Read Original Release

NYU Langone adds welcome nuance in recap of study on cannabidiol for severe epilepsy

Cannabis Derivative Cannabidiol Reduces Seizures in Severe Epilepsy Disorder

Our Review Summary

This release from the NYU Langone Medical Center describes a randomized placebo controlled clinical trial of children and adolescents with Dravet syndome, an extreme form of epilepsy, who often don’t respond to other drugs. The release provides a very good description of the benefits and the side effects that were reported from the trial. It adds cautions and nuance that are missing from many news releases.

But not included were the cost of the new drug (projected to be quite steep) and we think the release could have emphasized more that the children in the trial were already on seizure medications. When the cannabidiol (or a placebo) was added to the maintenance drug it alleviated seizures but also introduced a high degree of side effects.

A CNN story on the study, which we also reviewed, had many of the same strengths as the news release (overall depth and detail on benefits), but it similarly skipped cost information.


Why This Matters

Dravet syndrome is a rare form of epilepsy that generally begins in a child’s first year but is a life-long condition, according to the Epilepsy Foundation. Currently, treatments for this condition are marginal and new therapies addressing its symptoms would be welcome. The trial showed reduced seizures in this difficult-to-treat type of epilepsy compared to patients given a placebo. The lead researcher stressed that the study only tested cannabidiol in patients “with especially severe forms who have not responded to numerous medications”  and that the drug is not a panacea for other forms of epilepsy.


Does the news release adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no mention of the cost of the drug but the NYT reported last year that Epidiolex could cost from $2,500 to $5,000 per month. Since the drug isn’t FDA approved, it’s too soon to know whether its cost will be covered by health insurance.

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


The release describes benefits in clear terms, and provides numbers to add context. It states:

“Specifically, seizure frequency dropped in the CBD-treated group by 39 percent from a median of nearly 12 convulsive seizures per month before the study to about six; three patients’ seizures stopped entirely. In the placebo group, there was a 13 percent reduction in seizures from about 15 monthly seizures to fourteen.”

It also notes that the difference in the degree of seizure reduction between the CBD group and the placebo group was “both statistically significant and clinically consistent.”

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?


The release is clear in mentioning the side effects of the use of this drug in the study: “Side effects – experienced by 93.4 percent of patients in the CBD group and 74.6 percent of those treated with placebo – were generally reported as mild or moderate in severity. The most common side effects in the CBD group were vomiting, fatigue and fever. Eight participants from the CBD group withdrew from the trial due to side effects compared to one participant in the placebo group.”

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?


The study was a randomized, placebo controlled trial which is considered the highest standard of evidence.

While the release didn’t specifically address limitations of this trial, it did recap that this study sought to address some of the limitations present in an earlier open-label study (meaning it wasn’t randomized or compared with a placebo). It states: “The new study confirms results from a December 2015 open-label expanded access program led by Dr. Devinsky that reported reductions in seizure frequency. In that program, both the researchers and patient’s families knew they were receiving CBD, which may have introduced a bias into the results. This new, randomized, controlled clinical study eliminated those concerns as participants and their physicians did not know if they were on CBD or placebo, say the study authors.”

The release did say that larger, future trials will look at whether the benefits of cannabidiol can be achieved at lower, and perhaps less toxic doses.

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Not Applicable

No evidence of disease mongering here. The release would have been better if it had provided some additional context about Dravet syndrome or on how researchers believe cannabidiol works to reduce seizures.

Does the news release identify funding sources & disclose conflicts of interest?


The release mentions that the trial was funded by GW Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Epidiolex.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

In the trial, patients in the experimental group had Epidiolex “added to their existing treatment over a 14-week period,” so it is obvious that other treatments are available. But these standard medications are not alternatives to cannabidiol. Instead, cannabidiol is an add-on treatment, not an alternative to existing drugs. The release could have named those standard medications and noted that other cannabidiol compounds are being studied in people with epilepsy.

Does the news release establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


The release states that Epidiolex “has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration” yet, so readers can assume that it is not yet available to the public. The FDA does, however, consider cannabidiol an investigational product for treating children with epilepsy and has “expanded access provisions” that allow its use. This would have been useful information to include in the release.

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?


The release states that this was “the first large-scale randomized clinical trial for the compound,” adding that the results were both statistically and clinically significant. The release is timed with the publication of the trial results in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Much of what is found in the release was reported in the New York Times on March 14, 2016, but that story noted that full study data was not yet available.

Does the news release include unjustifiable, sensational language, including in the quotes of researchers?


The release doesn’t rely on unjustifiable language. It inserts needed nuance in several places. For example, it states: “Cannabidiol should not be viewed as a panacea for epilepsy, but for patients with especially severe forms who have not responded to numerous medications, these results provide hope that we may soon have another treatment option,” according to the lead researcher.

Total Score: 7 of 9 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.