This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

79/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. Clinical trials

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Plain-language summary

BackgroundPreclinical and clinical evidence suggest that low-dose cannabinoids could ameliorate Alzheimer's disease (AD) signs and symptoms. We designed this trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of low-dose THC-CBD balanced cannabinoid extract in the treatment of patients with AD-associated dementia.ObjectiveThe objective of this phase 2 trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a balanced THC-CBD cannabinoid extract for symptomatic patients with AD.MethodsA Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial including patients between 60 and 80 years-old diagnosed with AD-associated dementia. For 26 weeks, participants orally received either placebo or THC-CBD extract (0.350 mg/THC and 0.245 mg/CBD), daily.ResultsAt week 26, Mini-Mental State Exam total score was significantly higher in cannabis- when compared to placebo-treated patients, which was assessed using the mixed model analysis. No significant difference was detected between placebo and cannabis groups in terms of secondary outcomes and adverse events incidence.ConclusionsTo this date, this is the longest clinical trial evaluating cannabinoids effects on AD patients. We initially demonstrate that low-dose THC-CBD potentially can be an effective and safe therapeutic option for AD-related dementia. Nonetheless, larger and longer trials are necessary to confirm this finding and establish cannabinoid administration as therapy for AD dementia.Trial RegistrationThe Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) registration #U1111-1258-2058 - REBEC (ensaiosclinicos.gov.br).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Cury, R. d. M., da Silva, T., Cezar-Dos-Santos, F., Fakih, Y. R. C., Narvaez, K. A. R., Gouvea, M. C., et al. (2025). A randomized clinical trial of low-dose cannabis extract in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877251389608

Vancouver

Cury RdM, da Silva T, Cezar-Dos-Santos F, Fakih YRC, Narvaez KAR, Gouvea MC, et al. A randomized clinical trial of low-dose cannabis extract in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2025. doi:10.1177/13872877251389608. PMID: 41160460.

BibTeX

@article{cury2025-41160460,
  author  = {Cury, Rafael de Morais and da Silva, Taynara and Cezar-Dos-Santos, Fernando and Fakih, Yasmin Rafaela Correia and Narvaez, Karlin Andrea Ramírez and Gouvea, Murilo Chaves and Espínola, Carlos and Ferreira, Charles Francisco and others},
  title   = {{A randomized clinical trial of low-dose cannabis extract in Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1177/13872877251389608},
  pmid    = {41160460},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877251389608}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

BackgroundPreclinical and clinical evidence suggest that low-dose cannabinoids could ameliorate Alzheimer's disease (AD) signs and symptoms.
For 26 weeks, participants orally received either placebo or THC-CBD extract (0.350 mg/THC and 0.245 mg/CBD), daily.ResultsAt week 26, Mini-Mental State Exam total score was significantly higher in cannabis- when compared to placebo-treated patients, which was assessed using the mixed model analysis.
No significant difference was detected between placebo and cannabis groups in terms of secondary outcomes and adverse events incidence.ConclusionsTo this date, this is the longest clinical trial evaluating cannabinoids effects on AD patients.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Registered clinical trials →

Study details

Study designclinical trial
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 79/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 44 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	11 / 12	A randomized controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomized / blinded	2 / 2	Randomized and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41160460)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	44 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100.
Total	79 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Clinical trials from nearby years

Also tagged “cholinesterase”

271 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cholinesterase”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 271 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Clinical trials

See all studies in Clinical trials →