While I concede it is not wholly indicative of the Phase II result, I'm a keen investor in healthcare so I take heed of clinical trials. Anyway, on your first point above, "two patients were discontinued due to worsening seizures", while it's not clear if CBD contributed to the worsening of their seizures, if deemed statistically relevant, then it could represent 20% of patients (2/10) responding negatively to CBD. Secondly, "Treatment with the capsules was generally safe and well tolerated, and "most adverse events were mild, a few were moderate", I'm wondering whether this equates to contraindications from adjunctive treatment? It's not a standalone study and I imagine ethics prohibited participants from abstaining from their traditional medication, so the trial can't portray CBD as the magic bullet.....a helpful one perhaps.
Not trying to be deliberately negative here, but "notwithstanding the small number of patients treated to date, these results compare very favourably to other similar studies of cannabidiol", once published it'll merely supplement other studies, it won't become the benchmark standard if that makes sense? In addition, by increasing recruitment levels will results in greater statistical relevance for the trials. The current study is too small to give greater credence to the use of CBD for sufferers worldwide. As soon as I saw the bullet points I was crestfallen, normally they would laud the results, but I imagine this has been a trying trial.
Following on from my previous post, this is exactly why the Phase III (if it occurs) needs to take place in the America's, "It is estimated that approximately 100,000 children in North America suffer from treatment resistant epilepsy, causing uncontrollable seizures". Perhaps less resistance from parents without the demands of free treatment too?
I've always felt that CBD is beneficial for various ailments, but there's a way to go to find optimum levels and greater acceptance within the medical field.
Expand
