Examines how sex influences cannabidiol metabolism in mice, suggesting implications for dosing considerations.
Background While cannabidiol (CBD) is widely used globally as a therapeutic agent, sex as a biological variable remains underexplored in determining its metabolism and overall pharmacokinetic patterns. The present study systematically evaluated sex differences in the pharmacokinetics of CBD and its major metabolites, 7-hydroxy-CBD (7-OH-CBD) and 7-carboxy-CBD (7-COOH-CBD), in a mouse model. Methods Male and female C57BL/6J mice received an intraperitoneal dose of CBD (120 mg/kg) and plasma concentrations of CBD and its metabolites were quantified by UPLC–MS/MS. Pharmacokinetic parameters were derived using non-compartmental analysis and compared between sexes. Results Females exhibited significantly higher early exposure to CBD, with a ~ 1.5-fold higher \:Cₘₐₓ\: than male mice ( p = 0.03). The apparent clearance (CL/F) and ultimate total systemic exposure \:\:AUC0-INF were comparable between sexes. In contrast, male mice demonstrated a markedly larger apparent volume of distribution (Vz/F; ~2.2-fold increase, p = 0.02) and consequently a longer terminal half-life (t 1/2 ; ~2.2-fold increase, p = 0.04), indicating greater tissue sequestration. Both metabolites were significantly higher in female vs. male mice (7-OH-CBD \:Cₘₐₓ\: ~1.6-fold, p = 0.03; 7-COOH-CBD \:Cₘₐₓ ~1.7-fold, p = 0.03). The \:AUC0-INF tended to be higher for 7-OH-CBD in female mice but was not significant (~ 1.4-fold, p = 0.11), whereas the 7-COOH-CBD \:AUC₀₋₂₄ₕ was significantly greater in females (~ 1.8-fold, p = 0.04). Male mice displayed substantially longer terminal half-lives for both metabolites (7-OH-CBD ~2.4-fold, p = 0.0051; 7-COOH-CBD ~3.7-fold, p = 0.02). Conclusions These results demonstrate that sex is a critical determinant of CBD pharmacokinetics and highlight the need for sex-informed dosing considerations in both preclinical study design and potentially for future clinical applications of CBD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olawale et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: