Effects of Cannabidiol on Social Relating, Anxiety, and Parental Stress in Autistic Children: A Randomised Controlled Crossover Trial

Nina-Francesca Parrella, Aron T. Hill, Peter G. Enticott, Tanita Botha, Sarah Catchlove, Luke Downey, Talitha C. Ford
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.19.24309024

Abstract

Cannabidiol (CBD), a non-intoxicating compound derived from the cannabis plant, has garnered increasing attention as a potential pharmacological therapeutic for autistic children. We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial to understand whether oral CBD oil can improve outcomes for this population, with a primary focus on social relating outcomes, along with anxiety and parental stress. A total of 29 children (18 male), aged 5 to 12 years (M = 9.62 years, SD = 2.05), diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, completed the study. Participants received weight-based dosing of CBD oil (10 mg/kg/day) or placebo oil over two 12-week intervention periods (crossover), separated by an 8-week washout period. Outcome measures included the Social Responsiveness Scale-2 (SRS-2; primary outcome), PROMIS Social Relating, Anxiety, and Sleep, Developmental Behaviour Checklist-2 (DBC-2), Vineland 3, and Autism Parenting Stress Index (APSI; secondary outcomes). There was no significant effect observed for the primary outcome measure (SRS-2) for CBD oil relative to placebo oil after 12 weeks, (p=.125). Significant improvements were observed in secondary measures of social functioning (PROMIS-Social, DBC-2 Social Relating; p <.05) and anxiety symptoms (PROMIS Anxiety, DBC-2 Anxiety; p <.05), while there was also a reduction in parental stress (p <.05). Safety and tolerability data indicated that two children experienced gastrointestinal discomfort while taking CBD. This pilot trial represents preliminary evidence for the potential therapeutic effects of CBD in autism. While further research is needed to confirm and extend these findings, the results suggest that CBD may be a promising intervention for addressing one of autism’s core symptoms: social relating. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and safety of CBD for autistic children.

1.1. Introduction

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a non-addictive and non-intoxicating compound derived from the Cannabis sativa (C. sativa) plant (VanDolah et al., 2019). It is recognised for its therapeutic potential in various somatic, psychiatric, and neurodevelopmental conditions (Larsen & Shahinas, 2020), including autism (Aran et al., 2021). CBD has multiple identified pharmacological properties, which include anti-inflammatory (Weiss et al., 2008), anxiolytic (Bergamaschi et al., 2011), and neuroprotective effects (VanDolah et al., 2019). The past six years have witnessed a notable increase in the utilisation of CBD for psychiatry-related conditions (Cairns et al., 2023), accompanied by a surge in research efforts aimed at exploring its potential therapeutic benefits (Abi-Jaoude et al., 2022; Cooper et al., 2016). Recent research suggests CBD treatment may be effective in addressing behavioural and communicative difficulties in autistic children (Aran et al., 2021; Silva Junior et al., 2024), which indicates that modulation of the endocannabinoid system (ECS) may be an effective target for addressing core symptoms of autism.

The ECS, a neuro-modulatory system involved in emotional regulation and social responsiveness, has emerged as a significant factor in the pathophysiology of autism (Karhson et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2015, 2016). While still in preliminary stages, extant research suggests that dysregulated cannabinoid signalling may underly autism symptomatology, specifically in the social domain (Karhson et al., 2016, 2018). Pharmacological therapeutics targeting the ECS may offer support for autistic people (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021; Kenny et al., 2016), particularly those suffering social communication difficulties (Karhson et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2016). There is growing scientific interest in CBD as a potential therapeutic for neurodevelopmental disorders due to its non-intoxicating nature, therapeutic potential, and robust safety profile (Chin et al., 2020; Lattanzi et al., 2018). Several studies have investigated CBD in autistic adults and children to target associated symptoms, such as hyperactivity, sleep, and anxiety (Aran et al., 2018; Barchel et al., 2019; Parrella et al., 2023), with ongoing trials further exploring its potential therapeutic effects.

The ECS may eventually serve as a pharmacological target for social functioning challenges (Karhson et al., 2016). The precise mechanisms by which CBD affects the ECS and its therapeutic potential remain unclear (Gunasekera et al., 2020). Evidence suggests CBD interacts with ECS components such as CB1 and CB2 receptors, albeit differently to THC (Laprairie et al., 2015). There is evidence to suggest that, when administered chronically, CBD increases endocannabinoid tone by inhibiting the Fatty Acid Amine Hydrolase (FAAH) enzyme, thereby preventing the breakdown of endogenous cannabinoid anandamide (AEA), and modulating the binding action of certain G-protein coupled receptors (Karhson et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2016). Additionally, CBD activates serotonin receptors (5-HT1A), which may underlie its anxiolytic properties, and modulates vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) receptors involved in pain perception and inflammation (Lattanzi et al., 2018). CBD has also been shown to modulate γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glutamate neurotransmission, impacting cortical excitation/inhibition (E/I) balance (Pretzsch, Freyberg, Voinescu, et al., 2019a), which is implicated in social processing difficulties in autism (Canitano & Pallagrosi, 2017; Cochran et al., 2015; Ford & Crewther, 2014; Gaetz et al., 2014; Gao & Penzes, 2015; Greenwood et al., 2018; Harada et al., 2011; Marsman et al., 2017; Pinkham et al., 2008; Tebartz van Elst et al., 2014b). While GABA modulation shows promise for addressing core social difficulties in autism (Veenstra-VanderWeele et al., 2017), there are currently no approved pharmacological therapeutics that target this symptom domain, with strong reliance on behavioural interventions. The influence of CBD on E/I mechanisms supports the hypothesis that social processing might be effectively modulated by CBD intervention (Pretzsch, Freyberg, Voinescu, et al., 2019b).

