Research study · Cannabis & Cannabinoid Research · 2025
A Preliminary Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Δ-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol Extract Versus Oromucosal Spray in Healthy Men and Women
Verified on PubMed Randomized controlled trial
A 2025 randomized controlled trial in Cannabis & Cannabinoid Research tested tetrahydrocannabinol in biological availability. Assessment of pharmacokinetic parameters of THC:CBD formulations. This study suggests that oral THC:CBD extract may provide higher blood concentrations more quickly than oromucosal spray, but it only looked at a small group of people using a single dose under fasting.
In plain language
Study overview
Clinicians should consider the route of administration when prescribing THC:CBD formulations, as bioavailability may vary significantly between methods.
Findings
Assessment of pharmacokinetic parameters of THC:CBD formulations. Comparison of bioavailability between oral and oromucosal administration. Insights into the effectiveness of different cannabinoid delivery methods.
The deeper readScientific analysis
Aim: Few studies have directly compared the bioavailability of different cannabinoid formulations. Our goal was to assess the pharmacokinetic parameters and relative bioavailability of two Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol: cannabidiol (THC:CBD) formulations: orally administered THC:CBD extract and oromucosally administered nabiximols. Methods: This pilot crossover study counterbalanced (1) 1 mL of orally administered THC:CBD extract (10 mg/mL each of THC and CBD in grapeseed oil) and (2) oromucosally administered nabiximols (four sprays of 2.7 mg THC and 2.5 mg CBD per spray, for a total dose of 10.8 mg THC and 10 mg CBD). Blood samples were obtained pre-dose and at 16 post-dose timepoints over 24 h. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated for THC, 11-hydroxy-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-OH-THC), and CBD. Results: Twelve occasional cannabis users (6 male, 6 female) were tested under fasting conditions. Cmax for THC and CBD was significantly higher with significantly shorter half-lives for THC:CBD extract versus nabiximols. Cmax for nabiximols was significantly higher in males compared with females. Under both treatment conditions, THC and CBD were undetectable by 24 h post-dose, and 11-OH-THC was markedly reduced from its peak. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Little is known about the comparative pharmacokinetics of commercially available cannabis products. This pilot study shows that the extract formulation achieved higher THC and CBD concentrations within a shorter time frame than nabiximols. These findings may have implications for clinical populations using these formulations therapeutically. Future studies should examine multiple doses in the context of therapeutic outcomes to characterize the relative clinical utility of these formulations.
The paper
Citation
Arout CA, Harris HM, Wilson NM, Mastropietro KF, Bozorgi AM, Fazilov G, et al. A Preliminary Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Δ-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol Extract Versus Oromucosal Spray in Healthy Men and Women. Cannabis & Cannabinoid Research (2025). PubMed 39648730 · DOI
Limitations the authors noted
Small sample size (n=12), limiting statistical power to fully examine sex differences. Evaluation was restricted to acute single-dose administration under fasting conditions. THC-COOH metabolite levels were not measured. Open-label design for participants and clinic staff (though analytical lab was blinded).
In practice
Why this matters
This study suggests that oral THC:CBD extract may provide higher blood concentrations more quickly than oromucosal spray, but it only looked at a small group of people using a single dose under fasting conditions. It does not tell us how these formulations work in different populations over time or with repeated doses.
Browse related research
Condition: Biological availability Topic: CBD Topic: Oral sprays Topic: THC
Related on CED Clinic
Back to Daily Research and Patient Questions
Reviewed by Dr. Caplan on September 29, 2026.
This page is general education about a published study. It is not medical advice and does not create a doctor-patient relationship. For care specific to you, book a consultation.