Chronic low back pain (CLBP) affects over half a billion people worldwide. Current pharmacologic treatments offer limited efficacy and carry substantial risks, warranting the development of safe and effective alternatives. This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the herbal extract VER-01 in CLBP.
It enrolled 820 adults with CLBP (VER-01, n = 394; placebo, n = 426) and included a double-blind 12-week treatment phase (phase A), a 6-month open-label extension (phase B), followed by either a 6-month continuation (phase C) or randomized withdrawal (phase D). The primary endpoint of phase A was a change in mean numeric rating scale (NRS) pain intensity, with a change in total neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI) score as a key secondary endpoint in participants with a neuropathic pain component (PainDETECT > 18). The primary endpoint for phase D was time to treatment failure.
The study met its primary endpoint in phase A, with a mean pain reduction of -1.9 NRS points in the VER-01 group (mean difference (MD) versus placebo = -0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.9 to -0.3; P < 0.001). Pain further decreased to -2.9 NRS points in phase B, with effects sustained through phase C. The study also met its key secondary endpoint of phase A, with a mean NPSI decrease of -14.4 (standard error, 3.3) points from baseline in the VER-01 arm (MD versus placebo = -7.3, 95% CI = -13.2 to -1.3; P = 0.017). Although phase D did not meet its primary endpoint (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.44-1.27; P = 0.288), pain increased significantly more with placebo upon withdrawal (MD = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.0-1.0; P = 0.034). In phase A, the incidence of adverse events-mostly mild to moderate and transient-was higher with VER-01 than with placebo (83.3% versus 67.3%; P < 0.001). VER-01 was well-tolerated, with no signs of dependence or withdrawal.
The authors of this well-designed trial concluded that this phase 3 study provides robust evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of VER-01 in the treatment of CLBP. These findings highlight the importance of further research with VER-01 in other chronic pain conditions and suggest that VER-01 could play an important role in modern pain management.
VER-01 was developed by the German biopharmaceutical company Vertanical. It is a standardized full-spectrum extract from a specific Cannabis sativa strain (DKJ127 L). This means it contains a defined mix of the plant’s compounds, including cannabinoids (such as low levels of THC—tetrahydrocannabinol—and trace amounts of CBD and cannabigerol), terpenes, and other bioactive compounds like beta-caryophyllene and alpha-bisabolol. It is designed to harness the synergistic “entourage effect” of these compounds.
The extract has also recently been shown to be superior to opioids. An RCT concluded that VER-01 demonstrated superiority over opioids in treating CLBP, both in terms of efficacy and gastrointestinal tolerability.
PS
Given the option of either having spinal manipulation (or any other form of unproven so-called alternative medicine) or a safe and standardised cannabis extract, I certainly know what I would choose!
PPS
Vertanical has submitted marketing applications for approval in several European countries (where it is expected to be sold under the brand name Exilby if approved). The company is also preparing for a late-stage trial in the US to support a subsequent filing with the FDA. If approved, VER-01 would be the first full-spectrum cannabis extract authorized specifically for chronic low back pain and potentially a new class of medicine for chronic pain management.
Despite the high demand for back pain medication, Exilby has not yet been approved in Europe. The manufacturer expects approval in individual countries by July 2025, followed by EU-wide authorization in late 2025 or 2026.
Since it is mostly THC with around 1mg CBG, it would be interesting to see a comparison between this and a non full spectrum extract with the same amount of THC and CBG(or maybe THC only) to see if the full spectrum has meaningful added benefits here.
The max dose of THC was 32.5mg, which is in line with some moderate recommendations in the medical cannabis field, in the US it is much higher of course.
Low dose of CBD just did worse than placebo on FMS, it is suspected by some researchers that this dose of CBD somehow disrupts some of the placebo effect. By previous research a low dose had very low potential to do anything anyway.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003496725042384?via%3Dihub
Its also great to see changes in function such as sleep and also as measured by RMDQ, as pain improvements don’t always equate to meaningful changes in other aspects of people’s life’s. Generally most current medications are poor for long term pain and of course have notable side effects. There is a real need for more effective meds alongside the non medical approach that is also important.
As you say hopefully a new class of medicine for a health condition that is common and costly in many ways.
If you buy and read this paper, this comprehensive systemic review, the most comprehensive, of placebo-controlled randomised trials investigating non-surgical and non-specific low back pain details that two physical treatments are efficacious for the treatment of chronic low back pain. They are exercises and spinal manipulation. Both I perform in my practice under supervision. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40101974/
No need to pay good money for it: it’s freely available.
This is the most comprehensive systematic review for chronic low back pain ever performed. Exercise and spinal manipulation are the most efficacious and both are performed under supervision in my chiropractic practice. You must buy the manuscript to read that statement. The abstract does not detail that information. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40101974/
https://edzardernst.com/2025/03/most-treatments-for-low-back-pain-have-not-been-shown-to-be-effective/
Thanks, but no need to alert me to papers that I have discussed previously.
Can you please direct me to the archived issue where you discussed this paper?
I can see why you chose chiropractic instead of medicine.
Hah, that made me laugh out loud!