Yasuhiro Kishi, Ichiro Takumi, Kakusho Chigusa Nakajima-Ohyama
{"title":"Psychiatric effects of cannabidiol, cannabinol, and tetrahydrocannabinol: A narrative review of clinical evidence and risk profiles.","authors":"Yasuhiro Kishi, Ichiro Takumi, Kakusho Chigusa Nakajima-Ohyama","doi":"10.1002/pcn5.70383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cannabinoid products are increasingly used worldwide despite limited psychiatric evidence. This narrative review synthesizes preclinical and clinical evidence on cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN), and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to clarify their distinct psychiatric profiles and discuss how current evidence may inform ongoing clinical and regulatory discussions. A targeted search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science through March 2026 was conducted, prioritizing randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. While preclinical studies consistently suggest anxiolytic and antidepressant-like effects of CBD, clinical evidence remains inconsistent and fails to establish robust therapeutic efficacy. Recent meta-analyses indicate no consistent clinically meaningful benefit of cannabinoids across major psychiatric disorders, and evidence for CBN remains minimal and insufficient to support any clinical recommendation. In sharp contrast, a robust body of evidence indicates that THC is strongly and dose-dependently associated with adverse psychiatric outcomes-including psychosis, cognitive impairment, mood instability, and suicidality-particularly with early-onset or high-potency use. Overall, current evidence does not support the routine clinical use of cannabinoids for psychiatric indications. Although CBD is an investigational agent with a favorable safety profile, its clinical utility remains unproven, whereas THC exposure carries well-documented risks of psychiatric adverse effects. These findings underscore the importance of cautious, compound-specific, and evidence-based approaches to clinical practice and regulation, particularly within the precautionary frameworks observed in several Asian countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":74405,"journal":{"name":"PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences","volume":"5 3","pages":"e70383"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13373943/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pcn5.70383","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Cannabinoid products are increasingly used worldwide despite limited psychiatric evidence. This narrative review synthesizes preclinical and clinical evidence on cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN), and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to clarify their distinct psychiatric profiles and discuss how current evidence may inform ongoing clinical and regulatory discussions. A targeted search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science through March 2026 was conducted, prioritizing randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. While preclinical studies consistently suggest anxiolytic and antidepressant-like effects of CBD, clinical evidence remains inconsistent and fails to establish robust therapeutic efficacy. Recent meta-analyses indicate no consistent clinically meaningful benefit of cannabinoids across major psychiatric disorders, and evidence for CBN remains minimal and insufficient to support any clinical recommendation. In sharp contrast, a robust body of evidence indicates that THC is strongly and dose-dependently associated with adverse psychiatric outcomes-including psychosis, cognitive impairment, mood instability, and suicidality-particularly with early-onset or high-potency use. Overall, current evidence does not support the routine clinical use of cannabinoids for psychiatric indications. Although CBD is an investigational agent with a favorable safety profile, its clinical utility remains unproven, whereas THC exposure carries well-documented risks of psychiatric adverse effects. These findings underscore the importance of cautious, compound-specific, and evidence-based approaches to clinical practice and regulation, particularly within the precautionary frameworks observed in several Asian countries.
尽管精神病学证据有限,大麻素产品在世界范围内的使用越来越多。这篇叙述性综述综合了大麻二酚(CBD)、大麻酚(CBN)和四氢大麻酚(THC)的临床前和临床证据,以澄清它们独特的精神病学特征,并讨论当前证据如何为正在进行的临床和监管讨论提供信息。对PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science进行了到2026年3月的目标搜索,优先考虑随机对照试验、系统评价和荟萃分析。虽然临床前研究一致表明CBD具有抗焦虑和抗抑郁的类似作用,但临床证据仍然不一致,未能建立强有力的治疗效果。最近的荟萃分析表明,大麻素在治疗主要精神疾病方面没有一致的临床有意义的益处,而且CBN的证据仍然很少,不足以支持任何临床推荐。与之形成鲜明对比的是,大量证据表明,四氢大麻酚与不良的精神后果(包括精神病、认知障碍、情绪不稳定和自杀倾向)有着强烈的剂量依赖性,尤其是在早发性或高剂量使用时。总的来说,目前的证据不支持大麻素用于精神适应症的常规临床应用。尽管CBD是一种具有良好安全性的研究药物,但其临床效用仍未得到证实,而四氢大麻酚暴露具有充分记录的精神不良反应风险。这些发现强调了对临床实践和监管采取谨慎、针对特定化合物和循证方法的重要性,特别是在几个亚洲国家观察到的预防框架内。