Post Marketing Safety of Plus CBD™ Products, a Full Spectrum Hemp Extract: A 2-Year Experience

Postmarketing Surveillance of Full Spectrum Hemp Extract CBD Products: Reported Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

There is a growing interest in products featuring hemp extracts and a demand for more data regarding their safety. To date, there is a paucity of published data on the safety of these products.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of postmarketing surveillance data collected in the United States on full spectrum hemp extract (FSHE) products manufactured by Charlotte's Web (CW) was conducted over an 18-month period (January 2019 to July 2020). The frequency of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) was assessed by analyzing AE reports against the estimated number of consumers who purchased products and the total number of products sold.

RESULTS

During the 18-month period, approximately 646,391 consumers purchased 1,939,172 products and 431 AEs were reported by 304 individuals. The estimated percentage of consumers who reported at least one adverse event was 0.05%. The percentage of AEs per products sold was 0.02%. Most AEs (98.14%) reported were Grade 1 (i.e., asymptomatic or causing mild symptoms), as classified by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Seven AEs were classified as serious, and the percentage of SAEs per products sold was 0.0004%. None of the reported SAEs were classified as a Grade 4 or Grade 5 (i.e., life threatening or fatal).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 0.05% of consumers who purchased the CW FSHE products from January 2019 to July 2020 reported an adverse event. The percentage of AEs and SAEs per products sold was 0.02% and 0.0004%, respectively. These data demonstrate that CW FSHE products appear to be well tolerated at recommended doses.

Evidence of Cannabidiol Effectiveness Associated or Not with Tetrahydrocannabinol in Topical Administration: A Scope Review

Cannabis sativa is a plant of the Cannabaceae family, whose molecular composition is known for its vast pharmacological properties. Cannabinoids are the molecules responsible for Cannabis sativa potential effects, especially tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Scientific development has shown interest in the potential of cannabidiol in various health conditions, as it has demonstrated lower adverse events and great pharmacological potential, especially when administered topically. The present study aims to carry out a scoping review, focusing on the use of cannabidiol, in vivo models, for topical administration. Thus, the methodological approach used by the Joanna Briggs Institute was applied, and the studies were selected based on previously established inclusion criteria. Even though more information regarding the dose to achieve pharmacological potential is still needed, cannabidiol demonstrated potential in treating and preventing different conditions, such as glaucoma, atopic dermatitis, epidermolysis bullosa, and pyoderma gangrenosum.

An evaluation of the genotoxicity and 90-day repeated-dose toxicity of a CBD-rich hemp oil

Currently, there is much interest in the sales and study of consumable Cannabis sativa L. products that contain relatively high levels of cannabidiol (CBD) and low levels of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. While there are published safety evaluations for extracts containing low concentrations of CBD, toxicological assessments for those with higher concentrations are still scant in the public domain. In this paper, genotoxicity tests and a 90-day repeated-dose toxicity study of an ethanolic extract of C. sativa containing ~85% CBD were performed following relevant OECD guidelines. No increased gene mutations were observed in a bacterial reverse mutation assay compared to controls up to the maximum recommended concentration of the guideline. An in vitro chromosomal aberration assay showed no positive findings in the short-term (3 h) treatment assays. Long-term treatment (20 h) showed an increased number of cells containing aberrations at the highest dose of 2 μg/mL, which was outside of historical control levels, but not statistically significantly different from the controls. An in vivo micronucleus study showed no genotoxic potential of the test item in mice. A 90-day repeated-dose gavage study using 0, 75, 125, and 175 mg/kg bw/day showed several slight findings that were considered likely to be related to an adaptive response to consumption of the extract by the animals but were not considered toxicologically relevant. These included increases in liver and adrenal weights compared to controls. The NOAEL was determined as 175 mg/kg bw/day, the highest dose tested (equivalent to approximately 150 mg/kg bw/day of CBD).

Evidence for side effects of cannabidiol (CBD) products and their non-conformity on the European food market - response to the European Industrial Hemp Association

An interesting and valuable discussion has arisen from our recent article (Lachenmeier et al., 2020) and we are pleased to have the opportunity to expand on the various points we made. Equally important, we wish to correct several important misunderstandings that were made by Kruse and Beitzke (2020) on behalf of the European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA) that possibly contributed to their concerns about the validity of our data, toxicological assessment and conclusions regarding regulatory status of cannabidiol (CBD) products. First and foremost, our study did only assess the risk of psychotropic Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) without inclusion of non-psychotropic Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA). Secondly, as this article will discuss in more detail, there is ample evidence for side effects of CBD products, not only in paediatric patients, but also in adult users of over-the-counter CBD products (including inadvertent "high" effects). Thirdly, the exposure and risk assessment was conducted using up-to-date guidelines according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). And finally, the current legal situation in the European Union, without approval of any hemp extract-containing product according to the Novel Food regulation, actually allows blanket statements that all such products are illegal on the market, and this indeed would imply a general ban on the use and marketing of such products as food or food ingredients until such an approval has been granted. We hope that this reassures the F1000Research readership regarding the validity of our results and conclusions. We are pleased, though, that the EIHA has acknowledged the fact that there are non-compliant CBD products available, but according to our data these are a substantial fraction of the market.

