METHOD OF PREPARING CANNABINOIDS

Abstract

The pharmaceutical industry is highly regulated to ensure the safety, efficacy, and quality of medicines and drug discolouration is one of the leading causes for drug recall. An object of the present invention is to provide an improved method of manufacturing cannabinoids for use in pharmaceuticals that is both stable and substantially pure. Such use of stable and substantially pure cannabinoids in pharmaceuticals will improve patient compliance to medication. The main steps of the method are decarboxylation, extraction, winterization and crystallisation.

Claims

1. A process of preparing a stable substantially pure cannabinoid comprising: a) Decarboxylating botanical material to produce decarboxylated botanical material; b) Extracting the decarboxylated botanical material to produce crude extract; and c) A combined winterization and crystallization step to produce a stable substantially pure cannabinoid, wherein sub-steps comprise of: i) Precipitating alkanes in a solvent by cooling, and removing the precipitated alkanes by filtration; ii) Removing the solvent by partial distillation; iii) Solvent exchanging into heptane; iv) Removing the remaining solvent by aqueous phase separation, resulting in a heptane solution; v) Heating the heptane solution and filtering it; vi) Cooling the heptane solution whilst agitating; vii) Seeding the solution and propagating the seed, resulting in a suspension; viii) Cooling, stirring, filtering and washing the suspension, resulting in a product; and ix) De-liquoring and drying the product to produce a stable substantially pure cannabinoid.

2. The process as claimed in claim 1 wherein the cannabinoid may be selected from the group consisting of: cannabichromene (CBC), cannabichromenic acid (CBCV), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), cannabidivarin (CBDV), Cannabidiol-C1 (CBD-C1) also known as cannabidiorcol, Cannabidiol-C4 (CBD-C4) also known as nor-cannabidiol, cannabidiol-C6 (CBD-C6), cannabigerol (CBG), cannabigerol propyl variant (CBGV), cannabicyclol (CBL), cannabinol (CBN), cannabinol propyl variant (CBNV), cannabitriol (CBO), tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) and tetrahydrocannabivarinic acid (THCVA).

3. The process as claimed in claim 1 wherein the cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD).

4. The process as claimed in claim 1 wherein the extraction step is carried out using liquid CO.sub.2 at a temperature of 25? C. and pressure of 100 Barg.

5. The process as claimed in claim 1 wherein the winterization step solvent comprises methanol.

6. The process as claimed in claim 1 wherein the winterization step is carried out at a temperature between 0? C. to 5? C.

7. The process as claimed in claim 1 wherein the aqueous phase separation consists of three or less than three aqueous washes.

8. The process as claimed in claim 1 wherein the winterization step uses a filter aid that does not contain vanadium.

9. The process as claimed in claim 1 wherein the winterization step uses an alternative filter aid.

10. The process as claimed in claim 1 wherein the winterization step does not use a filter aid.

11. The process as claimed in claim 10 wherein a chelating agent is used in the solvent exchange.

12. The process as claimed in claim 11 wherein the chelating agent is citric acid.

13. The process as claimed in claim 1 wherein one or more antioxidants are added.

14. The process as claimed in claim 13 wherein the one or more antioxidants is citric acid or ascorbyl palmitate.

15. The product as claimed in claim 1 wherein the CBD has a purity of >95%, more preferably greater than 96% (w/w), more preferably 97% (w/w), more preferably 98% (w/w), most preferably 99% (w/w) and greater.

16. The product as claimed in claim 1 wherein THC is present at less than 0.15%.

17. The product as claimed in claim 1 wherein CBDV is present at up to 1%.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0059] Embodiments of the invention are further described hereinafter with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:

[0060] FIG. 1 shows a graphical comparison of non-telescoped and telescoped processes.

[0061] FIG. 2 shows a plot of total alkane levels in the winterised extract, following winterisation at different temperatures.

[0062] FIG. 3 shows a plot of % w/w residual methanol remaining in heptane solution after successive aqueous washes.

[0063] FIG. 4 shows appearance of process A drug product against process B drug product after 2 days and 55 days. The API batches to be formulated into drug product were 800346990 and 800347540 to represent process A (control), and batches 800342580 and 800340900 to represent process B.

[0064] FIG. 5 shows a 3-D scatterplot of tabulated results to show the change in colour of Process A and Process B drug product over a 55-day period. Significant difference is observed in trend between the two different drug products.

[0065] FIG. 6 shows graphical results of elemental analysis for trace metals iron, aluminium, magnesium and vanadium. Yellow boxes represent process A API and telescoped process with no filter aid API, green box is telescoped process API using celite filter aid and red boxes are representative telescoped process API.

[0066] FIG. 7 shows the visual appearance of the higher and lower vanadium spiked experiments compared to positive and negative control of Process A and B during the spiking experiment. Lower spike vanadium oxide follows the colour change of the process B control over a 14 day period.

[0067] FIG. 8 shows chromatograms to illustrate the impurity growth of RRT 0.79 in the low spiked vanadium oxide and process B control in the spiking experiment. Impurity peak is outlined in a red circle.

[0068] FIG. 9 shows a 3-D scatterplot of colourimetry results for non-filter aid API compared to telescoped process API and control process A API.

[0069] FIG. 10 shows drug product resulting from using alternative filter aids at initial timepoint (0 days) and second timepoint (7 days).

[0070] FIG. 11 shows appearance of batches at 25? C. and 40? C. at initial timepoint, and after 7, 14, 21, 28, 56, 84 and 168 days.

[0071] FIG. 12 shows CBD assay results of all three Process B no filter aid batches at 25? C. and at 40? C. from Example 4.

[0072] FIG. 13 shows total degradants results of all three Process B no filter aid batches at 25? C. and at 40? C. from Example 4.

[0073] FIG. 14 shows b* values from a colourimetry test at 40? C. comparing trends of three Process B no filter aid batches versus Process A batches. The b* values are blueness or yellowness based on the Opponent-Colour theory.

[0074] FIG. 15 shows total degradant results at 40? C. comparing trends of three Process B no filter aid batches versus Process A batches.

[0075] FIG. 16 shows 3-D scatterplots of colourimetry results for the drug products produced under different conditions used to test different chelating agents, citric acid and EDTA.

[0076] FIG. 17 shows the impurity profiles as well as CBD percentage present in the drug product produced under the same conditions as FIG. 16.

