Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2014
Effects of 20 mg oral Δ(9) -tetrahydrocannabinol on the olfactory function of healthy volunteers.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of oral ΔEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Trial
- International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Olfaction.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2022Review
- Cannabinoid Control of Olfactory Processes: TheGenes · 2020Review
- Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol reduces the performance in sensory delayed discrimination tasks. A pharmacological-fMRI study in healthy volunteers.IBRO reports · 2019Article
- Machine-learned pattern identification in olfactory subtest results.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- An endocannabinoid system is present in the mouse olfactory epithelium but does not modulate olfaction.Neuroscience · 2015Article
- Drug-target based cross-sectional analysis of olfactory drug effects.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsOlfactory loss impairs the patient's quality of life. In individualized therapies, olfactory drug effects gain clinical importance. Molecular evidence suggests that among drugs with potential olfactory effects is Δ(9) -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is approved for several indications, including neuropathic pain or analgesia in cancer patients. The present study aimed at assessing the olfactory effects of THC to be expected during analgesic treatment.
methodsThe effects of 20 mg oral THC on olfaction were assessed in a placebo-controlled, randomized cross-over study in healthy volunteers. Using an established olfactory test (Sniffin' Sticks), olfactory thresholds, odour discrimination and odour identification were assessed in 15 subjects at baseline and 2 h after THC administration.
resultsΔ(9) -Tetrahydrocannabinol impaired the performance of subjects (n = 15) in the olfactory test. Specifically, olfactory thresholds were increased and odour discrimination performance was reduced. This resulted in a significant drop in composite threshold, discrimination, identification (TDI) olfactory score by 5.5 points (from 37.7 ± 4.2 to 32.2 ± 5.6, 95% confidence interval for differences THC vs. placebo, -7.8 to -2.0, P = 0.003), which is known to be a subjectively perceptible impairment of olfactory function.
conclusionsConsidering the resurgence of THC in medical use for several pathological conditions, the present results indicate that THC-based analgesics may be accompanied by subjectively noticeable reductions in olfactory acuity. In particular, for patients relying on their sense of smell, this might be relevant information for personalized therapy strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.