Evidence for adverse effects of cannabidiol (CBD) products and their non-conformity on the European food market - response to the European Industrial Hemp Association

An interesting and valuable discussion has arisen from our recent article (Lachenmeier et al., 2020) and we are pleased to have the opportunity to expand on the various points we made. Equally important, we wish to correct several important misunderstandings that were made by Kruse and Beitzke (2020) on behalf of the European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA) that possibly contributed to their concerns about the validity of our data, toxicological assessment and conclusions regarding regulatory status of cannabidiol (CBD) products. First and foremost, our study did only assess the risk of psychotropic Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) without inclusion of non-psychotropic Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA). Secondly, as this article will discuss in more detail, there is ample evidence for adverse effects of CBD products, not only in paediatric patients, but also in adult users of over-the-counter CBD products (including inadvertent "high" effects). Thirdly, the exposure and risk assessment was conducted using up-to-date guidelines according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). And finally, the current legal situation in the European Union, without approval of any hemp extract-containing product according to the Novel Food regulation, actually allows blanket statements that all such products are illegal on the market, and this indeed would imply a general ban on the use and marketing of such products as food or food ingredients until such an approval has been granted. We hope that this reassures the F1000Research readership regarding the validity of our results and conclusions. We are pleased, though, that the EIHA has acknowledged the fact that there are non-compliant CBD products available, but according to our data these are a substantial fraction of the market.

Cannabidiol and Other Cannabinoids: From Toxicology and Pharmacology to the Development of a Regulatory Pathway

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a non-psychotropic constituent of Cannabis sativa that has grown in popularity during the last decade. CBD is the active component of EPIDIOLEX®, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug designed for the treatment of drug-resistant pediatric epileptic seizures associated with several rare syndromes. Furthermore, CBD has been proposed as a treatment for a number of other diseases for which clinical trials are now ongoing. Accumulating evidence indicates that the number of "CBD-containing" products, available mostly online, is growing exponentially. However, the U.S. FDA currently prohibits sales of CBD as a dietary supplement (DS) or ingredient in conventional food. Further, clear federal regulatory and quality oversight does not exist, which has led to an uncontrolled CBD market that, in turn, threatens to result in negative health effects experienced by a trusting public. Thus, there are open questions demanding answers in the very near future: For which medical purposes is CBD provably effective? Can it be used safely as a non-prescription product? At what level? Is a hemp extract that contains CBD a different ingredient than isolated CBD? Is CBD safe for everyone? What is a future path for hemp products with CBD as well as for other cannabinoids? Should CBD be allowed as a drug only, or is there a way for hemp extracts to be listed as a dietary supplement and food ingredient? This Special Issue, the first of its kind on CBD and other phytocannabinoids, is devoted to answering those and other questions by publishing articles in the fields of pharmacology, toxicology, and regulation.

Are adverse effects of cannabidiol (CBD) products caused by tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contamination?

Cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products are widely marketed as over the counter products, mostly as food supplements. Adverse effects reported in anecdotal consumer reports or during clinical studies were first assumed to be due to hydrolytic conversion of CBD to psychotropic Δ ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ ⁹-THC) in the stomach after oral consumption. However, research of pure CBD solutions stored in simulated gastric juice or subjected to various storage conditions such as heat and light with specific liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric (LC/MS/MS) and ultra-high pressure liquid chromatographic/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometric (UPLC-QTOF) analyses was unable to confirm THC formation. Another hypothesis for the  adverse effects of CBD products may be residual Δ ⁹-THC concentrations in the products as contamination, because most of them are based on hemp extracts containing the full spectrum of cannabinoids besides CBD. Analyses of 181 food products of the German market (mostly CBD oils) confirmed this hypothesis: 21 products (12%) contained Δ ⁹-THC above the lowest observed adverse effect level (2.5 mg/day). Inversely, CBD was present in the products below the no observed adverse effect level. Hence, it may be assumed that the adverse effects of some commercial CBD products are based on a low-dose effect of Δ ⁹-THC and not due to effects of CBD itself. The safety, efficacy and purity of commercial CBD products is highly questionable, and all of the products in our sample collection showed various non-conformities to European food law such as unsafe Δ ⁹-THC levels, hemp extracts or CBD isolates as non-approved novel food ingredients, non-approved health claims, and deficits in mandatory food labelling requirements. In view of the growing market for such lifestyle products, the effectiveness of the instrument of food business operators' own responsibility for product safety and regulatory compliance must obviously be challenged, and a strong regulatory framework for hemp products needs to be devised.

