Research study · Journal of cannabis research · 2025
Enhancing cannabinoid bioavailability: a crossover study comparing a novel self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system and a commercial oil-based formulation
Verified on PubMed Clinical Evidence Analysis
A 2025 pharmacokinetic study in Journal of cannabis research tested thc in pharmacokinetics. It helped: The new powder form led to higher levels of cannabinoids in the blood and reached those peaks much faster than standard oil drops, while both versions were well tolerated. This study suggests that switching from standard oils to self-emulsifying powders.
In plain language
Findings
It helped: The new powder form led to higher levels of cannabinoids in the blood and reached those peaks much faster than standard oil drops, while both versions were well tolerated.
Explore Dr. Caplan's interactive tool detailing cytochrome P450 pathways, clinical titration intervals, and physician surveillance rules.
The deeper readScientific analysis
PURPOSE: The oral bioavailability of cannabinoids is limited due to extensive first-pass metabolism, reducing their therapeutic efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and relative bioavailability of cannabinoids delivered via delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol self-emulsifying (THC/CBD-SE) powder, a self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system, compared to standard oil-based drops.
METHODS: Fourteen healthy volunteers (3 men, 11 women) participated in a crossover study. Each received a single oral doses of 8 mg THC and 8 mg CBD in both formulations, with a 30-day washout period between treatments. Blood samples were collected at specified intervals post-administration to assess pharmacokinetic parameters, including maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and time to reach Cmax (Tmax).
RESULTS: THC/CBD-SE Powder significantly enhanced Cmax for THC (32.79 ± 44.37 ng/mL) and its metabolite 11-OH-THC (10.91 ± 6.64 ng/mL) compared to oil-based drops (THC: 10.17 ± 11.41 ng/mL; 11-OH-THC: 4.64 ± 2.55 ng/mL). Similarly, Cmax for 7-OH-CBD was higher with THC/CBD-SE Powder (2.38 ± 1.63 ng/mL vs. 0.86 ± 0.56 ng/mL). Tmax for 11-OH-THC and 7-OH-CBD was shorter with THC/CBD-SE Powder (0.86 ± 0.36 h vs. 4.54 ± 3.44 h and 1.11 ± 0.59 h vs. 4.68 ± 3.38 h, respectively), indicating a faster onset of action. The THC/CBD-SE Powder exhibited over double the relative bioavailability of cannabinoids compared to oil drops, suggesting improved absorption and rapid onset. Both formulations were well tolerated with no serious adverse events.
CONCLUSION: THC/CBD-SE Powder significantly improves cannabinoid bioavailability and absorption rates compared to oil-based drops, offering a promising oral delivery method for enhanced therapeutic potential.
The paper
Citation
Hermush V, Mizrahi N, Brodezky T, Ezra R Enhancing cannabinoid bioavailability: a crossover study comparing a novel self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system and a commercial oil-based formulation. Journal of cannabis research (2025). PubMed 40514741 · DOI
In practice
Why this matters
This study suggests that switching from standard oils to self-emulsifying powders may allow patients to achieve stronger effects more quickly at lower doses, though individual responses will still vary.
Frequently asked questions
Clinical Questions & Answers
What did this study show regarding cannabinoids for clinical care?
It helped: The new powder form led to higher levels of cannabinoids in the blood and reached those peaks much faster than standard oil drops, while both versions were well tolerated.
How does Dr. Benjamin Caplan interpret these results for clinical practice?
This study suggests that switching from standard oils to self-emulsifying powders may allow patients to achieve stronger effects more quickly at lower doses, though individual responses will still vary.
Browse related research
Condition: Pharmacokinetics Topic: Cannabinoids Topic: CBD Topic: THC
Related on CED Clinic
Back to Daily Research and Patient Questions
Reviewed by Dr. Caplan on October 20, 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.