Emerging research suggests potential benefits of CBD in addressing autism-related difficulties (Aran et al., 2021; Efron et al., 2021; Silva Junior et al., 2024). Aran et al. (2021) conducted a placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study involving 150 autistic children and young adults, finding significant reductions in disruptive behaviours and improvements in social communication with CBD whole-plant extract (CBD:THC ratio of 20:1) compared to placebo. Similarly, Efron et al. (2021) conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in autistic children with intellectual disability, showing a significant reduction in irritability following 98% CBD oil. Additionally, Silva Junior et al. (2024) recently observed significant improvements in social interaction, anxiety, psychomotor agitation, meal frequency, and concentration in autistic children following CBD (CBD:THC ratio of 9:1).

There is variability in CBD study findings for autism and an absence of standardised approaches across randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this field. Among these trials, there is a mix of open-label assessments, and placebo-controlled parallel and crossover designs, with sample sizes ranging from 8 to 150 participants (Aran et al., 2021; Efron et al., 2021; Heussler et al., 2022). Three trials specifically included predominantly children (Aran et al., 2021; Efron et al., 2021; Silva Junior et al., 2024), while others include autistic adults (Pretzsch, Freyberg, Voinescu, et al., 2019c; Pretzsch, Voinescu, Lythgoe, et al., 2019, 2019; Pretzsch et al., 2021a).

Dosage regimens and administration methods/routes vary across trials, as do primary and secondary outcome measures (Heussler et al., 2022; Silva Junior et al., 2024). Although the 12 ongoing RCTs examining the long-term effects of CBD in neurodevelopmental disorders vary in trial duration (from 6 to 34 weeks), they are increasingly adopting similar methodologies, facilitating comparison (Parrella et al., 2023). These studies highlight the need for further research to confirm CBD’s efficacy and safety in addressing core symptoms of autism.

Given the increasing prevalence of autism world-wide (Talantseva et al., 2023) the increasing interest in and prescription of CBD for autism (Cairns et al., 2023), and the variable rigor in existing clinical trials to support its safety and efficacy (Parrella et al., 2023), we conducted a Phase II randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover clinical trial to investigate the extent to which oral CBD oil improves social relating in autistic children, as well as other autism-related outcomes (including sleep, anxiety, repetitive behaviours). Safety, tolerability, and acceptability data were also collected. Our primary hypothesis was that 12-week administration of CBD oil would positively impact social outcomes for autistic children, as measured by the Social Responsiveness Scale – 2nd Edition (SRS-2). Specifically, we hypothesised that participants would exhibit a significant reduction in SRS-2 scores from baseline to 12 weeks. Secondary aims of the study included evaluating the effects of CBD on anxiety levels in autistic children, as well as parental stress, with the expectation that both would decrease following 12-week CBD oil administration.

1.2. Materials and Methods

1.2.1. Ethics, Consent, and Registration

This trial was registered under the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000437763) and received ethics approval from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (DUHREC 2020-071). Written informed consent was obtained from the parents/guardians of all participants prior to participation in the study, and assent was obtained from participants when appropriate.

1.2.2. Trial Design

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial was conducted at Deakin University’s School of Psychology in Melbourne, Australia. For each participant, the trial spanned a total of 32 weeks, divided into two 12-week intervention periods, with an 8-week washout period in between. Eligible participants were children (5-12 years old) with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis per DSM-5 criteria. Evidence of diagnosis was obtained from the participant’s clinician. The trial aimed to investigate the effects of weight-based dosing of a medicinal cannabis oil product (Cannabidiol: Medigrowth CBD100) on social relating in autistic children. There were no changes made to eligibility criteria once the trial had commenced.

1.2.3. Participants

Thirty-four children were enrolled in the study. Five participants withdrew their participation during the first intervention period, leaving a total of 29 participants completing the trial.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for study participation is in Table 1, participant demographics in Table 2, and participant medications in Table 3.

View this table:
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
View this table:
Table 2. Demographics of participants and their families (N = 29)
View this table:
Table 3. Existing participant medications maintained throughout trial

1.2.4. Intervention

Medigrowth CBD100 oil was contained in a 30ml bottle, with each millilitre of oil containing 100mg of Cannabidiol (CBD) and a negligible amount of Delta-9-trans-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) not exceeding 1mg/ml. CBD100 is formulated with medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) excipients and naturally occurring terpenes including Nerolidol, Alpha Bisabolol, d-Limonene, β-Caryophyllene, and Alpha-Humelene. The total cannabinoid content per bottle is 3000mg. In addition, the placebo for the CBD100 medication consisted of MCT as an excipient, matched to CBD100 in taste to maintain blinding integrity throughout the trial.

Participants were randomly assigned (via block randomisation) to receive either Medigrowth CBD100 or placebo oil during each intervention period of the trial. Medigrowth CBD100 was administered orally in weight-based doses calculated by the investigator. In each intervention period, the starting dose was 5mg/kg body weight/day. The dose was increased to 10 mg/kg/day by the second week, with parents or guardians trained to facilitate sublingual administration during the first visit. Placebo oil was administered following the same protocol. Intervention adherence was monitored through a daily Treatment Log. Interventions were given as an add-on to any ongoing stable medication (no change in four weeks).

1.2.5. Sample Size

A power analysis was conducted using the software package, G*Power (Faul & Erdfelder, 1992). The alpha level used for this analysis was p < .05. A sample size of 34 was determined for the detection of a moderate-large effect size (f2 = .25, power = .8). The determined sample size is consistent with a study involving acute administration of CBD in autistic individuals (Pretzsch, Freyberg, Voinescu, et al., 2019c), reflecting our best estimate given the limited available trials for comparison.