Are adverse effects of cannabidiol (CBD) products caused by tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contamination?

Cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products are widely marketed as over the counter products, mostly as food supplements. Adverse effects reported in anecdotal consumer reports or during clinical studies were first assumed to be due to hydrolytic conversion of CBD to psychotropic Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ 9-THC) in the stomach after oral consumption. However, research of pure CBD solutions stored in simulated gastric juice or subjected to various storage conditions such as heat and light with specific liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric (LC/MS/MS) and ultra-high pressure liquid chromatographic/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometric (UPLC-QTOF) analyses was unable to confirm THC formation. Another hypothesis for the adverse effects of CBD products may be residual Δ 9-THC concentrations in the products as contamination, because most of them are based on hemp extracts containing the full spectrum of cannabinoids besides CBD. Analyses of 293 food products of the German market (mostly CBD oils) confirmed this hypothesis: 28 products (10%) contained Δ 9-THC above the lowest observed adverse effect level (2.5 mg/day). Hence, it may be assumed that the adverse effects of some commercial CBD products are based on a low-dose effect of Δ 9-THC, with the safety of CBD itself currently being unclear with significant uncertainties regarding possible liver and reproductive toxicity. The safety, efficacy and purity of commercial CBD products is highly questionable, and all of the products in our sample collection showed various non-conformities to European food law such as unsafe Δ 9-THC levels, hemp extracts or CBD isolates as non-approved novel food ingredients, non-approved health claims, and deficits in mandatory food labelling requirements. In view of the growing market for such lifestyle products, the effectiveness of the instrument of food business operators' own responsibility for product safety and regulatory compliance must obviously be challenged, and a strong regulatory framework for hemp products needs to be devised.

Are side effects of cannabidiol (CBD) products caused by tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contamination?

Cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products are widely marketed as over the counter products, mostly as food supplements, to avoid the strict rules of medicinal products. Side-effects reported in anecdotal consumer reports or during clinical studies were first assumed to be due to hydrolytic conversion of CBD to psychotropic Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ 9-THC) in the stomach after oral consumption. However, research of pure CBD solutions stored in simulated gastric juice or subjected to various storage conditions such as heat and light with specific liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric (LC/MS/MS) and ultra-high pressure liquid chromatographic/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometric (UPLC-QTOF) analyses was unable to confirm THC formation. Another hypothesis for the side-effects of CBD products may be residual Δ 9-THC concentrations in the products as contamination, because most of them are based on crude hemp extracts containing the full spectrum of cannabinoids besides CBD. Analyses of 67 food products of the German market (mostly CBD oils) confirmed this hypothesis: 17 products (25%) contained Δ 9-THC above the lowest observed adverse effects level (2.5 mg/day). Inversely, CBD was present in the products below the no observed adverse effect level. Hence, it may be assumed that the adverse effects of some commercial CBD products are based on a low-dose effect of Δ 9-THC and not due to effects of CBD itself. The safety, efficacy and purity of commercial CBD products is highly questionable, and all of the products in our sample collection showed various non-conformities to European food law such as unsafe Δ 9-THC levels, full-spectrum hemp extracts as non-approved novel food ingredients, non-approved health claims, and deficits in mandatory food labelling requirements. In view of the growing market for such lifestyle products, the effectiveness of the instrument of food business operators' own responsibility for product safety must obviously be challenged.

Are adverse effects of cannabidiol (CBD) products caused by tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contamination?

Cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products are widely marketed as over the counter products. Adverse effects reported in anecdotal consumer reports or during clinical studies were first assumed to be due to acid-catalysed cyclization of CBD to psychotropic Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ 9-THC) in the stomach after oral consumption. However, research of pure CBD solutions stored in simulated gastric juice or subjected to various storage conditions such as heat and light with specific liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric (LC/MS/MS) and ultra-high pressure liquid chromatographic/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometric (UPLC-QTOF) analyses was unable to confirm THC formation. Another hypothesis for the adverse effects of CBD products may be residual Δ 9-THC concentrations in the products as contamination, because most of them are based on hemp extracts containing the full spectrum of cannabinoids besides CBD. Analyses of 413 hemp-based products of the German market (mostly CBD oils) confirmed this hypothesis: 48 products (12%) contained Δ 9-THC above the lowest observed adverse effect level (2.5 mg/day). Hence, it may be assumed that the adverse effects of some commercial CBD products are based on a low-dose effect of Δ 9-THC, with the safety of CBD itself currently being unclear with significant uncertainties regarding possible liver and reproductive toxicity. The safety, efficacy and purity of commercial CBD products is highly questionable, and all of the products in our sample collection showed various non-conformities to European food law such as unsafe Δ 9-THC levels, hemp extracts or CBD isolates as non-approved novel food ingredients, non-approved health claims, and deficits in mandatory food labelling requirements. In view of the growing market for such lifestyle products, the effectiveness of the instrument of food business operators' own responsibility for product safety and regulatory compliance must obviously be challenged, and a strong regulatory framework for hemp products needs to be devised.

Are adverse effects of cannabidiol (CBD) products caused by tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contamination?

Cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products are widely marketed as over the counter products, mostly as food supplements. Adverse effects reported in anecdotal consumer reports or during clinical studies were first assumed to be due to hydrolytic conversion of CBD to psychotropic Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ 9-THC) in the stomach after oral consumption. However, research of pure CBD solutions stored in simulated gastric juice or subjected to various storage conditions such as heat and light with specific liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric (LC/MS/MS) and ultra-high pressure liquid chromatographic/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometric (UPLC-QTOF) analyses was unable to confirm THC formation. Another hypothesis for the  adverse effects of CBD products may be residual Δ 9-THC concentrations in the products as contamination, because most of them are based on hemp extracts containing the full spectrum of cannabinoids besides CBD. Analyses of 181 food products of the German market (mostly CBD oils) confirmed this hypothesis: 21 products (12%) contained Δ 9-THC above the lowest observed adverse effect level (2.5 mg/day). Inversely, CBD was present in the products below the no observed adverse effect level. Hence, it may be assumed that the adverse effects of some commercial CBD products are based on a low-dose effect of Δ 9-THC and not due to effects of CBD itself. The safety, efficacy and purity of commercial CBD products is highly questionable, and all of the products in our sample collection showed various non-conformities to European food law such as unsafe Δ 9-THC levels, hemp extracts or CBD isolates as non-approved novel food ingredients, non-approved health claims, and deficits in mandatory food labelling requirements. In view of the growing market for such lifestyle products, the effectiveness of the instrument of food business operators' own responsibility for product safety and regulatory compliance must obviously be challenged, and a strong regulatory framework for hemp products needs to be devised.

Are adverse effects of cannabidiol (CBD) products caused by tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contamination?

Cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products are widely marketed as over the counter products, mostly as food supplements. Adverse effects reported in anecdotal consumer reports or during clinical studies were first assumed to be due to acid-catalysed cyclization of CBD to psychotropic Δ 9tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ 9-THC) in the stomach after oral consumption. However, research of pure CBD solutions stored in simulated gastric juice or subjected to various storage conditions such as heat and light with specific liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric (LC/MS/MS) and ultra-high pressure liquid chromatographic/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometric (UPLC-QTOF) analyses was unable to confirm THC formation. Another hypothesis for the adverse effects of CBD products may be residual Δ 9-THC concentrations in the products as contamination, because most of them are based on hemp extracts containing the full spectrum of cannabinoids besides CBD. Analyses of 362 hemp-based products of the German market (mostly CBD oils) confirmed this hypothesis: 39 products (11%) contained Δ 9-THC above the lowest observed adverse effect level (2.5 mg/day). Hence, it may be assumed that the adverse effects of some commercial CBD products are based on a low-dose effect of Δ 9-THC, with the safety of CBD itself currently being unclear with significant uncertainties regarding possible liver and reproductive toxicity. The safety, efficacy and purity of commercial CBD products is highly questionable, and all of the products in our sample collection showed various non-conformities to European food law such as unsafe Δ 9-THC levels, hemp extracts or CBD isolates as non-approved novel food ingredients, non-approved health claims, and deficits in mandatory food labelling requirements. In view of the growing market for such lifestyle products, the effectiveness of the instrument of food business operators' own responsibility for product safety and regulatory compliance must obviously be challenged, and a strong regulatory framework for hemp products needs to be devised.