[0077] FIG. 18 shows percentage of degradants present at three different timepoints when using five different antioxidants.

[0078] FIG. 19 shows photographs of CBD gels at initial timepoint and at Day 27 using different antioxidants.

DEFINITIONS

[0079] Definitions of some of the terms used to describe the invention are detailed below:

[0080] A substantially pure cannabinoid is defined as a cannabinoid which is present at greater than 95% (w/w) pure. More preferably greater than 96% (w/w), more preferably 97% (w/w), more preferably 98% (w/w), most preferably 99% (w/w) and greater.

[0081] Process A is used to describe the standard, non-telescoped process.

[0082] Process B is used to describe the presently claimed telescoped process.

[0083] An alternative filter aid is used to describe the following filter aids: Harborlite 800 (Fisher) and Celpure (Imerys Filtration).

[0084] The cannabinoids described in the present application are listed below along with their standard abbreviations.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Cannabinoids and their abbreviations CBC Cannabichromene [00001] CBCV Cannabichromenic acid [00002] CBE Cannabielsoin [00003] CBD Cannabidiol [00004] CBDA Cannabidiolic acid [00005] CBDV Cannabidivarin [00006] CBDVA Cannabidivarinic acid [00007] CBD-C1 Cannabidiol-C1 [00008] CBD-C4 Cannabidiol-C4 [00009] CBD-C6 Cannabidiol-C6 [00010] CBG Cannabigerol [00011] CBL Cannabicyclol [00012] CBN Cannabinol [00013] CBO Cannabitriol [00014] THC Tetrahydrocannabinol [00015] THCA Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid [00016] THCV Tetrahydrocannabivarin [00017] THCVA Tetrahydrocannabivarinic acid [00018]

Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients

[0085] There are many known cannabinoids and the process according to the present invention may be used to produce stable and substantially pure cannabinoids. Such cannabinoids may be selected from the group consisting of: cannabichromene (CBC), cannabichromenic acid (CBCV), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), cannabidivarin (CBDV), Cannabidiol-C1 (CBD-C1) also known as cannabidiorcol, Cannabidiol-C4 (CBD-C4) also known as nor-cannabidiol, cannabidiol-C6 (CBD-C6), cannabigerol (CBG), cannabigerol propyl variant (CBGV), cannabicyclol (CBL), cannabinol (CBN), cannabinol propyl variant (CBNV), cannabitriol (CBO), tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) and tetrahydrocannabivarinic acid (THCVA). This list is not exhaustive and merely details the cannabinoids which are identified in the present application for reference. So far, over 100 different cannabinoids have been identified and these cannabinoids can be split into different groups as follows: Phytocannabinoids; Endocannabinoids; and Synthetic cannabinoids.

[0086] The process according to the present invention may also be used to produce stable and substantially pure cannabinoids as disclosed in Handbook of Cannabis, Roger Pertwee, Chapter 1, pages 3 to 15.

[0087] Thus, the process according to the present invention can be used to produce all cannabinoids but is exemplified using CBD.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Extraction

[0088] Extraction efficiency of decarboxylated CBD BRM was improved due to increased bulk density from pelleting and milling the material prior to decarboxylation. This increase in bulk density allowed an increase in loading weight whilst reducing the total volume of CO.sub.2 per kg of BRM and was shown to obtain a high yielding CBD extract. In one full scale batch derived from pelleted BRM and extracted using 55 kg CO.sub.2/kg decarboxylated BRM, this gave good extraction efficiency (?90%) and a high product assay (74%). Extraction efficiency was improved by increasing temperature and pressure (60 bar, 10? C. to 100 bar, 25? C.).

Telescoped Winterisation and Solvent Exchange

[0089] Alkane impurities are precipitated from a 2.0 volume solution of non-refined extract in methanol, upon cooling to 0? C. to 5? C. (winterisation). Methanol is removed by partial distillation, then following solvent exchange into n-heptane, the remaining methanol is removed by aqueous phase separation (water wash), see FIG. 1.

Winterisation Solvent

[0090] In head to head (2.0 volume, 60 minute, 20? C.) winterisation experiments, methanol winterisation was comparable to that from ethanol, with both solvents resulting in low levels of alkanes (0.03% w/w) in the refined extract, see Table 2. Methanol was easily removed post-winterisation by distillation and aqueous separation (wash), thus minimising impact on the crystallisation yield.

[0091] The experiment was performed on 20 g of extract and the material refined for 1 hour at ambient temperature. Following filtration a sample was taken of the filtrate for alkane analysis. The results showed that in both instances the level of the alkanes was very low even at ambient temperature and a stir duration of 1 hour, significantly shorter than process A. These solutions were distilled to dryness to isolate the refined extract and taken into crystallisation. The isolated material was then analysed for alkane levels. Table 2 shows the alkane content taken of the batch solution prior to crystallisation and the subsequent isolated final product by chromatography.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Comparison of ethanol and methanol for the refinement process (% w/w) Sample Heptacosane Octacosane Nonacosane Triacontane Hentriacontane Stigmasterol Ethanol Refined 0.0115 0.0039 0.0079 0.0021 0.0046 0.0055 extract Final 0.0006 0.0001 0.0008 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 product Methanol Refined 0.0078 0.0017 0.0063 0.0014 0.0048 0.0045 extract Final 0.0052 0.0004 0.0017 0.0006 0.0009 0.0012 product

[0092] The data indicated that methanol is a more efficient solvent in removing the alkanes. Although the final product analysis showed lower levels in material isolated from the ethanol refinement, the levels from methanol refinement were also extremely low and due to preference of methanol for plant manufacture, being cheaper and on bulk supply, methanol was chosen as the solvent.

Winterisation Temperature

[0093] A series of winterisation experiments were carried out at different temperatures, filtering through a liquid bag filtration system (GAF? bag) at the experimental winterisation temperature. Low levels of alkanes were obtained for all resulting refined extract samples (?0.25% w/w). The lowest alkane levels were obtained from winterisations at 0? C. to 5? C. (see FIG. 2).

Alkane Cake Washes

[0094] Post-filtration of methanol solution, the alkane cake was washed with cold (0? C. to 5? C.) methanol to remove traces of retained CBD. Filtration of liquors was reported to be faster when 2.0 volumes of wash solvent was split into 0.5 volume washes (as opposed to one larger wash). Each wash was added to the alkane before the cake dried out and cracked.

