ArticleJournal of cannabis research2025
Randomized single-dose crossover comparative bioavailability study of two novel oral cannabidiol (CBD) formulations in healthy volunteers under fed conditions, compared to a standard CBD isolate capsule.
Article in Journal of cannabis research, 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.
- Development andDrug delivery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics and relative bioavailability of two novel cannabidiol (CBD) formulations including bioavailability-enhanced capsule (CBDNEXT Supra capsule) and a bioavailability-enhanced liquid (CBDNEXT Supra liquid)- against a standard high-purity CBD isolate capsule in healthy volunteers under fed (low-fat) conditions.
methodsA single-dose, open-label, randomized, three-period, three-sequence crossover trial was conducted in 12 healthy male volunteers (18-50 years). Of the 12 enrolled subjects, 9 completed all three treatment periods per protocol. Each received 40 mg of CBD as one of three formulations: Test-1 (enhanced CBD capsule), Test-2 (enhanced CBD liquid), or Reference (unformulated CBD isolate capsule with microcrystalline cellulose only as excipient), with a washout of 14 days between treatments. All doses were administered 30 min after a standardized low-fat (~ 300-350 kcal, < 10 g fat) breakfast to minimize the impact of dietary fat on CBD absorption. Blood samples were collected up to 72 h post-dose for plasma CBD and 7-hydroxy-CBD analysis by a validated LC-MS/MS method (LLOQ 0.1 ng/mL). Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters (C_max, tmax, AUC_0-72, and t_1/2) were determined by non-compartmental analysis. Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and laboratory tests (including liver enzymes). Plasma cortisol was measured pre-dose and at 2-, 4-, and 8-hours post-dose as an exploratory pharmacodynamic marker.
resultsNine subjects completed all treatments (three withdrew: two for positive drug screens and one for an intercurrent moderate infection). Mean plasma CBD concentration-time profiles for the three formulations demonstrated markedly different absorption kinetics. The enhanced capsule achieved the highest peak CBD concentration (C_max 14.1 ng/mL) and exposure (AUC_0-72 38.0 h·ng/mL), compared to the enhanced liquid (C_max 6.2 ng/mL, AUC_0-72 20.2 h·ng/mL) and the reference capsule (C_max 2.4 ng/mL, AUC_0-72 11.7 h·ng/mL). The time to peak concentration (tmax) was shortest for the liquid (median ~ 1.0 h), followed by the capsule (2.0 h), and longest for the reference (6.0 h). Inter-individual variability in C_max and AUC was substantially lower for both novel formulations (coefficients of variation ~ 27-44%) than for the reference (> 90%). Statistical analysis confirmed that both the enhanced capsule and liquid produced significantly greater C_max and AUC_0-72 than the reference (geometric mean C_max ratios ~ 566% and ~ 248%, AUC_0-72 ratios ~ 328% and ~ 166%, respectively; 90% confidence intervals did not include 100%). The 7-hydroxy-CBD metabolite reached much lower plasma levels than parent CBD for all treatments (C_max 0.4-1.8 ng/mL, ~ 5-13% of parent C_max), with a slightly delayed tmax (~ 2-6 h) and similar elimination half-life. No serious AEs occurred. The only treatment-related AE was mild-to-moderate transient headache in four subjects (1 on capsule, 2 on liquid, 1 on reference), all resolved without intervention. No clinically significant changes in liver function tests or other laboratory values were observed. Plasma cortisol levels remained within normal ranges after all treatments, with a decline over 8 h consistent with the normal diurnal rhythm and no significant differences between formulations.
conclusionsBoth novel formulations markedly improved CBD oral bioavailability under low-fat fed conditions relative to an unformulated CBD isolate capsule. The enhanced capsule in particular achieved a ~ 5.7-fold higher C_max and ~ 3.3-fold higher AUC than the reference, while the enhanced liquid was absorbed ~ 2.5-fold faster. Variability was reduced with the new formulations, and both were well tolerated at the 40 mg dose. These results indicate that the surfactant/acid formulation technology effectively enhances CBD absorption even with a low-fat meal, potentially obviating the need for high-fat co-administration. Further clinical studies (including in female subjects and at steady state) are warranted to confirm these pharmacokinetic advantages in broader populations.
trial registrationNot prospectively registered (pilot pharmacokinetic study without therapeutic intent, thus not subject to mandatory registration).
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.