Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, HealthNewsReview.org will cease daily publication of new content at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. If you wish to donate, your gift might help keep the site available to the public for a few more years, by defraying costs of web hosting and maintenance. All of our 6,000+ published articles contain lessons to help people improve their critical thinking about health care. Read more about our change in status. And here's how to make a donation.
Read Original Story

U.S. News & World Report regurgitates news release on cannabidiol and psychosis

Rating

2 Star

Tags

Cannabidiol Reduces Symptoms of Psychosis

Our Review Summary

This US News & World Report story reports on a small study measuring brain activity, but makes it sound like a major step forward. The specifics of the study are glossed over, no connection is made between brain activity and clinical symptoms or outcomes, and there’s no mention of cost or potential harms. In addition, the story relies on a news release from the research university where the study was done and canned quotes from the study author.

 

Why This Matters

People coming into emergency rooms with psychotic symptoms is a common enough occurrence that there are established treatment guidelines. The symptoms may be caused by any number of things, such as drugs of abuse or medications, as well as mental illness or other medical conditions. To manage patients, antipsychotic drugs are often administered. These drugs come with a raft of side effects, so a treatment that could quell symptoms quickly with fewer side effects would certainly be useful.

There is some evidence that cannabidiol might be helpful for acute psychosis, though much more is needed. News coverage of current research can be worthwhile if it puts new findings into context.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The article did not mention costs of cannabidiol.

Internet sources of cannabidiol can cost 4 to 20 cents per milligram, though the dosage and quality of these products is not regulated. The study used a 600 mg dose, so the cost would be $24-$120 for a single dose. The FDA-approved version of the drug (approved for childhood epilepsy, not psychosis) runs $32,000 a year, although insurance may cover some of that cost.

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

Not Satisfactory

The headline claims that CBD reduces symptoms of psychosis, but never provides any evidence that is true.

We’re told that people with psychotic symptoms who received cannabidiol “showed decreased abnormal activity” in MRI scans of brain activity. The very next sentence states: “These results suggest that CBD can help re-adjust brain function to normal levels.”

Did normal “brain function” mean no more psychosis? We’re not told. More importantly, brain activity is not a symptom.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The article made no mention of possible side effects of cannabidiol, which can include tiredness, diarrhea, and changes of appetite/weight. These effects are considered mild, but we maintain that the potential for untoward effects deserve consideration.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The article does not help readers evaluate the study’s strengths or weaknesses. This was a randomized clinical trial (a strength) done in 33 subjects (a small enough number to be a weakness). Additionally, there is no mention of the timing between administration of the study drug (just a one-time dose) and measurement of brain activity (at baseline or follow-up).

More importantly, the article does not help readers how abnormal brain activity relates to overt (or obvious) psychotic symptoms — or that normalizing brain activity has clinical significant effects.

Further, there is no mention as to why participants “experiencing psychotic symptoms but not yet diagnosed with psychosis” were chosen. In the larger clinical trial by the same investigator, the CBD compound was given in individuals with overt psychosis. The reason for the selection of this study population is unclear, as is the duration of therapy.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease-mongering here, although more could have been said about the frequency of psychosis and which disorders it’s most commonly associated with.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The only source quoted in the article was a study author.

An independent perspective is crucial to convey the significance of this study and its findings.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The article does mention older antipsychotic drugs, but does not compare their effects on the main outcome — abnormal brain activity. One might expect a comparison of side effects between traditional antipsychotics and cannabidiol, which is likely where the latter would seem advantageous (if the therapeutic effects are equivalent, which is not at all clear).

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

We’ll give this a satisfactory rating because the article mentions the FDA approval of the drug for epilepsy, which implies that its commercially available. But it’s not clear if the dosing would be similar.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story indicates there is previous research that shows a connection between CBD and how it affects psychosis.

Total Score: 3 of 10 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.