1.2.6. Recruitment

Recruitment took place between January and March 2023. During the first intervention period of the trial, an attrition rate of 14.7% reduced the sample from 34 to 29. One participant was lost to follow-up, and four withdrew their participation, discontinuing intervention. Reasons for withdrawal included family-related difficulties for three participants (two families) and gastrointestinal discomfort for one other. Three of the four participants who discontinued their involvement were allocated the active intervention in the first intervention period.

1.2.7. Procedure

Participants underwent an initial telephone screening to confirm eligibility and were then enrolled in the trial, comprising two intervention periods separated by an 8-week washout period, see Figure 1. Each period involved administration of either Medigrowth CBD100 or placebo oil, with the order of intervention randomised. Four testing visits took place throughout the trial. The first visit, T0, served as the baseline assessment for intervention period one, followed by T1 at 12 weeks. T2 marked the baseline assessment for intervention period two, with T3 occurring at 12 weeks thereafter, concluding the study’s assessment timeline.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Study design illustrating two 12-week administration periods separated by an 8-week washout. Each period includes baseline and follow-up assessments with EEG recordings (brain icon) and behavioural (parental) questionnaires (paper icon).

Given the lack of pharmacokinetic data for CBD in children, an 8-week interval ensured adequate washout time for CBD100, which is at least four weeks (Thiele et al., 2018). The placebo condition served as the within-participants control measure to investigate CBD-specific outcomes in behaviour.

During the testing visits, parents or guardians of participants were required to complete behavioural questionnaires (Table 4). The SRS-2 and BRIEF 2 were administered in paper format, while all other measures were completed electronically via REDCap. The VABS-3 and the DBC-2 were completed through their respective psychological assessment publisher platforms. Additionally, a post-study survey, administered via REDCap, collected economic information from the parents or guardians. The trial also involved a cohort of participants undergoing electroencephalography (EEG) recording to capture aperiodic neural activity. We conducted 5 minutes of eyes-open resting state EEG (64-channel), which will be reported in a separate paper.

View this table:
Table 4. Primary and secondary outcome measures

Parents or guardians of participants provided ASD diagnostic reports, completed behavioural questionnaires, and administered the study intervention daily. They also filled out daily Treatment Logs and assisted their children during testing visits. The online Treatment Log ensured close monitoring of administration techniques (i.e., with/without food), dosage times, side effects, children’s emotional regulation, and illness. Throughout the 12-week intervention periods, they were reminded to contact the study coordinator to address any concerns and report adverse events.

1.2.8. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using mixed models within the Jamovi statistical software package (version 2.5.3). Mixed models were chosen due to their ability to account for within-subject correlation in crossover designs while accommodating fixed and random effects. For the primary analysis, a mixed-effects model was fitted to the outcome variable, with Time (Baseline, 12 Weeks) and Intervention as fixed effects. Participant was included as a random effect to account for within-subject correlation. The estimated intervention effect along with 95% confidence intervals and associated p-values were reported. The significance level was set at p = 0.05. The assumption of normality was assessed visually through histograms and Q-Q plots and confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk test. All analyses were conducted blind to the intervention condition, ensuring objectivity and minimising potential bias in the interpretation of results.

1.3. Results

The CONSORT flow diagram (Figure 2) illustrates participant enrolment, allocation to intervention groups, follow-up, and analysis, including reasons for exclusions and dropouts.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

CONSORT flow diagram depicting enrolment, allocation, follow-up and analysis

1.3.1. Primary Outcome

SRS-2: The Time by Intervention interaction indicated a greater reduction (i.e., improvement) in SRS-2 Total scores for CBD (mean difference = −17.0 points) compared to placebo (mean difference = −7.0 points); however, this interaction was not statistically significant (β = −11.15, SE = 7.19, p = .125). Similarly, for the Social Communication Index, the reduction in scores for CBD (mean difference = −13.8 points) compared to placebo (mean difference = −4.6 points) was not statistically significant (β = −9.92, SE = 5.81, p = 0.092), (see Figure 3). Greater reduction in scores following CBD compared to placebo were also observed for the SRS-2 subscales Awareness (CBD: −2.6 points, Placebo: −0.9 points; β = −1.77, SE = 1.030, p = .090) and Motivation (CBD: −3.3 points, Placebo: −0.8 points; β = −2.48, SE = 1.265, p = .053), although did not reach statistical significance. For Cognition (CBD: −2.8 points, Placebo: −1.3 points; β = - 1.787, SE = 1.565, p = .257), Communication (CBD: −5.1 points, Placebo: −1.7 points; β = −3.84, SE = 2.71, p = .161) and Restricted Repetitive Behaviours (CBD: −2.9 points, Placebo: −2.1 points; β = −1.23, SE = 1.644, p = .458) there were no intervention effects.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Time by Intervention effects of CBD (orange) and placebo (green) on (A) Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2) Total scores and (B) Social Communication Index composite scores.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Time by Intervention effects of CBD (orange) and placebo (green) on (A) The Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Composite Score, (B) Vineland Socialisation (subscale), (C) DBC-2 Social Relating (subscale), (D) PROMIS Social, (E) DBC-2 Anxiety, (F) PROMIS Anxiety and (G) Autism Parental Stress Index.

