Despite claims about CBD’s purported mental health benefits, it is important to understand that the research on its use is still limited. There have been studies done, but many of these have limitations and further research is needed in order to fully understand CBD’s therapeutic potential.
CBD can also be used topically in creams, salves, lotions, and balms, although it is likely to only produce localized effects in this form. E-liquids that are inhaled via vaping are also available, though vaping comes with its own risks.
One of the biggest concerns that consumers face when purchasing CBD products is the lack of FDA regulation.
If you are interested in using CBD to alleviate symptoms of depression in conjunction with other treatments, always talk to your doctor first about how to use it and about any possible medication interactions.
So how does CBD compare to traditional antidepressants? True comparisons of the effects are not yet possible simply because there is not enough research on CBD’s effects.
Anxiety and depression are pathologies that affect human beings in many aspects of life, including social life, productivity and health. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a constituent non-psychotomimetic of Cannabis sativa with great psychiatric potential, including uses as an antidepressant-like and anxiolytic-like compound. The aim of this study is to review studies of animal models using CBD as an anxiolytic-like and antidepressant-like compound. Studies involving animal models, performing a variety of experiments on the above-mentioned disorders, such as the forced swimming test (FST), elevated plus maze (EPM) and Vogel conflict test (VCT), suggest that CBD exhibited an anti-anxiety and antidepressant effects in animal models discussed. Experiments with CBD demonstrated non-activation of neuroreceptors CB1 and CB2. Most of the studies demonstrated a good interaction between CBD and the 5-HT1A neuro-receptor.
Two open-label studies testing the effectiveness of two different concentrations of CBD (200 mg/day and 600–1200 mg/day) obtained positive outcomes with doses as low as 600 mg/day (Hallak et al., 2010; Pokorski et al., 2017). These studies had a small sample size of eight (Solowij et al., 2018) and 20 (Pokorski et al., 2017) participants, respectively. In the former open-label trial with eight participants, a dose of 600 mg/day was tested, and two out of five participants completed the 7-day inpatient treatment. These two participants reported abstinence at follow-up (day 28), and the remaining three participants reported decreased use of cannabis, confirmed by blood and urine analysis. In the second group, participants took 600 mg twice a day. Two out of three participants reported abstinence and in the remaining one, cannabis use had decreased, as confirmed by blood and urine analysis. All participants showed a decrease in Cannabis Withdrawal Scale scores. The second open-label trial tested the effectiveness of 200 mg CBD in divided doses in improving cognition and depressive symptomatology among patients with chronic cannabis use, and found improvement in severity of depression, verbal learning, and memory performance, and decreased frequency of positive psychotic-like symptoms and level of distress from baseline to endpoint (Solowij et al., 2018). State anxiety increased with no change in trait anxiety, functional impairment, or accuracy on cognitive tests (Solowij et al., 2018).
The remaining studies were either case series or case reports; all found positive outcomes in withdrawal and cannabis-dependence symptoms (Crippa et al., 2013; Trigo et al., 2016b; Shannon & Opila-Lehman, 2015). Mean age in the case series was 35 years, although the first participant was 19 years old and the second was 27 years old. The case series used self-titrated nabiximols at a dose of 77.5–113.4 mg THC and 71.5–105.0 mg CBD (Trigo et al., 2016b). Moreover, all participants reported a significant reduction in craving (Crippa et al., 2013; Trigo et al., 2016b; Shannon & Opila-Lehman, 2015), quicker relief (Crippa et al., 2013), lower anxiety, and an improved sleep schedule (Shannon & Opila-Lehman, 2015). However, the case series reported increased craving scores during the first 2 weeks with a subsequent reduction in craving at week 9. CBD was well-tolerated in this patient population, except for decreased appetite reported in one study (Trigo et al., 2016b). For patients receiving nabiximols or CBD, treatment should be augmented with psychotherapeutic modalities considering the positive evidence for an effect on cravings.
The efficacy of CBD for SAD and PTSD was explored in three studies including one RCT, one case report, and one chart review. The RCT reported the results of a simulated public speaking test among 12 healthy control participants and 24 patients with SAD who received a single dose of CBD 600 mg or a placebo before the test. This study reported that pretreatment with CBD resulted in less anxiety, cognitive impairment, and discomfort during their speaking performance. It also resulted in a significant reduction in alertness in their anticipatory speech compared to the placebo group (Bergamaschi et al., 2011).
Qualitative synthesis of eligible studies
The evidence from studies included in this review can guide future trials by providing information pertaining to the dosages, formulations and routes of administration of CBD and nabiximols. Moreover, future studies should investigate different routes of administration in light of the differences in bioavailability. In view of the (albeit limited) evidence for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, the role of CBD should be explored in the early stages of psychosis or as an adjunct medication. Although CBD was ineffective for bipolar mania, its possible efficacy as an antidepressant should be assessed in studies focused on bipolar depression. Nabiximols has been helpful in cannabis-related disorder and Tourette syndrome, owing to the synergetic benefits of CBD and THC. Future studies designed to explore the comparative benefits of these treatments can shed further light on their clinical potential. Future RCTs should also consider adding first-line treatment agents as comparison arms, to ascertain the comparative efficacy of CBD in different mental disorders. Although fewer side effects were reported overall by patients in the studies reviewed here, the vulnerability to addiction to cannabinoids should not be ignored.
The remaining evidence comprised two minimal quality case reports and case series. Zuardi and colleagues were the first to report favorable findings for CBD in patients with schizophrenia (Zuardi et al., 1995). The dose of CBD ranged from 600 to 1500 mg daily in schizophrenia studies. A case series of three patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia found improvement in only one patient (Zuardi et al., 2006). In the first case, there was an improvement in psychotic symptoms with CBD at 1280 mg/day; however, the symptoms worsened after CBD was discontinued. In second case, CBD was ineffective for the symptoms. Patient had an improvement in symptoms with clozapine. In the third case, no improvement with CBD and partial improvement with olanzapine were observed, although clozapine was subsequently required. In case 3, mild improvement was reported with CBD in a patient who had previously failed to respond to olanzapine, clozapine, or haloperidol decanoate. These results suggest a limited role of CBD in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (Zuardi et al., 2006). The dose were not individually mentioned for case 1 and 2.
The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence was used to grade the quality of evidence (OCEBM, 2019). Level 1 evidence is for systematic review of RCTs or individual RCT of narrow confidence interval, Level 2 for cohort studies or systematic review of cohort studies, Level 3 for case-control studies or systematic review of case-control studies, and Level 4 for case-series for studies focused on therapy, prevention, etiology and harm (OCEBM, 2019). These levels of evidence are used to generate Grades of Recommendation. Grade A is for consistent level 1 studies, Grade B for consistent level 2 or 3 studies or extrapolations from level 1 studies, and Grade C for level 4 studies or extrapolations from level 2 or 3 studies. Grade D is ranked for level 5 evidence or inconsistent or inclusive studies of any level (OCEBM, 2019).
Adverse effects were reported in four of the studies, and included muscular seizures and spasms (Cooper et al., 2017), somnolence and changes in appetite (Barchel et al., 2018), fatigue, and sexually inappropriate behavior in a patient with developmental disorder (Shannon et al., 2019), mild sedation (Zuardi et al., 2010), and mild xerostomia (Pichler et al., 2019).