bioavailability and Metabolic Elimination, and Related Clinical Implications. CNS Drugs. 34:795-800. 57. Linares IM, Zuardi AW, Pereira LC, Queiroz RH, Mechoulam R, Guimaraes FS, et al. (2019): Cannabidiol presents an inverted U-shaped dose-response curve in a simulated public speaking test. Braz J Psychiatry. 41:9-14. 58. McGuire P, Robson P, Cubala WJ, Vasile D, Morrison PD, Barron R, et al. (2018): Cannabidiol (CBD) as an Adjunctive Therapy in Schizophrenia: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Psychiatry. 175:225-231. 59. Boggs DL, Surti T, Gupta A, Gupta S, Niciu M, Pittman B, et al. (2018): The effects of cannabidiol (CBD) on cognition and symptoms in outpatients with chronic schizophrenia a randomized placebo controlled trial. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 235:1923-1932. 60. Bhattacharyya S, Wilson R, Appiah-Kusi E, O'Neill A, Brammer M, Perez J, et al. (2018): Effect of Cannabidiol on Medial Temporal, Midbrain, and Striatal Dysfunction in People at Clinical High Risk of Psychosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 75:1107-1117. 61. Leweke FM, Piomelli D, Pahlisch F, Muhl D, Gerth CW, Hoyer C, et al. (2012): Cannabidiol enhances anandamide signaling and alleviates psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia. Transl Psychiatry. 2:e94. 62. Colizzi M, Bhattacharyya S (2017): Does Cannabis Composition Matter? Differential Effects of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol on Human Cognition. Curr Addict Rep. 4:62-74. 63. Bhattacharyya S, Falkenberg I, Martin-Santos R, Atakan Z, Crippa JA, Giampietro V, et al. (2015): Cannabinoid modulation of functional connectivity within regions processing attentional salience. Neuropsychopharmacology. 40:1343-1352. 64. Gallo FT, Katche C, Morici JF, Medina JH, Weisstaub NV (2018): Immediate Early Genes, Memory and Psychiatric Disorders: Focus on c-Fos, Egr1 and Arc. Front Behav Neurosci. 12:79. 65. Huang J, Liu F, Wang B, Tang H, Teng Z, Li L, et al. (2019): Central and Peripheral Changes in FOS Expression in Schizophrenia Based on Genome-Wide Gene Expression. Frontiers in Genetics. 10. 66. Colizzi M, Weltens N, McGuire P, Lythgoe D, Williams S, Van Oudenhove L, et al. (2020): Delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol increases striatal glutamate levels in healthy individuals: implications for psychosis. Molecular Psychiatry. 25:3231-3240. 67. Wall MB, Freeman TP, Hindocha C, Demetriou L, Ertl N, Freeman AM, et al. (2020): Individual and combined effects of Cannabidiol (CBD) and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on striato-cortical connectivity in the human brain. bioRxiv.2020.2011.2020.391805.
27 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
68. Cristino L, Bisogno T, Di Marzo V (2020): Cannabinoids and the expanded endocannabinoid system in neurological disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 16:9-29. 69. Di Marzo V (2018): New approaches and challenges to targeting the endocannabinoid system. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 17:623-639. 70. Turner SE, Williams CM, Iversen L, Whalley BJ (2017): Molecular Pharmacology of Phytocannabinoids. Prog Chem Org Nat Prod. 103:61-101. 71. Morgan CJ, Curran HV (2008): Effects of cannabidiol on schizophrenia-like symptoms in people who use cannabis. Br J Psychiatry. 192:306-307. 72. Morgan CJA, Freeman TP, Schafer GL, Curran HV (2010): Cannabidiol Attenuates the Appetitive Effects of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in Humans Smoking Their Chosen Cannabis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 35:1879-1885. 73. Schubart CD, Sommer IEC, van Gastel WA, Goetgebuer RL, Kahn RS, Boks MPM (2011): Cannabis with high cannabidiol content is associated with fewer psychotic experiences. Schizophrenia Research. 130:216-221. 74. Barnes MP (2006): Sativex: clinical efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of symptoms of multiple sclerosis and neuropathic pain. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 7:607-615. 75. Giacoppo S, Bramanti P, Mazzon E (2017): Sativex in the management of multiple sclerosis- related spasticity: An overview of the last decade of clinical evaluation. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 17:22- 31. 76. Arkell TR, Vinckenbosch F, Kevin RC, Theunissen EL, McGregor IS, Ramaekers JG (2020): Effect of Cannabidiol and Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on Driving Performance: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 324:2177-2186. 77. Cortes-Briones JA, Cahill JD, Ranganathan M, Sewell RA, D'Souza DC, Skosnik PD (2015): Testing differences in the activity of event-related potential sources: important implications for clinical researchers. Clin Neurophysiol. 126:215-218. 