In recent years there has been growing interest in the potential benefits of CBD-rich cannabis treatment for children with ASD. Several open label studies and one double-blind placebo-controlled study have reported that CBD-rich cannabis is safe and potentially effective in reducing disruptive behaviors and improving social communication. However, previous studies have mostly based their conclusions on parental reports without the use of standardized clinical assessments. Here, we conducted an open label study to examine the efficacy of 6 months of CBD-rich cannabis treatment in children and adolescents with ASD. Longitudinal changes in social communication abilities and restricted and repetitive behaviors (RRB) were quantified using parent report with the Social Responsiveness Scale and clinical assessment with the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS). We also quantified changes in adaptive behaviors using the Vineland, and cognitive abilities using an age-appropriate Wechsler test. Eighty-two of the 110 recruited participants completed the 6-month treatment protocol. While some participants did not exhibit any improvement in symptoms, there were overall significant improvements in social communication abilities as quantified by the ADOS, SRS, and Vineland with larger improvements in participants who had more severe initial symptoms. Significant improvements in RRB were noted only with parent-reported SRS scores and there were no significant changes in cognitive scores. These findings suggest that treatment with CBD-rich cannabis can yield improvements, particularly in social communication abilities, which were visible even when using standardized clinical assessments. Additional double-blind placebo-controlled studies utilizing standardized assessments are highly warranted for substantiating these findings.

No abstract

Background: Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological conditions and its treatment during pregnancy is challenging. Levetiracetam (LEV) is an antiepileptic medication frequently used during pregnancy. Only a few small studies have been published on LEV monitoring during pregnancy, demonstrating decreased serum LEV levels during the first and second trimester; however, the most significant decrease was observed during the third trimester of pregnancy. In this study we aimed to evaluate LEV pharmacokinetics during different stages of pregnancy. Methods: We followed up and monitored serum levels of pregnant women treated with LEV for epilepsy. Results: Fifty-nine women with 66 pregnancies during the study period were included. The lowest raw LEV serum concentrations were observed during the first trimester. Compared with the pre-pregnancy period, raw serum concentration was lower by 5.76 mg/L [95% confidence interval (CI) (2.78, 8.75), p = 0.039] during the first trimester. Comparing the decrease in the first trimester with either the second or the third, no significant changes were observed ( p = 0.945, p = 0.866). Compared with pre-pregnancy measurements, apparent clearance was increased by 71.08 L/day [95%CI (16.34, 125.83), p = 0.011] during the first trimester. About 30% of LEV serum levels during pregnancy were below the laboratory quoted reference range. Conclusions: Raw LEV serum levels tend to decrease during pregnancy, mainly during the first trimester contrary to previous reports. Monitoring of LEV serum levels is essential upon planning pregnancy and thereafter if pre-pregnancy LEV levels are to be maintained. However, more studies are needed to assess the correlation with clinical outcome.