Bradley T Conner, Emma E Smith, Samuel M DiCecco, Kira L Sturgess, Hollis C Karoly, Gregory Dooley, Natalie Akagi, Charles Villanueva, Michael Hennesy
{"title":"Pharmacokinetic Differences Between Fast-Acting, Standard, and Placebo Cannabis Edibles.","authors":"Bradley T Conner, Emma E Smith, Samuel M DiCecco, Kira L Sturgess, Hollis C Karoly, Gregory Dooley, Natalie Akagi, Charles Villanueva, Michael Hennesy","doi":"10.1177/25785125261441366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Edibles have become the second-most used cannabis product in legal U.S. states, wherein 64% of cannabis consumers reported using edibles within the past year. Among expansions to the legal cannabis industry are the newly marketed \"fast-acting\" edible compounds, which may address many of the issues associated with edible use related to overdose and dose management. The study hypotheses were that fast-acting edibles would reach peak concentration significantly faster than standard edibles and placebo edibles.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty participants completed three arms within-subjects designed study to test hypotheses. The three arms were ingestion of a (1) fast-acting edible, (2) a standard edible, and (3) a Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) terpene-derived placebo edible that was indistinguishable from the two THC-containing edibles. Blood plasma was analyzed for the presence of THC and THC analytes. The pharmacokinetic parameters tested were time to max concentration (Tmax), maximum concentration (Cmax), terminal half-life (t<sub>1/2</sub>), and area under the curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results supported study hypotheses in that Tmax was significantly faster for the fast-acting edible, observed 30 min post-ingestion and, on average, 30 min earlier than the Tmax for the standard edible. There were no significant differences between the fast-acting and standard edibles on Cmax, t<sub>1/2</sub>, and AUC; however, both the fast-acting and standard edibles were significantly different compared with the placebo across all pharmacokinetic parameters.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The results indicate that the microencapsulation technology used to create the fast-acting edible enabled analyte concentrations to peak significantly faster compared to the standard and placebo edibles.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":"25785125261441366"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25785125261441366","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Edibles have become the second-most used cannabis product in legal U.S. states, wherein 64% of cannabis consumers reported using edibles within the past year. Among expansions to the legal cannabis industry are the newly marketed "fast-acting" edible compounds, which may address many of the issues associated with edible use related to overdose and dose management. The study hypotheses were that fast-acting edibles would reach peak concentration significantly faster than standard edibles and placebo edibles.
Materials and methods: Twenty participants completed three arms within-subjects designed study to test hypotheses. The three arms were ingestion of a (1) fast-acting edible, (2) a standard edible, and (3) a Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) terpene-derived placebo edible that was indistinguishable from the two THC-containing edibles. Blood plasma was analyzed for the presence of THC and THC analytes. The pharmacokinetic parameters tested were time to max concentration (Tmax), maximum concentration (Cmax), terminal half-life (t1/2), and area under the curve (AUC).
Results: Results supported study hypotheses in that Tmax was significantly faster for the fast-acting edible, observed 30 min post-ingestion and, on average, 30 min earlier than the Tmax for the standard edible. There were no significant differences between the fast-acting and standard edibles on Cmax, t1/2, and AUC; however, both the fast-acting and standard edibles were significantly different compared with the placebo across all pharmacokinetic parameters.
Discussion: The results indicate that the microencapsulation technology used to create the fast-acting edible enabled analyte concentrations to peak significantly faster compared to the standard and placebo edibles.