Filter Aid

[0095] A filter aid was used to aid alkane filtration as this would significantly reduce filtration time, particularly on a bigger manufacturing scale.

Solvent Exchange

[0096] Post-winterisation, methanol was effectively removed by partial distillation and partitioning into an aqueous phase (water wash). After distillation, methanol solution was solvent exchanged into n-heptane, mixing vigorously with 2.0 volumes of purified water. The aqueous layer (containing methanol) was separated from the organic phase and removed. This resulted in typically very low levels of methanol in the resulting heptane solution, which was taken through to the crystallisation step. Methanol was shown to be reduced to a level of <0.5% w/w after the second aqueous wash and to very low levels after the third wash (see FIG. 3). This suggested that three aqueous washes would be more than adequate.

Modified Crystallisation

[0097] A modified crystallisation process was proposed, to improve process efficiency. The cooling period (from the seeding temperature to the ?18? C. to ?20? C. isolation temperature) was successfully reduced from 24 hours to 16 hours, without detrimental impact on particle size. The ?18? C. to ?20? C. stir out period was reduced from 24 hours to 6 hours, without impact on yield. Seed propagation time was reduced from 120 minutes to 45 minutes.

[0098] Complexity of the wash process was reduced by removing the displacement washes. Wash efficiency was further improved by increasing individual wash volumes (for better wetting of the cake). The number of washes was reduced from five to three, keeping the total wash volume at 2.0 volumes. The modified crystallisation process reduced crystallisation time by around 24 hours on plant.

Discolouration of Drug Product

[0099] A colour difference was observed in CBD drug product using CBD API manufactured from Process B (Telescoped) route compared to CBD drug product using CBD API manufactured from Process A (non-telescoped) route.

[0100] A stability study to analyse two process A and two process B drug products was conducted to assess the difference in colour. Process A results would act as a control when assessing process B drug product batches. The conditions were similar to an in-use study wherein one amber bottle with a screw cap lid of drug product was manufactured for each batch, stored at ambient temperatures (laboratory temperatures maintained at 20? C.?5? C. to simulate commercial storage) and opened for sample preparation for testing. The same bottle was then reopened at the designated timepoints. Testing was performed over a 55 day period using testing methods of appearance and colourimetry.

[0101] At the initial timepoint, the solutions of both processes A and B appeared as a clear, colourless to yellow colour. After 2 days the solutions of process B were notably more yellow, in comparison to the solutions of process A which stayed a clear to yellow colour, see FIG. 4. Over time the solutions of process B were a deeper yellow colour and after 55 days a yellow to slightly orange colour. This change in colour for solutions of process B over the 55 day time period is documented in FIG. 5.

[0102] Stability results over 55 days were recorded for process A drug product (Batch 800347540) shown in Table 3.1, and process B drug product (Batch 800340900), shown in Table 3.2. Visual appearance of the solutions was noted as well as degradant and CBD concentrations using UPLC (Ultra-performance liquid chromatography) assay. The results confirm visual findings from FIG. 4 and colourimetry data from FIG. 5 whereby process B drug product was found to change colour to a slightly orange colour over a 55-day time period. As can be seen from Table 3.2, colour change was noticeable from 20 days for process B drug product, whereas process A drug product remained a clear colourless to yellow solution (see Table 3.1). In addition, it was found that THC concentration and total degradant concentration exceeded the specification limit from 30 days and at 55 days respectively for process B drug product (see Table 3.2).

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3.1 Stability results of process A drug product: Batch 800347540 (Process A) results for Appearance and UPLC Assay UPLC Assay TM-170 Concentration (mg/ml) Time Total (Day) Visual Appearance CBD CBD-C1 CBE II OH-CBD CBDV CBE I CBD-C4 THC Degs Spec. A clear, colourless 95.0-105.0 N/A NMT NMT N/A NMT N/A NMT NMT Limits to yellow solution 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.50 0 A clear colourless 98.96 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.30 0.04 0.10 to yellow solution 1 A clear colourless 98.76 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.30 0.04 0.09 to yellow solution 2 A clear colourless 98.90 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.30 0.04 0.10 to yellow solution 6 A clear colourless 98.42 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.29 0.04 0.10 to yellow solution 9 A clear colourless 98.46 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.29 0.04 0.10 to yellow solution 12 A clear colourless 98.56 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.29 0.04 0.10 to yellow solution 15 A clear colourless 98.33 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.01 0.29 0.04 0.11 to yellow solution 20 A clear colourless 98.65 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.35 0.01 0.29 0.04 0.11 to yellow solution 30 A clear colourless 98.88 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.29 0.04 0.10 to yellow solution 55 A clear colourless 99.01 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.35 0.01 0.31 0.05 0.13 to yellow solution

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 3.2 Stability results of process B drug product: Batch 800340900 (Process B) results for Appearance and UPLC Assay UPLC Assay TM-170 Concentration (mg/ml) Time Total (Day) Visual Appearance CBD CBD-C1 CBE II OH-CBD CBDV CBE I CBD-C4 THC Degs Spec. A clear, colourless 95.0-105.0 N/A NMT NMT N/A NMT N/A NMT NMT Limits to yellow solution 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.50 0 A clear colourless 98.17 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.04 0.11 to yellow solution 1 A clear colourless 97.98 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.05 0.14 to yellow solution 2 A yellow solution 97.84 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.07 0.17 6 A yellow solution 97.84 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.01 0.32 0.10 0.24 9 A yellow solution 97.34 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.01 0.32 0.13 0.26 12 A yellow solution 97.24 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.01 0.31 0.14 0.30 15 A yellow solution 96.95 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.32 0.02 0.31 0.18 0.36 20 A yellow solution, 97.24 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.03 0.32 0.17 0.40 slightly orange 30 A yellow solution, 96.85 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.04 0.31 0.21 0.49 slightly orange 55 A yellow solution, 96.39 0.1 0.05 0.04 0.32 0.11 0.33 0.28 0.82 slightly orange

[0103] Filter aids have different levels of trace elements according to specifications from their manufacturers. Different API samples were submitted for elemental analysis, shown in FIG. 6. The data shows surprisingly elevated levels of vanadium in telescoped process API, whilst there are low levels present in process A API.

