ArticleNeurological research and practice2025
Use of cannabidiol for off-label treatment of patients with refractory focal, genetic generalised and other epilepsies.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 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.
- Epilepsy, neuroinflammation and cannabidiol What do we know thus far?Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn randomized controlled trials, add-on cannabidiol (CBD) has been shown to reduce seizure frequency in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, Dravet syndrome and Tuberous sclerosis complex. Real-world studies provide insights into the drug's profile in other off-label indications. This study evaluated factors predicting efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on CBD used for off-label treatment in clinical practice for patients with refractory focal-onset, genetic generalised, and other unclassified epilepsies.
methodsA retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients who had started CBD between 2019 and 2023 for off-label treatment at six German epilepsy centres. Data on baseline and follow-up were obtained from patients' medical records.
resultsA total of 108 patients (mean age 27.3; median 36; range 1.4-68 years, 56 male) were treated with CBD. At three months, 42 (38.9% considering all 108 patients that started CBD) reported at least a 50% reduction in seizures, including 28 patients (25.9%) with a 50-74% reduction, and 14 (13%) with a reduction of 75-99%. Among those 48 patients experiencing tonic-clonic seizures (TCS), at least 50% response was reported by 45.8%, and eight (16.7%) patients were free of TCS. Sex, age, epilepsy syndrome, concomitant clobazam (CLB) use, and the number of concomitant or previous ASMs were not predictive of response. Mean seizure days per month significantly decreased from a mean of 16.8 (median: 13.5) to 14.5 (median 10, p = 0.002). The probability of patients remaining on CBD treatment was 85.2% (n = 92/108, 16 discontinuations) at three months, 73.5% at six months and 61.1% at twelve months; retention was better in children or adolescents compared to adults (log-rank p = 0.014). Using the CGI-C for overall impression, 69 (63.0%) patients were rated as very much, much, or minimally improved; for behaviour, 60 (55.6%) reported within this range of improvement. TEAEs were reported in 41 (38%) patients. The most frequent were diarrhoea (n = 15), sedation (n = 13), and nausea and vomiting (n = 7).
conclusionsOur results suggest CBD to be an effective ASM, with 50% responder rates similar to those observed in regulatory trials for other ASMs licensed in focal epilepsies. Its off-label use in refractory focal-onset, genetic generalised, and other unclassified epilepsies seems to be safe and well-tolerated.
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.