78. D'Souza DC, Perry E, MacDougall L, Ammerman Y, Cooper T, Wu YT, et al. (2004): The psychotomimetic effects of intravenous delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in healthy individuals: implications for psychosis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 29:1558-1572. 79. Agurell S, Halldin M, Lindgren JE, Ohlsson A, Widman M, Gillespie H, et al. (1986): Pharmacokinetics and metabolism of delta 1-tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids with emphasis on man. Pharmacological Reviews. 38:21-43. 80. Ohlsson A, Lindgren JE, Wahlen A, Agurell S, Hollister LE, Gillespie HK (1980): Plasma delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations and clinical effects after oral and intravenous administration and smoking. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 28:409-416. 81. Lindgren JE, Ohlsson A, Agurell S, Hollister L, Gillespie H (1981): Clinical effects and plasma levels of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta 9-THC) in heavy and light users of cannabis. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 74:208-212. 82. Ilan AB, Gevins A, Coleman M, ElSohly MA, de Wit H (2005): Neurophysiological and subjective profile of marijuana with varying concentrations of cannabinoids. Behav Pharmacol. 16:487-496. 83. Ganesh S, Cortes-Briones J, Ranganathan M, Radhakrishnan R, Skosnik PD, D'Souza DC (2020): Psychosis-relevant effects of intravenous delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol - A mega analysis of individual participant-data from human laboratory studies. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 84. Agurell S, Carlsson S, Lindgren JE, Ohlsson A, Gillespie H, Hollister L (1981): Interactions of delta 1-tetrahydrocannabinol with cannabinol and cannabidiol following oral administration in man. Assay of cannabinol and cannabidiol by mass fragmentography. Experientia. 37:1090-1092. 85. Belgrave BE, Bird KD, Chesher GB, Jackson DM, Lubbe KE, Starmer GA, et al. (1979): The effect of cannabidiol, alone and in combination with ethanol, on human performance. Psychopharmacology. 64:243-246.
28 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
86. Bhattacharya SK (1986): delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) increases brain prostaglandins in the rat. Psychopharmacology. 90:499-502. 87. Carlini EA, Cunha JM (1981): Hypnotic and antiepileptic effects of cannabidiol. J Clin Pharmacol. 21:417S-427S. 88. Consroe P, Carlini EA, Zwicker AP, Lacerda LA (1979): Interaction of cannabidiol and alcohol in humans. Psychopharmacology. 66:45-50. 89. Crippa JA, Zuardi AW, Garrido GE, Wichert-Ana L, Guarnieri R, Ferrari L, et al. (2004): Effects of cannabidiol (CBD) on regional cerebral blood flow. Neuropsychopharmacology. 29:417-426. 90. Cunha JM, Carlini EA, Pereira AE, Ramos OL, Pimentel C, Gagliardi R, et al. (1980): Chronic administration of cannabidiol to healthy volunteers and epileptic patients. Pharmacology. 21:175-185. 91. Fusar-Poli P, Allen P, Bhattacharyya S, Crippa JA, Mechelli A, Borgwardt S, et al. (2009): Modulation of effective connectivity during emotional processing by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol.1-12. 92. Hunt CA, Jones RT, Herning RI, Bachman J (1981): Evidence that cannabidiol does not significantly alter the pharmacokinetics of tetrahydrocannabinol in man. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 9:245-260. 93. Karniol IG, Shirakawa I, Kasinski N, Pfeferman A, Carlini EA (1974): Cannabidiol interferes with the effects of delta 9 - tetrahydrocannabinol in man. Eur J Pharmacol. 28:172-177. 94. Nicholson AN, Turner C, Stone BM, Robson PJ (2004): Effect of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on nocturnal sleep and early-morning behavior in young adults. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 24:305-313. 95. Ohlsson A, Lindgren JE, Andersson S, Agurell S, Gillespie H, Hollister LE (1986): Single-dose kinetics of deuterium-labelled cannabidiol in man after smoking and intravenous administration. Biomed Environ Mass Spectrom. 13:77-83. 96. Zuardi AW, Guimaraes FS, Moreira AC (1993): Effect of cannabidiol on plasma prolactin, growth hormone and cortisol in human volunteers. Braz J Med Biol Res. 26:213-217. 97. Zuardi AW, Shirakawa I, Finkelfarb E, Karniol IG (1982): Action of cannabidiol on the anxiety and other effects produced by delta 9-THC in normal subjects. Psychopharmacology. 76:245-250. 98. Kay SR, Opler LA, Lindenmayer JP (1989): The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS): rationale and standardisation. British Journal of Psychiatry - Supplementum.59-67. 99. Bremner JD, Krystal JH, Putnam FW, Southwick SM, Marmar C, Charney DS, et al. (1998): Measurement of dissociative states with the Clinician-Administered Dissociative States Scale (CADSS). Journal of Traumatic Stress. 