[0104] A further screening experiment was conducted using vanadium oxide to assess any potential impact of this element. A high spike (100 mg) and a low spike (2 mg) of vanadium oxide was added to a 100 mL ethanol solution containing 10 g of Process A representative material. Both Process A and Process B controls were run at part of the spiking experiment. The results of this screening experiment, visual appearance and impurity profiles, are shown in FIGS. 7 and 8. FIG. 7 showed that the low vanadium spiked sample matched the colour change observed within process B material. The chromatograms of FIG. 8 showed that the increase of impurities of the low spike over a 14 day period matched those from process B control. In particular, the same impurity (circled in red) was recorded for the low and high spiked vanadium oxide and process B control. With the higher vanadium spike experiment, this impurity is also present at Day 0, indicating an accelerated degradation with higher levels of vanadium oxide. The data presented here shows that vanadium could be a key contributor of the colour change in this investigation, particularly at low levels.

[0105] One solution to correct the observed colour change was to not use any filter aid in the winterisation process. Indeed, colour change was inhibited when a filter aid was not used during the telescoped process in FIG. 9. However, removal of the filter aid significantly increased the time taken for the filtration process.

[0106] Alternatively, different filter aids were evaluated to assess the impact on the colour of drug product. Celpure and Harborlite were preferred options for alternative filter aids as the visual appearance of the drug product have been shown to be similar to process A drug product, see FIG. 10 compared to FIG. 4.

[0107] The following non-limiting examples are provided to further illustrate the present invention.

Example 1: Evaluation of API Using No Filter Aid and Alternative Filter Aids

[0108] API manufactured with the use of no filter aid and alternative filter aids (Celpure and Harborlite) were analysed to test against specification. API material was analysed for appearance, CBD assay and impurity testing conducted using liquid chromtography (LC) TM-170, see Table 4. The results of all API (4 batches with no filter aid and 2 with alternative filter aid) show compliance with respect to specification criteria.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 4 Analysis of API manufactured with no filter aid or alternative filter aids. Results (% w/w) No filter No filter No filter No filter Harborlite Celpure Test Specification aid 1 aid 2 aid 3 aid 4 filter aid filter aid 1. Appearance White/off- Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies white to pale yellow powder 2. CBD Assay 98.0-102.0% 98.8 98.7 98.7 98.9 98.7 98.7 3. Impurities (other cannabinoids): CBD-C1 NMT 0.15% w/w 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.09 CBDV NMT 0.80% w/w 0.50 0.40 0.35 0.41 0.41 0.40 CBD-C4 NMT 0.50% w/w 0.32 0.36 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36 THC NMT 0.10% w/w 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.04 Indiv. NMT 0.10% w/w 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 unspecified impurities Total NMT 0.30% w/w 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 unspecified impurities Total NMT 1.5% w/w 1.05 0.99 0.99 1.01 1.01 1.00 impurities 4. Residual Solvents: Heptane NMT 0.50% w/w 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 Methanol NMT 0.30% w/w <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Example 2: Evaluation of Drug Product Using API Manufactured with No Filter Aid and Alternative Filter Aids

[0109] Drug product was formulated using API from different manufacturing streams. These streams differed only in the winterisation step, in particular the filtration step, with either no filter aid or alternative filter aids. The alternative filter aids assessed were Celpure and Harborlite. Three different batches of API using Celpure filter aid were manufactured, two batches of Harborlite, and four batches using no filter aid, of which corresponding drug products were analysed (see Tables 5.1 and 5.2). The 7-day stability test would indicate whether the drug product behaves within specification limits in terms of colour and impurity profile. Analysis was also conducted at day 35, to see the stability at ambient conditions of this drug product over a longer time period to reassure stability of the drug product.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 5.1 Stability results for the analysis of drug product manufactured with no filter aid. TM-170 Concentration (mg/ml) Time Total Batch (Day) Visual Appearance CBD CBD-C1 CBE II OH-CBD CBDV CBE I CBD-C4 THC Degs Spec. Limits A clear, colourless 95.0-105.0 N/A NMT NMT N/A NMT N/A NMT NMT to yellow solution 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.50 No filter 0 A clear colourless 99.21 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.04 0.14 aid 1 to yellow solution 7 A clear colourless 99.19 0.13 0.00 0.05 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.04 0.15 to yellow solution 35 A clear colourless 99.03 0.14 0.00 0.04 0.35 0.01 0.34 0.06 0.19 to yellow solution No filter 0 A clear colourless 99.22 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.35 0.03 0.12 aid 2 to yellow solution 7 A clear colourless 99.61 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.36 0.03 0.12 to yellow solution 35 A clear colourless 99.44 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.41 0.02 0.35 0.05 0.19 to yellow solution No filter 0 A clear colourless 99.83 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.31 0.03 0.13 aid 3 to yellow solution 7 A clear colourless 99.91 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.31 0.04 0.12 to yellow solution 35 A clear colourless 99.67 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.50 0.02 0.30 0.05 0.17 to yellow solution No filter 0 A clear colourless 99.10 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.36 0.03 0.13 aid 4 to yellow solution 7 A clear colourless 99.55 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.40 0.01 0.36 0.04 0.11 to yellow solution 35 A clear colourless 98.85 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.40 0.02 0.35 0.05 0.18 to yellow solution

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 5.2 Stability results for the analysis of drug product manufactured with alternative filter aids. TM-170 Concentration (mg/ml) Time Total Batch (Day) Visual Appearance CBD CBD-C1 CBE II OH-CBD CBDV CBE CBD-C4 THC Degs Spec. Limits A clear, colourless 95.0-105.0 N/A NMT NMT N/A NMT N/A NMT NMT to yellow solution 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.50 Celpure 0 A clear colourless 99.35 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.36 0.03 0.13 filter aid 1 to yellow solution 7 A clear colourless 99.49 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.36 0.04 0.12 to yellow solution 35 A clear colourless 99.13 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.40 0.02 0.35 0.05 0.18 to yellow solution Celpure 0 A clear colourless 99.15 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.39 0.01 0.36 0.03 0.14 filter aid 2 to yellow solution 7 A clear colourless 99.59 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.36 0.03 0.16 to yellow solution 35 A clear colourless 99.19 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.39 0.01 0.36 0.04 0.20 to yellow solution Celpure 0 A clear colourless 99.53 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.33 0.00 0.35 0.05 0.14 filter aid 3 to yellow solution 7 A clear colourless 99.87 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.33 0.00 0.36 0.05 0.14 to yellow solution 35 A clear colourless 99.38 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.33 0.01 0.34 0.07 0.20 to yellow solution Harborlite 0 A clear colourless 98.59 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.35 0.03 0.13 filter aid 1 to yellow solution 7 A clear colourless 98.69 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.35 0.06 0.12 to yellow solution 35 A clear colourless 98.39 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.41 0.02 0.35 0.05 0.18 to yellow solution Harborlite 0 A clear colourless 99.24 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.38 0.00 0.36 0.03 0.13 filter aid 2 to yellow solution 7 A clear colourless 99.94 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.38 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.15 to yellow solution 35 A clear colourless 99.23 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.36 0.05 0.20 to yellow solution

