ArticleRevista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina)2025
[Real-life study with pharmaceutical cannabidiol in refractory epilepsy]
Article in Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Plants, Pills, and the Brain: Exploring Phytochemicals and Neurological Medicines.International journal of plant, animal and environmental sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol (CBD) is an alternative treatment for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). In 2022, the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires implemented a non-medical change (NMC) of treatment, replacing one commercial pharmaceutical-grade CBD product with another, the latter also being the initial option for new patients. Our objective was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of the commercial product change in this population. Methods: Retrospective cohort of DRE patients who either switched from one commercial pharmaceutical-grade CBD product to another or started treatment with the new product. The clinical response was evaluated by changes in seizure frequency, perception of change with the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale, and safety considering discontinuation and/or the presence of adverse effects. Results: Nineteen patients were included, 12 in the change group and 7 in the new start group (7 pediatric and 12 adults). One patient discontinued treatment due to lack of response. Among those who completed follow-up, 8 (44%) reduced seizure frequency, 6 (33%) showed no change, and 4 (22%) increased seizure frequency. According to the PGIC scale, 9 (50%) remained unchanged, 5 (28%) reported barely noticeable changes, and 4 (22%) reported improvement. Adverse events were mild and transient. Conclusion: The new commercial pharmaceutical-grade CBD product is a safe and valid option both for substitution and initial treatment in patients with DRE. During the treatment period, patients perceived stability or improvement according to the PGIC scale.
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.