1.3.2. Secondary Outcomes

Social Relating

Three secondary measures probed social relating: PROMIS-Social, Vineland Socialization, and DBC2 Social Relating. For the PROMIS-Social, a significant interaction effect was observed (CBD: +1.7 points, Placebo: −0.2 points; β = 1.992, SE = 0.935, p = .036) with greater improvement following CBD intervention compared to placebo. There was no significant interaction effect observed for the Vineland Socialization subscale (CBD: +4.4 points, Placebo: +2.4 points; β = 2.71, SE = 3.25, p = .406). Lastly, the DBC2 Social Relating subscale showed a significant interaction effect (CBD: −2.55 points, Placebo: −0.29 points; β = −2.352, SE = 0.918, p = .012) suggesting a moderate impact of CBD intervention on social relating symptoms.

Mental Health

The PROMIS-Anxiety and the DBC-2 Anxiety subscales were used to measure changes in anxiety following CBD compared to placebo. For the PROMIS-Anxiety subscale, there appeared to be a reduction in anxiety for CBD (mean difference = −4.1 points) compared to placebo (mean difference = −0.8 points); but the difference did not reach statistical significance (β = −3.119, SE = 1.660, p = .064). Conversely, a significant interaction effect for the Anxiety subscale from the DBC-2 was observed, indicating reduced anxiety symptoms following CBD (CBD: −3.14 points, Placebo: +0.2 points; β = −3.20, SE = 0.944, p = .001).

Adaptive Behaviour

There was no significant effect of CBD on VABS-3 Adaptive Behaviour Composite (ABC) score compared to placebo (CBD: +2.4 points, Placebo: +1.0 points; β = 2.06, SE = 2.67, p = .443). Similarly, there were no effects of CBD on VABS-3 subscales Communication (CBD: +2.4 points, Placebo: +1.3 points; β = 1.82, SE = 2.40, p = .451), Living Skills (CBD: +1.0 points, Placebo: +0.1 points; β = 1.91, SE = 2.78, p = 0.493), and Socialization (CBD: +4.4 points, Placebo: +2.4 points; β = 2.71, SE = 3.25, p = .406).

Parental Stress

There was a significant improvement in parental stress following the CBD intervention compared to placebo as measured by the APSI (CBD: −5.7 points, Placebo: - 1.4 points; β = −4.6271, SE 2.26, p = .044).

Intervention effects on the discussed outcome measures from baseline to 12-weeks are presented in Table 5. Analyses of the remaining secondary outcome measures are presented in the Supplementary Materials.

View this table:
Table 5. Summary of intervention effects on behavioural outcome measures from baseline to 12-weeks

1.3.3. Adverse Events

During the trial, there were two adverse events recorded. One participant experienced abdominal discomfort on day 4 of CBD intervention, as reported by their parent, leading to the discontinuation of intervention after 7-days and withdrawal from the trial. This participant had pre-existing gastrointestinal issues, which may have contributed to the reported discomfort.

Another participant also reported gastrointestinal discomfort during the CBD condition, but this subsided after one week and the participant remained in the trial. Medical consultations were provided to the parents by a licensed medical practitioner, offering guidance on managing symptoms and assessing the suitability of continued participation in the study. No other adverse events were reported throughout the trial duration, indicating a generally well-tolerated intervention.

1.4. Discussion

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial was the first to investigate the effects of oral CBD oil on social relating in autistic children, with mental health and parental stress as secondary outcomes. Improvements were observed in secondary measures of social relating and anxiety symptoms as well as a reduction in parental stress. These preliminary findings contribute to the growing body of research investigating the potential therapeutic effects of CBD in autistic children. The premise of this research stemmed from the growing recognition of the involvement of the endocannabinoid system in social relating, specifically in autism, suggesting a potential role for CBD in modulating social functioning for autistic children (Wei et al., 2015; Zamberletti et al., 2017). Trial findings contribute preliminary evidence of the effect of CBD on social relating and anxiety symptoms in autistic children, aligning with previous studies indicating the potential for CBD to ameliorate core symptoms of autism (Aran et al., 2021; Silva Junior et al., 2024).

While the effect of CBD oil on the primary outcome measure, the SRS-2, did not reach statistical significance, changes in the SRS-2 Total scores and the Social Communication Index suggest a potential benefit of CBD intervention, albeit with small effect sizes. The observed changes in Awareness and Motivation SRS-2 subscales, although not statistically significant, suggest the need for further research to ascertain the reliability of these findings and determine the true effects of CBD in addressing core symptoms of autism. Given that 11 participants had intellectual disability, it is important to note that certain assessment measures may have been better suited for their evaluation than others. For instance, individuals who were non-verbal or faced sensory challenges might not have been adequately captured by measures emphasising higher levels of communication abilities such as the SRS.

In terms of secondary outcomes, significant effects were observed for social functioning measures, such as the PROMIS-Social and the DBC2 Social Relating subscales, indicating a moderate positive effect of CBD intervention on social relating symptoms. Furthermore, 12-week CBD administration demonstrated a reduction in anxiety symptoms, as evidenced by significant interaction effects for anxiety. This suggests a potential interplay between social anxiety and social relating, where CBD might reduce social anxiety, thereby improving social interactions, or enhance social relating, which could in turn alleviate anxiety symptoms (Bergamaschi et al., 2011). Alternatively, CBD could simultaneously impact both social relating and anxiety symptom domains (Crippa et al., 2011; Shannon, 2019; Silva Junior et al., 2024).

These findings underscore the importance of further research to elucidate the specific mechanisms underlying the effect of CBD on social relating and mental health in autistic individuals, ultimately informing the development of targeted interventions to improve outcomes in this population.

An improvement in parental stress following the 12-week CBD intervention in their children was also revealed. Parenting an autistic child has been associated with greater parenting stress compared with parenting a neurotypical child, and improvements in parental well-being have been linked to enhanced outcomes for autistic children, including reduced behavioural difficulties (Hayes & Watson, 2013). This finding invites speculation regarding the attribution of child improvement to CBD, parenting factors, or a combination of both. It is also possible that parents willing to enrol their child in an RCT might differ in certain characteristics, such as being more proactive in seeking interventions or having different stress-coping strategies, compared to those who do not participate. This significant finding suggests there is value in probing both child and parental well-being in autism-related clinical trials. Further research should consider parental well-being to disentangle the potential mechanisms underlying the observed outcomes.

The observed improvements in social relating and anxiety reduction following the CBD intervention underscore the need for further research in this area, particularly considering the limited pharmacological options available for addressing social difficulties and anxiety in autism (Warren et al., 2011). This trial reveals that CBD may represent a promising intervention due to its favourable safety profile, non-intoxicating nature, and lack of psychoactive effects, making it an attractive candidate for further investigation in paediatric populations. Two participants reported experiencing gastrointestinal discomfort as a side effect during the CBD condition, with one child withdrawing from the trial before titrating to 10mg/kg/day. This prompts speculation on whether the dosage of CBD administered may have been too high for some participants, and if a lower dose could potentially yield similar beneficial outcomes with fewer side effects. Further investigation into dosage optimisation is warranted to address these concerns and enhance tolerability in future trials.

There were several limitations inherent to this trial. The pilot-sized sample and recruitment from a single site may constrain the generalisability of the reported findings. Due to limitations in sample size, stratification was not feasible, although it would have benefitted the heterogeneity observed across participants, particularly regarding cognitive levels and communication abilities. Future research endeavours should aim to conduct larger-scale, multi-site trials. By involving multiple research sites, trials can recruit larger and more diverse participant pools, enhancing the representativeness of the findings and increasing statistical power. In larger trials containing clinical heterogeneity among participants, stratification could provide insights into intervention mechanisms by identifying specific characteristics within subgroups. Additionally, the anxiolytic and sleep effects of CBD have been identified as exhibiting an inverted U-shape dose-response curve, highlighting the complexity and critical nature of dosage and administration methods in clinical trials involving this compound (Narayan et al., 2022). Tailoring dosages to individual responsivity could also lead to more precise and effective provision of CBD. Despite limitations concerning statistical power and cohort heterogeneity, the efficient recruitment observed in this pilot study suggests the feasibility of conducting larger investigations to explore the potential benefits of CBD in managing challenges associated with autism.

Given the lack of effective pharmacological therapeutics for social relating in autism, without side effects (Nurmi et al., 2013; Sharma & Shaw, 2012), there is a critical need to develop novel targeted interventions. This RCT undertook a symptom-specific approach to investigating the effects of CBD on social relating in autistic children. The findings contribute to the current understanding regarding novel therapeutics with acceptable safety profiles to support the social difficulties experienced by autistic children. By combining CBD administration with behavioural testing specifically targeting social relating, this study offers a comprehensive exploration of the therapeutic effects of CBD in a population with limited pharmacological therapeutic options.

1.5. Conclusion

This trial, while preliminary, represents a significant step towards understanding the therapeutic potential of CBD in autism. With an emphasis on social relating difficulties, this study provides insights into the effects of CBD on one of the core symptoms of autism. Overall, the results suggest that across domain-specific measures there were statistically significant effects alongside positive trends for social relating and anxiety reduction following the CBD intervention compared to placebo. While further research is needed to validate and extend these findings, the results highlight the promise of CBD as a novel intervention for improving social wellbeing, and thus quality of life of autistic individuals and their families. These preliminary findings of improvement in social outcomes following chronic CBD oil administration call for larger, multi-site trials to elucidate the therapeutic efficacy of CBD in treating social challenges associated with autism and provides direction on which outcome measures should be employed. This trial serves as a critical step towards enhancing our understanding of the neurobiological underpinnings of autism and fostering the development of targeted therapeutics that can improve the quality of life for autistic people.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

1.6. Acknowledgements

In-kind support was received from Medigrowth in the form of investigational product for this study. This research was conducted under a formal research agreement with Medigrowth. No cash or other forms of support for this project were received from Medigrowth. This study is an investigator-initiated trial, and none of the authors have any commercial interest in Medigrowth.

Footnotes

  • Revisions to table and figure formatting.