11:125-136. 100. Haertzen CA (1966): Development of scales based on patterns of drug effects, using the addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI). Psychological Reports. 18:163-194. 101. Haertzen CA (1965): Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI): development of a general drug estimation scale. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease. 141:300-307. 102. D'Souza DC, Fridberg DJ, Skosnik PD, Williams A, Roach B, Singh N, et al. (2012): Dose-related modulation of event-related potentials to novel and target stimuli by intravenous Delta(9)-THC in humans. Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 37:1632-1646. 103. Cortes-Briones J, Skosnik PD, Mathalon D, Cahill J, Pittman B, Williams A, et al. (2015): Delta9- THC Disrupts Gamma (gamma)-Band Neural Oscillations in Humans. Neuropsychopharmacology. 40:2124-2134. 104. Goncharova II, McFarland DJ, Vaughan TM, Wolpaw JR (2003): EMG contamination of EEG: spectral and topographical characteristics. Clinical neurophysiology. 114:1580-1593. 105. Partha M, Hemant B (2007): Observed brain dynamics. New York: Oxford University Press.
29 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
106. De Clercq W, Vergult A, Vanrumste B, Van Paesschen W, Van Huffel S (2006): Canonical correlation analysis applied to remove muscle artifacts from the electroencephalogram. Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on. 53:2583-2587. 107. Puthusserypady S, Ratnarajah T (2005): H∞ adaptive filters for eye blink artifact minimization from electroencephalogram. Signal Processing Letters, IEEE. 12:816-819. 108. Delorme A, Makeig S (2004): EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods. 134:9-21. 109. D'Souza DC, Braley G, Blaise R, Vendetti M, Oliver S, Pittman B, et al. (2008): Effects of haloperidol on the behavioral, subjective, cognitive, motor, and neuroendocrine effects of Delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol in humans. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 198:587-603. 110. Brunner E, Domhof S, Langer F (2002): Nonparametric Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Factorial Experiments. New York: Wiley. 111. Brunner E, Konietschke F, Pauly M, Puri ML (2017): Rank-based procedures in factorial designs: hypotheses about non-parametric treatment effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology). 79:1463-1485. 112. Gueorguieva R, Krystal JH (2004): Move over ANOVA: progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Archives of general psychiatry. 61:310-317. 113. Noguchi K, Gel YR, Brunner E, Konietschke F (2012): nparLD: An R Software Package for the Nonparametric Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Factorial Experiments. 2012. 50:23. 114. Hadley Wickham MA, Jennifer Bryan, Winston Chang, Lucy McGowan, Romain François, Garrett Grolemund, Alex Hayes, Lionel Henry, Jim Hester, Max Kuhn ,Thomas Pedersen, Evan Miller, Stephan Bache, Kirill Müller, Jeroen Ooms, David Robinson, Dana Seidel, Vitalie Spinu, Kohske Takahashi, Davis Vaughan, Claus Wilke, Kara Woo, Hiroaki Yutani (2019): Welcome to the {tidyverse}. Journal of Open Source Software. 4:1686. 115. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015): Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. 2015. 67:48. 116. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017): lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. 2017. 82:26.
30 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
Figure legends Figure 1: Box and jitter plots showing the change in PANSS positive symptoms from baseline the 15 minutes post infusion across the 4 treatment conditions. 1A. Phase-1 responders – a statistically significant group difference is noted between THC and CBD:THC(2:1) conditions; 1B. Phase-2 – a statistically significant group difference is noted between THC and CBD:THC(1:1) conditions but not the 2:1 and the 3:1 combinations. Figure 2: Box and jitter plots showing the change in subjective effects of high measured on Visual Analog Scale from baseline the 15 minutes post infusion across the 4 treatment conditions. 2A. Phase-1 – No significant group difference is noted between THC and CBD:THC(2:1) conditions; 2B. Phase-2 – No significant group differences are noted between THC and CBD:THC(1:1, 2:1 and 3:1) combinations. Figure 3: Box and jitter plots showing post infusion from neural noise measured as Limpelziv complexity across the 4 treatment conditions. 3A. Phase-1 – No significant group difference is noted between THC and CBD:THC(2:1) conditions. A similar pattern was noted in phase 1 responders (not shown); 1B. Phase-2 – a statistically significant group difference is noted between THC and CBD:THC(1:1) conditions but not the 2:1 and the 3:1 combinations.
