We also rated the product based on the type of CBD they used: isolate, full-spectrum decarb, broad-spectrum, or distillate. There’s a lot of debate around what is actually best, but our first decision was to give points to CBD oil that contains a range of cannabinoids. While there are certainly people with good reasons for choosing an isolate, there’s a lot of good evidence that CBD works better in combination with other cannabinoids (this is called the “entourage effect”).
Another study examined the effects of a plant extract with controlled cannabinoid content in an oromucosal spray. In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the THC:CBD nabiximols extract and THC extract alone were compared in the analgesic management of patients with advanced cancer and with moderate-to-severe cancer-related pain. Patients were assigned to one of three treatment groups: THC:CBD extract, THC extract, or placebo. The researchers concluded that the THC:CBD extract was efficacious for pain relief in advanced cancer patients whose pain was not fully relieved by strong opioids. In a randomized, placebo-controlled, graded-dose trial, opioid-treated cancer patients with poorly controlled chronic pain demonstrated significantly better control of pain and sleep disruption with THC:CBD oromucosal spray at lower doses (1–4 and 6–10 sprays/day), compared with placebo. Adverse events were dose related, with only the high-dose group (11–16 sprays/day) comparing unfavorably with the placebo arm. These studies provide promising evidence of an adjuvant analgesic effect of THC:CBD in this opioid-refractory patient population and may provide an opportunity to address this significant clinical challenge. An open-label extension study of 43 patients who had participated in the randomized trial found that some patients continued to obtain relief of their cancer-related pain with long-term use of the THC:CBD oromucosal spray without increasing their dose of the spray or the dose of their other analgesics.
Jump up ^ Datwyler, SL; Weiblen, GD (2006). "Genetic Variation in Hemp and marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.) sativa plants are taller and less dense. Indica plants are shorter but a lot more dense than sativas. According to Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphisms". Journal of Forensic Sciences. 51 (2): 371–375. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00061.x. PMID 16566773.
That leaves those touting CBD’s effectiveness pointing primarily to research in mice and petri dishes. There, CBD (sometimes combined with small amounts of THC) has shown promise for helping pain, neurological conditions like anxiety and PTSD, and the immune system—and therefore potentially arthritis, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and more.
The objectivity of scientific evaluation of the medicinal value of marijuana to date has been questioned. In the words of Hirst et al. (1998): “The ...status of cannabis has made modern clinical research almost impossible. This is primarily because of the legal, ethical and bureaucratic difficulties in conducting trials with patients. Additionally, the general attitude towards cannabis, in which it is seen only as a drug of abuse and addiction, has not helped.” In a recent editorial, the respected journal Nature (2001) stated: “Governments, including the US federal government, have until recently refused to sanction the medical use of marijuana, and have also done what they can to prevent its clinical testing. They have defended their inaction by claiming that either step would signal to the public a softening of the so-called ‘war on drugs.’... The pharmacology of cannabinoids is a valid field of scientific investigation. Pharmacologists have the tools and the methodologies to realize its considerable potential, provided the political climate permits them to do so.” Given these current demands for research on medicinal marijuana, it will be necessary to produce crops of drug types of C. sativa.
There have been ten clinical trials on the use of inhaled Cannabis in cancer patients that can be divided into two groups. In one group, four small studies assessed antiemetic activity but each explored a different patient population and chemotherapy regimen. One study demonstrated no effect, the second study showed a positive effect versus placebo, the report of the third study did not provide enough information to characterize the overall outcome as positive or neutral. Consequently, there are insufficient data to provide an overall level of evidence assessment for the use of Cannabis for chemotherapy-induced N/V. Apparently, there are no published controlled clinical trials on the use of inhaled Cannabis for other cancer-related or cancer treatment–related symptoms.
Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.