References

  1. ↵
    Abi-Jaoude, E., Bhikram, T., Parveen, F., Levenbach, J., Lafreniere-Roula, M., & Sandor, P. (2022). A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Crossover Trial of Cannabis in Adults with Tourette Syndrome. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, (Abi-Jaoude, E.) Department of Psychiatry, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Medline. doi:10.1089/can.2022.0091
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    Aran, A., Cassuto, H., & Lubotzky, A. (2018). Cannabidiol based medical cannabis in children with autism-a retrospective feasibility study. Neurology, 90(15). Embase. https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L622309404&from=export
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    Aran, A., Harel, M., Cassuto, H., Polyansky, L., Schnapp, A., Wattad, N., Shmueli, D., Golan, D., & Castellanos, F. X. (2021). Cannabinoid treatment for autism: A proof-of-concept randomized trial. Molecular Autism, 12(1), 6. doi:10.1186/s13229-021-00420-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    Barchel, D., Stolar, O., De-Haan, T., Ziv-Baran, T., Saban, N., Fuchs, D. O., Koren, G., & Berkovitch, M. (2019). Oral Cannabidiol Use in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder to Treat Related Symptoms and Co-morbidities. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 9, 1521.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    Bergamaschi, M. M., Queiroz, R. H. C., Chagas, M. H. N., de Oliveira, D. C. G., De Martinis, B. S., Kapczinski, F., Quevedo, J., Roesler, R., Schröder, N., Nardi, A. E., Martín-Santos, R., Hallak, J. E. C., Zuardi, A. W., & Crippa, J. A. S. (2011). Cannabidiol Reduces the Anxiety Induced by Simulated Public Speaking in Treatment-Naïve Social Phobia Patients. Neuropsychopharmacology, 36(6), 1219–1226. doi:10.1038/npp.2011.6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. Bisogno, T., Hanuš, L., De Petrocellis, L., Tchilibon, S., Ponde, D. E., Brandi, I., Moriello, A. S., Davis, J. B., Mechoulam, R., & Di Marzo, V. (2001). Molecular targets for cannabidiol and its synthetic analogues: Effect on vanilloid VR1 receptors and on the cellular uptake and enzymatic hydrolysis of anandamide: Cannabidiol, VR1 receptors and anandamide inactivation. British Journal of Pharmacology, 134(4), 845–852. doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0704327
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, S. K., Lester, J. N., Sasson, N. J., & Hand, B. N. (2021). Avoiding Ableist Language: Suggestions for Autism Researchers. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 18–29. doi:10.1089/aut.2020.0014
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    Cairns, E. A., Benson, M. J., Bedoya-Pérez, M. A., Macphail, S. L., Mohan, A., Cohen, R., Sachdev, P. S., & McGregor, I. S. (2023). Medicinal cannabis for psychiatry-related conditions: An overview of current Australian prescribing. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 14, 1142680. doi:10.3389/fphar.2023.1142680
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    Canitano, R., & Pallagrosi, M. (2017). Autism Spectrum Disorders and Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: Excitation/Inhibition Imbalance and Developmental Trajectories. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8, 69. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00069
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Chin, R., Gil-Nagel, A., Mitchell, W., Patel, A. D., Perry, M. S., Weinstock, A., Checketts, D., & Dunayevich, E. (2020). Long-term safety and efficacy of Cannabidiol (CBD) treatment in Lennox Gastaut syndrome: Results overall and for patients completing 1-3 years of an open-label extension (GWPCARE5). European Journal of Neurology, 27, 24.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Cochran, D. M., Sikoglu, E. M., Hodge, S. M., Edden, R. A. E., Foley, A., Kennedy, D. N., Moore, C. M., & Frazier, J. A. (2015). Relationship among Glutamine, γ-Aminobutyric Acid, and Social Cognition in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 25(4), 314–322. doi:10.1089/cap.2014.0112
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    Cooper, R. E., Williams, E., Seegobin, S., Tye, C., & Asherson, P. (2016). The effects of combined delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on neurocognitive and behavioural function in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 26, S74.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    Crippa, J. A. S., Derenusson, G. N., Ferrari, T. B., Wichert-Ana, L., Duran, F. L., Martin-Santos, R., Simões, M. V., Bhattacharyya, S., Fusar-Poli, P., Atakan, Z., Filho, A. S., Freitas-Ferrari, M. C., McGuire, P. K., Zuardi, A. W., Busatto, G. F., & Hallak, J. E. C. (2011). Neural basis of anxiolytic effects of cannabidiol (CBD) in generalized social anxiety disorder: A preliminary report. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 25(1), 121–130. doi:10.1177/0269881110379283
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    Efron, D., Freeman, J. L., Cranswick, N., Payne, J. M., Mulraney, M., Prakash, C., Lee, K. J., Taylor, K., & Williams, K. (2021). A pilot randomised placebo-controlled trial of cannabidiol to reduce severe behavioural problems in children and adolescents with intellectual disability. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 87(2), 436–446.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    Ford, T. C., & Crewther, D. P. (2014). Factor Analysis Demonstrates a Common Schizoidal Phenotype within Autistic and Schizotypal Tendency: Implications for Neuroscientific Studies. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 5. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00117
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    Gaetz, W., Bloy, L., Wang, D. J., Port, R. G., Blaskey, L., Levy, S. E., & Roberts, T. P. L. (2014). GABA estimation in the brains of children on the autism spectrum: Measurement precision and regional cortical variation. NeuroImage, 86, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.068
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    Gao, R., & Penzes, P. (2015). Common Mechanisms of Excitatory and Inhibitory Imbalance in Schizophrenia and Autism Spectrum Disorders. Current Molecular Medicine, 15(2), 146–167. doi:10.2174/1566524015666150303003028
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Greenwood, L.-M., Leung, S., Michie, P. T., Green, A., Nathan, P. J., Fitzgerald, P., Johnston, P., Solowij, N., Kulkarni, J., & Croft, R. J. (2018). The effects of glycine on auditory mismatch negativity in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 191, 61–69. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2017.05.031