31 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
THCCBD main manuscript tables Table 1: Demographic variables Variable Summary – Phase 1 Summary – Phase 2 N = 28 N = 10 (subset of 28) Age – median (IQR) 25.5 (10.25) 25 (10) Gender – female - n (%) 12 (42.86%) 4 (40%) Race – Caucasian: black: other 16:8:4 6:3:1 (n) Education – mean (SD) 15.78 (2.41) 15 (2.24) Handedness – right – n (%) 27 (96.42%) 10 (100%) Cannabis – frequent user – n (%) 4 (14.28%) 0 (0) Smoker – n (%) 5 (17.86%) 2 (20%) BMI – mean (SD) 26.1 (4.8) 25.9 (4.84) NART – IQ – mean (SD) 113.3 (5.63) 111.8 (5.8) Psychosis proneness - median 19.5 (17.5) 20.5 (10.25) (IQR) SPQ score - median (IQR) 3 (5) 2.5 (6.75)
32 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
Table 2: Behavioral, physiological and neural noise outcome measures
Phase 1 Phase 2 Variable Main effect of Post-hoc Main effect Post-hoc Post-hoc Post-hoc drug condition (THC vs of drug (THC vs (THC vs (THC vs - CBD 5 condition CBD 2.5 CBD 5 CBD 7.5 mg) mg) mg) mg)
PANSS 16.01 0.58 8.73 7.83 1.696 1.25 positive (<0.00001) (0.44) (<0.00001) (0.005) * (0.19) (0.26) ATS (p value) PANSS 21.2 9.73 NA NA NA NA positive (<0.00001) (0.0018) * responder # ATS (p value) PANSS 8.93 (0.00005) 0.84 4.91 (0.002) 1.35 3.38 0.36 negative (0.35) (0.24) (0.066) (0.55) ATS (p value) PANSS 26.74, 3.4 18.08 5.16 1.41 0.08 general (0.00001) (0.065) (<0.00001) (0.023) (0.24) (0.78) ATS (p value) PANSS total 25.82 1.6 (0.21) 17.58 11.11 1.48 0.002 ATS (p (<0.00001) (<0.00001) (0.0009) (0.22) (0.96) value) * PANSS total 18.64 6.78 NA NA NA NA responder # (<0.00001) (0.0092) * ATS (p value) CADSS – 17.25 0.07 4.48 (0.006) 0.67 1.12 0.21 PR (<0.00001) (0.79) (0.41) (0.29) (0.65) ATS (p value) CADSS – 29.98 1.93 11.11 3.03 0.91 3.02 CR (<0.00001) (0.16) (<0.00001) (0.08) (0.34) (0.08) ATS (p value) VAS – high 43.02 0.13 17.57 0.15 0.11 0.15 (<0.00001) (0.72) (<0.00001) (0.71) (0.73) (0.698)
33 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
ATS (p value) VAS – 7.24 (0.0002) 0.08 2.69 (0.04) 4.01 0.68 10.41 anxiety (0.78) (0.04) (0.41) (0.001) * ATS (p value) Pulse rate 37.9 2.44 8.85 0.09 2.53 0.08 ATS (p (<0.00001) (0.12) (<0.00001) (0.76) (0.11) (0.78) value) Neural noise 5.66 (0.0015) 0 (NA) 2.68 (0.04) 8.83 0.33 0.76 (LZC) (0.003) * (0.56) (0.38) ATS (p value)
# the primary outcome measures of PANSS positive and PANSS total scores were tested in a subgroup of responders in phase 1 with a PANSS positive response to THC with a score ≥ 3. * significant effects in post-hoc analysis. For phase-1, THC and CBD:THC-2:1 conditions were defined a priori for post hoc comparison. For phase-2, THC and 3 CBD:THC dose conditions were defined for post-hoc comparisons. Phase 2 alpha value was adjusted for three post-hoc comparisons and was considered significant at p <0.015. p values presented in the table are uncorrected.
34 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
* Figure 1A
Figure 1B * medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
Figure 2A
Figure 2B medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.17.21257345; this version posted May 19, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
Figure 3A
* Figure 3B