[0110] The results above show compliance with specification of CBD produced using both the telescoped process without filter aid and the telescoped process with alternative filter aids. There is no evidence to show any difference in the specification test result and therefore it can be concluded that the changes introduced in the manufacturing process had no negative impact on the quality of the final API. The study indicates that the no filter aid and alternative filter aid drug product meets the specification with regards to colour, impurity profile and also stability of this drug product at ambient conditions over a period of 35 days.

Example 3: Comparability Between Drug Product Resulting from Process A and Telescoped Process B with No Filter Aid

[0111] The objective of this stability study was to investigate the stability of drug product from process B API produced without filter aid and to compare with drug product from process A API. Further, drug product from process B API produced with Clarcel filter aid was used to provide a comparison.

[0112] Testing was performed on bottles stored at the long-term condition of 25? C./60% RH (relative humidity) and the accelerated condition of 40? C./75% RH. A summary of the stability testing completed so far is shown in Table 6.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 6 Summary of stability testing Storage Condition Orientation Time-Points (Days) 25? C./60% RH Vertical 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 42, 56, 84, 112 40? C./75% RH Vertical 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 42, 56, 84, 112

[0113] The following tests were performed on two no filter aid process B batches, a process A control batch and a Clarcel filter aid process B batch, for which results are shown in Tables 7.1 and 7.2: [0114] Appearance [0115] CBD Assay by UPLC [0116] Degradants by UPLC

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 7.1 Comparison between process B and process A drug product at 25? C. API API Time TM-170 Concentration (% of Label Claim) Process Information (Day) Appearance of Solution CBD CBD-C1 CBE II OH-CBD CBDV CBE I CBD-C4 THC B No filter aid 0 Colourless to yellow 99.8 0.10 <0.01 0.03 0.46 0.01 0.27 0.03 7 Colourless to yellow 99.3 0.10 <0.01 0.03 0.46 <0.01 0.27 0.04 14 Colourless to yellow 100.0 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.46 <0.01 0.27 0.04 21 Colourless to yellow 99.6 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.46 0.01 0.26 0.04 28 Colourless to yellow 99.4 0.10 <0.01 0.03 0.46 <0.01 0.28 0.05 42 Colourless to yellow 99.2 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.46 0.01 0.28 0.05 56 Colourless to yellow 99.3 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.45 0.01 0.27 0.05 84 Colourless to yellow 99.4 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.46 0.02 0.27 0.06 112 Yellow 99.3 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.01 0.26 0.07 B No filter aid 0 Colourless to yellow 99.5 0.10 <0.01 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.36 0.04 7 Colourless to yellow 99.1 0.10 <0.01 0.04 0.37 <0.01 0.36 0.04 14 Colourless to yellow 99.8 0.10 <0.01 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.36 0.05 21 Colourless to yellow 100.0 0.10 <0.01 0.04 0.37 <0.01 0.36 0.05 28 Colourless to yellow 99.6 0.10 <0.01 0.04 0.37 <0.01 0.37 0.05 42 Colourless to yellow 99.4 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.05 56 Colourless to yellow 99.7 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.36 0.05 84 Colourless to yellow 99.5 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.36 0.06 112 Yellow 99.50 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.01 0.36 0.06

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 7.1 (Continued) Comparison between process B and process A drug product at 25? C. API API Time TM-170 Concentration (% of Label Claim) Process Information (Day) Appearance of Solution CBD CBD-C1 CBE II OH-CBD CBDV CBE I CBD-C4 THC A Process A 0 Colourless to yellow 99.5 0.07 <0.01 0.02 0.37 0.01 0.30 0.03 control 7 Colourless to yellow 99.6 0.08 <0.01 0.03 0.37 <0.01 0.30 0.03 14 Colourless to yellow 99.5 0.07 <0.01 0.02 0.37 <0.01 0.30 0.03 21 Colourless to yellow 99.9 0.07 <0.01 0.03 0.37 <0.01 0.30 0.04 28 Colourless to yellow 99.4 0.08 <0.01 0.03 0.36 <0.01 0.31 0.04 42 Colourless to yellow 99.5 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.30 0.04 56 Colourless to yellow 99.6 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.30 0.04 84 Colourless to yellow 99.9 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.37 0.01 0.30 0.04 112 Colourless to yellow 99.64 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.30 0.04 B Clarcel 0 Colourless to yellow 99.1 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.01 0.25 0.03 7 Colourless to yellow 99.0 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.49 <0.01 0.25 0.04 14 Colourless to yellow 98.8 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.01 0.25 0.09 21 Yellow 99.1 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.49 0.02 0.25 0.11 28 Yellow 99.1 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.03 0.26 0.08 42 Yellow 98.8 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.49 0.03 0.26 0.10 56 Yellow 98.7 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.49 0.05 0.25 0.13 84 Dark yellow 97.9 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.48 0.11 0.25 0.21 112 Dark yellow 96.79 0.1 0.08 0.03 0.47 0.16 0.25 0.26

