Science library
Evidence library
Primary sources for field context, plus a clear wall between wider CBD research and evidence generated with NWPT’s own formulation.
How to read this page: “Field” entries describe the broader literature. They are not claims about NWPT-SM32300. Product-specific rows stay empty of efficacy claims until signed study reports exist.
Field — clinical high risk
| Source | Why it matters | Label |
|---|---|---|
| Fusar-Poli P, et al. JAMA Psychiatry / related meta-analyses on transition risk in CHR samples | Shows elevated but heterogeneous transition risk; rates vary by era and enrichment | Field |
| Yung AR, McGorry PD et al. — CAARMS / UHR criteria literature | Operationalises clinical high-risk assessment used widely in research | Field |
| Cannon TD et al. — NAPLS risk-calculator / enrichment work | Illustrates how enrichment changes expected event rates and trial design | Field |
Field — cannabidiol (other products)
CBD has been studied in psychosis and related conditions using other formulations. Those data inform hypotheses; they do not equal results for NWPT-SM32300.
| Source | Scope | Label |
|---|---|---|
| McGuire P, et al. Am J Psychiatry 2018 — adjunctive CBD in schizophrenia (Epidiolex-related research context) | Different population and product context than CHR-P prevention | Other product |
| Epidiolex / Epidyolex regulatory labelling (epilepsy indications) | Approved uses are not CHR-P psychosis prevention | Other product |
NWPT-SM32300 — programme-specific
| Item | Status | Public claim allowed? |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate description (300 mg CBD micellar-emulsion softgel) | Described in company materials as NWPT-SM32300 | Yes — investigational product description |
| Comparative bioavailability vs Epidyolex (mgmt-reported n=14) | Formal clinical study report not yet published here | No numerical PK/safety until formal study report on file |
| CHR-P efficacy / prevention of psychosis | Not established | No — mission question only |
| Locked multi-site prevention protocol (~328 participants, historical plans) | Planning precedent only; synopsis in development | No — not a locked protocol |