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    Gunasekera, B., Davies, C., Martin-Santos, R., & Bhattacharyya, S. (2020). The Yin and Yang of Cannabis: A Systematic Review of Human Neuroimaging Evidence of the Differential Effects of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, S2451902220303116. doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.10.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    Harada, M., Taki, M. M., Nose, A., Kubo, H., Mori, K., Nishitani, H., & Matsuda, T. (2011). Non-Invasive Evaluation of the GABAergic/Glutamatergic System in Autistic Patients Observed by MEGA-Editing Proton MR Spectroscopy Using a Clinical 3 Tesla Instrument. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(4), 447–454. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1065-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Hayes, S. A., & Watson, S. L. (2013). The Impact of Parenting Stress: A Meta-analysis of Studies Comparing the Experience of Parenting Stress in Parents of Children With and Without Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(3), 629– 642. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1604-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Heussler, H., Cohen, J., Buchanan, C., O’Neill, C., Sebree, T., & O’Quinn, S. (2022). An Open-Label, Tolerability and Efficacy Study of ZYN002 (cannabidiol) Administered As A Transdermal Gel To Children And Adolescents With 22Q11.2 Deletion Syndrome (INSPIRE). Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 66(8–9), 672. Embase. doi:10.1111/jir.12962
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    Karhson, D. S., Hardan, A. Y., & Parker, K. J. (2016). Endocannabinoid signaling in social functioning: An RDoC perspective. Translational Psychiatry, 6(9), e905.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    Karhson, D. S., Krasinska, K. M., Dallaire, J. A., Libove, R. A., Phillips, J. M., Chien, A. S., Garner, J. P., Hardan, A. Y., & Parker, K. J. (2018). Plasma anandamide concentrations are lower in children with autism spectrum disorder. Molecular Autism, 9, 18.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    Kenny, L., Hattersley, C., Molins, B., Buckley, C., Povey, C., & Pellicano, E. (2016). Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community. Autism, 20(4), 442–462. doi:10.1177/1362361315588200
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Laprairie, R. B., Bagher, A. M., Kelly, M. E. M., & Denovan-Wright, E. M. (2015). Cannabidiol is a negative allosteric modulator of the cannabinoid CB 1 receptor: Negative allosteric modulation of CB 1 by cannabidiol. British Journal of Pharmacology, 172(20), 4790– 4805. doi:10.1111/bph.13250
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Larsen, C., & Shahinas, J. (2020). Dosage, Efficacy and Safety of Cannabidiol Administration in Adults: A Systematic Review of Human Trials. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, 12(3), 129–141. doi:10.14740/jocmr4090
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Lattanzi, S., Brigo, F., Trinka, E., Zaccara, G., Cagnetti, C., Del Giovane, C., & Silvestrini, M. (2018). Efficacy and Safety of Cannabidiol in Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Drugs, 78(17), 1791–1804.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. Leweke, F. M., Piomelli, D., Pahlisch, F., Muhl, D., Gerth, C. W., Hoyer, C., Klosterkötter, J., Hellmich, M., & Koethe, D. (2012). Cannabidiol enhances anandamide signaling and alleviates psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia. Translational Psychiatry, 2(3), e94–e94. doi:10.1038/tp.2012.15
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    Marsman, A., Mandl, R. C. W., Klomp, D. W. J., Cahn, W., Kahn, R. S., Luijten, P. R., & Hulshoff Pol, H. E. (2017). Intelligence and Brain Efficiency: Investigating the Association between Working Memory Performance, Glutamate, and GABA. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8, 154. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00154
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    Narayan, A. J., Downey, L. A., Manning, B., & Hayley, A. C. (2022). Cannabinoid treatments for anxiety: A systematic review and consideration of the impact of sleep disturbance. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 143, 104941. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104941
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    Nurmi, E. L., Spilman, S. L., Whelan, F., Scahill, L. L., Aman, M. G., McDougle, C. J., Arnold, L. E., H, en, B., Johnson, C., Sukhodolsky, D. G., Posey, D. J., Lecavalier, L., Stigler, K. A., Ritz, L., Tierney, E., Vitiello, B., & McCracken, J. T. (2013). Moderation of antipsychotic-induced weight gain by energy balance gene variants in the RUPP autism network risperidone studies. Translational Psychiatry, 3, e274.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    Parrella, N.-F., Hill, A. T., Enticott, P. G., Barhoun, P., Bower, I. S., & Ford, T. C. (2023). A systematic review of cannabidiol trials in neurodevelopmental disorders. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 230, 173607. doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2023.173607
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    Pinkham, A. E., Hopfinger, J. B., Pelphrey, K. A., Piven, J., & Penn, D. L. (2008). Neural bases for impaired social cognition in schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders. Schizophrenia Research, 99(1–3), 164–175. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2007.10.024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    Pretzsch, C. M., Floris, D. L., Voinescu, B., Elsahib, M., Mendez, M. A., Wichers, R., Ajram, L., Ivin, G., Heasman, M., Pretzsch, E., Williams, S., Murphy, D. G. M., Daly, E., & McAlonan, G. M. (2021). Modulation of striatal functional connectivity differences in adults with and without autism spectrum disorder in a single-dose randomized trial of cannabidivarin. Molecular Autism, 12(1), 49. doi:10.1186/s13229-021-00454-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. ↵
    Pretzsch, C. M., Freyberg, J., Voinescu, B., Lythgoe, D., Horder, J., Mendez, M. A., Wichers, R., Ajram, L., Ivin, G., Heasman, M., Edden, R. A. E., Williams, S., Murphy, D. G. M., Daly, E., & McAlonan, G. M. (2019a). Effects of cannabidiol on brain excitation and inhibition systems; a randomised placebo-controlled single dose trial during magnetic resonance spectroscopy in adults with and without autism spectrum disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology, 44(8), 1398–1405. doi:10.1038/s41386-019-0333-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    Pretzsch, C. M., Freyberg, J., Voinescu, B., Lythgoe, D., Horder, J., Mendez, M. A., Wichers, R., Ajram, L., Ivin, G., Heasman, M., Edden, R. A. E., Williams, S., Murphy, D. G. M., Daly, E., & McAlonan, G. M. (2019b). Effects of cannabidiol on brain excitation and inhibition systems; a randomised placebo-controlled single dose trial during magnetic resonance spectroscopy in adults with and without autism spectrum disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology, 44(8), 1398–1405.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    Pretzsch, C. M., Freyberg, J., Voinescu, B., Lythgoe, D., Horder, J., Mendez, M. A., Wichers, R., Ajram, L., Ivin, G., Heasman, M., Edden, R. A. E., Williams, S., Murphy, D. G. M., Daly, E., & McAlonan, G. M. (2019c). Effects of cannabidiol on brain excitation and inhibition systems; a randomised placebo-controlled single dose trial during magnetic resonance spectroscopy in adults with and without autism spectrum disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology, 44(8), 1398–1405. doi:10.1038/s41386-019-0333-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    Pretzsch, C. M., Voinescu, B., Lythgoe, D., Horder, J., Mendez, M. A., Wichers, R., Ajram, L., Ivin, G., Heasman, M., Edden, R. A. E., Williams, S., Murphy, D. G. M., Daly, E., & McAlonan, G. M. (2019). Effects of cannabidivarin (CBDV) on brain excitation and inhibition systems in adults with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A single dose trial during magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Translational Psychiatry, 9(1), 313. doi:10.1038/s41398-019-0654-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. Sartim, A. G., Guimarães, F. S., & Joca, S. R. L. (2016). Antidepressant-like effect of cannabidiol injection into the ventral medial prefrontal cortex—Possible involvement of 5-HT1A and CB1 receptors. Behavioural Brain Research, 303, 218–227. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2016.01.033
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    Shannon, S. (2019). Cannabidiol in Anxiety and Sleep: A Large Case Series. The Permanente Journal. doi:10.7812/TPP/18-041
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    Sharma, A., & Shaw, S. R. (2012). Efficacy of Risperidone in Managing Maladaptive Behaviors for Children With Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 26(4), 291–299. doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2011.02.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    Silva Junior, E. A. D., Medeiros, W. M. B., Santos, J. P. M. D., Sousa, J. M. M. D., Costa, F. B. D., Pontes, K. M., Borges, T. C., Neto Segundo, C. E., Andrade E Silva, A. H., Nunes, E. L. G., Alves, N. T., Rosa, M. D. D., & Albuquerque, K. L. G. D. D. (2024). Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of cannabidiol-rich cannabis extract in children with autism spectrum disorder: Randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trial. Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. doi:10.47626/2237-6089-2021-0396
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    Talantseva, O. I., Romanova, R. S., Shurdova, E. M., Dolgorukova, T. A., Sologub, P. S., Titova, O. S., Kleeva, D. F., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2023). The global prevalence of autism spectrum disorder: A three-level meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1071181. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1071181
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. ↵
    Tebartz van Elst, L., Maier, S., Fangmeier, T., Endres, D., Mueller, G. T., Nickel, K., Ebert, D., Lange, T., Hennig, J., Biscaldi, M., Riedel, A., & Perlov, E. (2014). Disturbed cingulate glutamate metabolism in adults with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder: Evidence in support of the excitatory/inhibitory imbalance hypothesis. Molecular Psychiatry, 19(12), 1314–1325. doi:10.1038/mp.2014.62
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. ↵
    Thiele, E. A., Marsh, E. D., French, J. A., Mazurkiewicz-Beldzinska, M., Benbadis, S. R., Joshi, C., Lyons, P. D., Taylor, A., Roberts, C., & Sommerville, K. (2018). Cannabidiol in patients with seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (GWPCARE4): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet (London, England), 391(10125), 1085–1096.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    VanDolah, H. J., Bauer, B. A., & Mauck, K. F. (2019). Clinicians’ Guide to Cannabidiol and Hemp Oils. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 94(9), 1840–1851. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.01.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. ↵
    Veenstra-VanderWeele, J., Cook, E. H., King, B. H., Zarevics, P., Cherubini, M., Walton-Bowen, K., Bear, M. F., Wang, P. P., & Carpenter, R. L. (2017). Arbaclofen in Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Randomized, Controlled, Phase 2 Trial. Neuropsychopharmacology, 42(7), 1390–1398. doi:10.1038/npp.2016.237
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    Warren, Z., McPheeters, M. L., Sathe, N., Foss-Feig, J. H., Glasser, A., & Veenstra-VanderWeele, J. (2011). A Systematic Review of Early Intensive Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorders. Pediatrics, 127(5), e1303–e1311. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0426
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. ↵
    Wei, D., Dinh, D., Lee, D., Li, D., Anguren, A., Moreno-Sanz, G., Gall, C. M., & Piomelli, D. (2016). Enhancement of Anandamide-Mediated Endocannabinoid Signaling Corrects Autism-Related Social Impairment. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 1(1), 81–89. doi:10.1089/can.2015.0008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    Wei, D., Lee, D., Cox, C. D., Karsten, C. A., Peñagarikano, O., Geschwind, D. H., Gall, C. M., & Piomelli, D. (2015). Endocannabinoid signaling mediates oxytocin-driven social reward. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(45), 14084–14089.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    Weiss, L., Zeira, M., Reich, S., Slavin, S., Raz, I., Mechoulam, R., & Gallily, R. (2008). Cannabidiol arrests onset of autoimmune diabetes in NOD mice. Neuropharmacology, 54(1), 244–249. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2007.06.029
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    Zamberletti, E., Gabaglio, M., & Parolaro, D. (2017). The Endocannabinoid System and Autism Spectrum Disorders: Insights from Animal Models. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18(9), 1916. doi:10.3390/ijms18091916
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted July 31, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Effects of Cannabidiol on Social Relating, Anxiety, and Parental Stress in Autistic Children: A Randomised Controlled Crossover Trial
Nina-Francesca Parrella, Aron T. Hill, Peter G. Enticott, Tanita Botha, Sarah Catchlove, Luke Downey, Talitha C. Ford
medRxiv 2024.06.19.24309024; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.19.24309024
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area