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 7.2 Comparison between process B and process A drug product at 40? C. API API Time TM-170 Concentration (% of Label Claim) Process Information (Day) Appearance of Solution CBD CBD-C1 CBE II OH-CBD CBDV CBE I CBD-C4 THC B No filter aid 0 Colourless to yellow 99.8 0.10 <0.01 0.03 0.46 0.01 0.27 0.03 7 Colourless to yellow 99.3 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.46 <0.01 0.26 0.04 14 Colourless to yellow 99.4 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.46 0.01 0.27 0.04 21 Colourless to yellow 99.5 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.46 0.02 0.27 0.05 28 Colourless to yellow 99.1 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.46 0.03 0.28 0.06 42 Colourless to yellow 99.3 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.46 0.04 0.27 0.06 56 Colourless to yellow 99.2 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.45 0.05 0.27 0.07 84 Colourless to yellow 99.0 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.45 0.08 0.26 0.08 112 Yellow 98.90 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.45 0.08 0.26 0.06 B No filter aid 0 Colourless to yellow 99.5 0.10 <0.01 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.36 0.04 7 Colourless to yellow 99.4 0.11 <0.01 0.04 0.37 <0.01 0.36 0.04 14 Colourless to yellow 99.4 0.10 <0.01 0.04 0.37 <0.01 0.36 0.05 21 Colourless to yellow 99.8 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.36 0.05 28 Colourless to yellow 99.3 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.36 0.06 42 Colourless to yellow 99.1 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.37 0.02 0.36 0.06 56 Colourless to yellow 99.3 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.37 0.02 0.36 0.07 84 Yellow 98.7 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.37 0.05 0.36 0.09 112 Yellow 98.71 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.36 0.07 0.35 0.11

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 7.2 (Continued) Comparison between process B and process A drug product at 40? C. API API Time TM-170 Concentration (% of Label Claim) Process Information (Day) Appearance of Solution CBD CBD-C1 CBE II OH-CBD CBDV CBE I CBD-C4 THC A Process A 0 Colourless to yellow 99.5 0.07 <0.01 0.02 0.37 0.01 0.30 0.03 control 7 Colourless to yellow 99.6 0.07 <0.01 0.03 0.37 <0.01 0.30 0.03 14 Colourless to yellow 99.7 0.08 <0.01 0.03 0.37 <0.01 0.30 0.03 21 Colourless to yellow 99.7 0.07 <0.01 0.02 0.37 <0.01 0.30 0.04 28 Colourless to yellow 99.8 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.37 0.01 0.31 0.04 42 Colourless to yellow 99.2 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.37 0.01 0.30 0.04 56 Colourless to yellow 99.8 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.02 0.30 0.05 84 Colourless to yellow 99.3 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.37 0.03 0.30 0.06 112 Colourless to yellow 99.17 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.04 0.30 0.06 B Clarcel 0 Colourless to yellow 99.1 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.01 0.25 0.03 7 Colourless to yellow 99.3 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.50 0.03 0.26 0.07 14 Colourless to yellow 98.7 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.49 0.06 0.25 0.09 21 Yellow 99.7 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.49 0.07 0.25 0.08 28 Dark yellow 97.8 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.49 0.14 0.26 0.21 42 Dark yellow 97.1 0.10 0.11 0.03 0.48 0.24 0.26 0.21 56 Dark yellow 96.3 0.10 0.14 0.03 0.48 0.31 0.26 0.21 84 Dark yellow 96.0 0.11 0.18 0.03 0.48 0.42 0.26 0.24 112 Dark yellow 95.25 0.10 0.23 0.03 0.47 0.51 0.26 0.22

[0117] The results from the stability study confirmed previous results shown in Table 5, whereby drug product from process B API produced without filter aid were within specification limits. Significantly, the no filter aid process B drug product was comparable to drug product from process A API. On the other hand, drug product from process B API produced with Clarcel filter aid were significantly different to process A drug product and no filter aid process B drug product in terms of appearance and degradant levels. In particular, THC concentration fell outside of the specification limit at 84 and 112 days at 25? C. (Table 7.1), and from 28 days onwards at 40? C. (Table 7.2), whilst appearance of the solutions turned dark yellow at the aforementioned timepoints.

Conclusion

[0118] The results up to 112 days (16 weeks) show that the no filter aid process B batches were comparable to process A batches with regard to appearance, CBD and degradant concentration at both 25? C. and 40? C. Thus, these results demonstrate that the no filter aid process B drug products retain the same quality, purity and stability as the process A drug product over a long period of time.

Example 4: Stability of Drug Product Resulting from Telescoped Process B with No Filter Aid

[0119] The objective of this stability study was to investigate the long term (6 month) stability of drug product from process B API produced without filter aid. Testing was performed on bottles stored at the long-term condition of 25? C./60% RH and the accelerated condition of 40? C./75% RH.

[0120] A summary of the stability testing completed so far is shown in Table 8.

TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 8 Summary of stability testing Storage Condition Orientation Time-Points (Days) 25? C./60% RH Vertical 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 42, 56, 84, 168 40? C./75% RH Vertical 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 42, 56, 84, 168

[0121] The following tests were performed on three no filter aid process B batches, for which results are shown in Tables 9.1 and 9.2 as well as FIGS. 11 to 15: [0122] Appearance [0123] Colourimetry [0124] CBD Assay by UPLC [0125] Degradants by UPLC

TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 9.1 Long-term stability results of process B no filter aid drug product at 25? C. API API Time TM-170 Concentration (% of Label Claim) Process Information (Day) Appearance of Solution CBD CBD-C1 CBE II OH-CBD CBDV CBE I CBD-C4 THC B No filter aid 0 Colourless to yellow 99.54 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.32 0.04 7 Colourless to yellow 99.64 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.32 0.05 14 Colourless to yellow 100.51 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.34 0.00 0.33 0.05 21 Colourless to yellow 99.45 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.32 0.05 28 Colourless to yellow 99.17 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.32 0.04 56 Colourless to yellow 99.62 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.34 0.01 0.32 0.05 84 Colourless to yellow 99.42 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.34 0.01 0.31 0.06 128 Colourless to yellow 99.55 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.34 0.01 0.31 0.05 B No filter aid 0 Colourless to yellow 99.72 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.32 0.05 7 Colourless to yellow 99.30 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.33 0.04 14 Colourless to yellow 99.80 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.33 0.05 21 Colourless to yellow 99.40 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.33 0.05 28 Colourless to yellow 99.41 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.33 0.04 56 Colourless to yellow 99.49 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.32 0.05 84 Colourless to yellow 99.55 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.32 0.05 128 Colourless to yellow 99.43 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.01 0.31 0.05 B No filter aid 0 Colourless to yellow 99.93 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.28 0.04 7 Colourless to yellow 99.57 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.28 0.04 14 Colourless to yellow 99.87 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.43 0.01 0.28 0.04 21 Colourless to yellow 99.39 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.43 0.00 0.28 0.04 28 Colourless to yellow 99.26 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.27 0.04 56 Colourless to yellow 99.73 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.43 0.01 0.28 0.04 84 Colourless to yellow 99.57 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.01 0.27 0.05 128 Colourless to yellow 99.78 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.02 0.27 0.04

TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 9.2 Long-term stability results of process B no filter aid drug product at 40? C. API API Time TM-170 Concentration (% of Label Claim) Process Information (Day) Appearance of Solution CBD CBD-C1 CBE II OH-CBD CBDV CBE I CBD-C4 THC B No filter aid 0 Colourless to yellow 99.54 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.32 0.04 7 Colourless to yellow 100.00 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.32 0.05 14 Colourless to yellow 99.68 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.01 0.32 0.05 21 Colourless to yellow 99.46 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.01 0.32 0.06 28 Colourless to yellow 99.57 0.12 0.01 0.04 0.34 0.01 0.32 0.05 56 Colourless to yellow 99.31 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.02 0.32 0.05 84 Colourless to yellow 99.44 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.34 0.03 0.32 0.07 128 Colourless to yellow 99.07 0.11 0.02 0.05 0.34 0.08 0.31 0.07 B No filter aid 0 Colourless to yellow 99.72 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.32 0.05 7 Colourless to yellow 99.42 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.33 0.05 14 Colourless to yellow 100.13 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.33 0.05 21 Colourless to yellow 99.25 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.32 0.06 28 Colourless to yellow 99.46 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.01 0.32 0.05 56 Colourless to yellow 99.25 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.02 0.32 0.05 84 Colourless to yellow 99.58 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.03 0.32 0.07 128 Colourless to yellow 99.30 0.12 0.01 0.05 0.36 0.06 0.31 0.07 B No filter aid 0 Colourless to yellow 99.93 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.28 0.04 7 Colourless to yellow 99.92 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.28 0.04 14 Colourless to yellow 100.08 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.01 0.28 0.05 21 Colourless to yellow 99.48 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.01 0.28 0.05 28 Colourless to yellow 99.77 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.01 0.28 0.04 56 Colourless to yellow 99.70 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.02 0.28 0.05 84 Colourless to yellow 99.48 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.42 0.04 0.27 0.06 128 Colourless to yellow 99.40 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.42 0.08 0.27 0.07

[0126] At the storage condition of 25? C., all results complied with the specification acceptance criteria of a clear, colourless to yellow solution after 168 days (see FIG. 11). There were no significant changes in appearance over the testing period.

[0127] At the accelerated condition of 40? C., all results complied with the specification acceptance criteria of a clear, colourless to yellow solution after 24 weeks. There were no significant changes in appearance over the testing period. The batches were slightly darker yellow compared to the 25? C. condition at each time-point. This was an expected observation as the same is seen for drug product manufactured using Process A.

[0128] As can be seen by FIGS. 12 and 13 and Tables 9.1 and 9.2, neither CBD content nor other cannabinoids varied significantly over the 6 m term. Furthermore, a comparison of Process B no filter aid batches with Process A batches at accelerated conditions of 40? C. showed little to no deviation in b* values (see FIG. 14) nor in total degradants (see FIG. 15).

Conclusion

[0129] All results were within their respective specification limits after 24 weeks and there were no significant changes over the testing period. All results and trends were comparable to stability results for drug product manufactured using Process A.

Example 5: Addition of Chelating Agent

[0130] In order to further optimise no filter aid process B, it was investigated whether the addition of a chelating agent within the wash regime may further reduce the trace element contamination, whilst maintaining the appearance of no filter aid process B drug product.

[0131] Citric acid was compared to EDTA as a candidate for the chelating agent. Over the course of 14 days, the colourimetry data of the API and drug products manufactured under the following conditions were recorded, for which results are shown in FIG. 16: [0132] Citric Acid (API filter aid wash) [0133] Citric Acid (API no filter aid wash) [0134] Citric Acid (Process B filter aid; solvent exchange) [0135] Citric Acid (Process B no filter aid; solvent exchange) [0136] EDTA (API no filter aid wash) [0137] Process B filter aid [0138] Process B no filter aid [0139] Process A Control

[0140] The concentration of various impurities and CBD were also measured (excluding the process A control). These results are shown in FIG. 17.

[0141] It was surprisingly found that the addition of a citric acid wash during the solvent exchange process in process B (without filter aid) would be beneficial to reducing degradant concentration. This is evidenced by the impurity profiles as shown in FIG. 17, in particular the profile for RRT 0.76 (purple line). The colourimetry data also confirmed that the addition of a citric acid wash would not change the appearance of drug product, as shown by the similar colourimetry profiles for Process A Control and Citric Acid (Process B no filter aid solvent exchange).

Conclusion

[0142] Overall, it was concluded that the addition of citric acid as a chelating agent in the solvent exchange would be useful to further reduce the impurities and degradants from the drug product.

Example 6: Addition of Antioxidants

[0143] Further optimisation was carried out to test whether the addition of antioxidants would reduce degradants present in the drug product. Antioxidants tested are identified in table 10. Samples were stored at 60? C. and assessed by chromatography.

[0144] In this instance, CBD-C4 was used, however, it is appreciated that all cannabinoids can be used.

TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 10 Summary of antioxidant testing Antioxidant Time-Points (Days) Alpha Tocopherol 7, 27, 54 EDTA 7, 27, 54 BHA 7, 27, 54 Citric Acid 7, 27, 54 Ascorbyl Palmitate 7, 27, 54 Mono thiolglycerol 7, 27, 54

[0145] Results from antioxidant testing is shown in FIG. 18. At 27 days, the most effective antioxidant was ascorbyl palmitate with 0.39% degradants as % of active and at 54 days, the citric acid was the most effective antioxidant with 1.05% degradants as % of active.

Conclusion

[0146] The results up to 54 days indicate that the addition of citric acid and/or ascorbyl palmitate as an antioxidant may be beneficial to maintain a low degradant percentage in the drug product.

Example 7: Further Stability Study with Antioxidant

[0147] A range of CBD gels were prepared and both colour and degradation (by HPLC) were investigated under forced degradation conditions.

Methods

[0148] 33% CBD Gels were formulated using different antioxidants and placed in forced degradation conditions (60? C.). The different antioxidants used were as follows; Alpha Tocopherol, EDTA, Sodium Metabisulphite, BHA, Citric Acid, Ascorbyl Palmitate and Mono Thioglycerol. The colour of the gels was observed for the entire forced degradation period as well as an analytical profiling to identify any impurity RRT's corresponding with colour change.

[0149] 10 g of 33% CBD gel was manufactured using a variety of antioxidants (see Table 11). From the bulk, 0.5 g aliquots were placed into 20 ml scintillation vials and placed in a (60? C.) oven. At various timepoints, samples were removed and tested physically and chemically. All chemical analysis was performed by HPLC analysis of the CBD Gel Formulation in Hard Gelatine Capsules.

TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 11 CBD Gel Components CBD 33% Kolliphor P124 3% Kolliphor P188 38.17% Tri-ethyl citrate 25% Antioxidant* 0.5% *Antioxidants used were Alpha Tocopherol, EDTA, Sodium Metabisulphite, BHA, Citric Acid, Ascorbyl Palmitate and Mono Thioglycerol

Results

Physical Analysis

[0150] The data presented in FIG. 19 shows the colour changes of the CBD gels depending on which antioxidant is present in the formulation. The data shows that gels formulated with antioxidants Alpha Tocopherol, EDTA, Sodium Metabisulphite and BHA (batches B1 to B4) became a dark brown/purple colour. Formulations present with Ascorbyl Palmitate and Citric Acid (batches B5 and B6) remained yellow after 28 days.

Chemical Analysis

[0151] The data presented in Table 12 below shows that at the initial timepoint there are no degradants present in the formulations. The only peaks present are CBDV, CBD-C4 and CBD.

TABLE-US-00018 TABLE 12 Initial timepoint results Batch Antioxidant number CBDV CBD-C4 CBD Alpha Tocopherol B1 0.791 0.794 232.059 EDTA B2 0.788 0.755 232.999 Sodium Metabisulphite B3 0.802 0.845 240.580 BHA B4 0.969 0.973 286.431 Citric Acid B5 1.094 1.102 322.773 Ascorbyl Palmitate B6 1.140 1.121 326.989 Monothio glycerol B7 1.144 1.146 327.865

[0152] The data presented in Table 13 shows that at the day 27 timepoint the degradants RRT 0.544, RRT 0.561, RRT 0.599, RRT 0.877 RRT 1.236 & RRT 1.281 are present in formulations containing Alpha Tocopherol, EDTA, Sodium Metabisulphite, BHA and Monothioglycerol. In the Citric Acid and Ascorbyl Palmitate formulations, these degradants were not found to be present. Both formulations (shown in FIG. 19) keep their original yellow colour and do not degrade into dark brown/purple.

TABLE-US-00019 TABLE 13 Day 28 of forced degradation results Batch RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT RRT Antioxidant number 0.544 0.561 0.599 0.877 1.236 1.281 Alpha Tocopherol B1 0.635 0.662 0.164 0.896 <LOQ <LOQ EDTA B2 3.017 2.805 0.4155 5.678 <LOQ <LOQ Sodium B3 <LOQ <LOQ 0.196 <LOQ 1.29 0.434 Metabisulphite BHA B4 1.861 1.038 0.252 3.052 <LOQ <LOQ Citric Acid B5 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Ascorbyl Palmitate B6 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Monothio glycerol B7 0.297 0.352 N/D 0.497 N/D <LOQ

Conclusion

[0153] Several antioxidants were studied (as part of a CBD gel formulation), under accelerated conditions, and were tested visually for colour and degradation by HPLC. Several antioxidants did not inhibit a significant colour and nor a concomitant rise in several impurities.

[0154] Ascorbyl Palmitate and Citric Acid showed a significant difference with an obvious minimisation in the intensity of colour produced in the formulation and significantly, a detectable absence of many key impurities.

Outline of the Telescoped Process B (Post-Extraction Step)

[0155] 1. Non-refined CBD extract is dissolved in 2.0 volumes of methanol at 50? C. [0156] 2. The mixture is stirred at 0? C. to 5? C. for 60 minutes to precipitate waxy impurities. [0157] 3. Waxy impurities are filtered under vacuum and the resulting cake washed with 3?0.5 volumes of cold methanol to remove traces of retained CBD. [0158] 4. The methanol solution is distilled to a solution volume of 1.5 volumes. [0159] 5. Heptane is added to the concentrated solution, according to the required ingoing experimental concentration for crystallisation (2.2 volumes). [0160] 6. The solution is washed with 3?2.0 volumes of purified water, separating the aqueous phases containing methanol. An IPC confirms that residual methanol content is within specification. [0161] 7. The washed heptane solution is heated to 50? C. and filtered hot (polished) to remove undissolved particles, washing through with 0.3 volumes of heptane (Total 2.0 volumes of heptane). [0162] 8. The solution is cooled to 25? C., then slowly cooled to 12? C. (over 6 hours). [0163] 9. An agitation speed of 115 rpm is maintained during crystallisation in the small plant (or that equivalent if in a different vessel). [0164] 10. The solution is seeded with 1.0% w/w crystalline CBD and the seed allowed to propagate over 180 minutes (3 hours). [0165] 11. The suspension is cooled to ?18? C. to ?20? C. over 960 minutes (16 hours), then stirred at ?20? C. for 360 minutes (6 hours). [0166] 12. The suspension is filtered under vacuum, then washed with three heptane washes (totaling 3.0 volumes). [0167] 2?0.75 volume displacement washes at ?18? C. and 10? C. [0168] 1?1.5 volume, 30 minute re-slurry at 10? C. [0169] 13. The product is de-liquored, then dried under vacuum at 20? C. to 30? C. until it meets the specification for residual heptane.

[0170] The above volumes and concentrations are to be relied on as representative values only. Different scales would require adjustment accordingly.

Overall Conclusion

[0171] API manufactured either without the use of a filter aid or using alternative filter aids in telescoped process B show compliance with respect to specification criteria. Drug product manufactured from no filter aid and alternative filter aid telescoped processes also meet the specification with regards to colour, impurity profile and stability. Significantly, this drug product was found to be comparable to drug product manufactured from control process A over a range of temperatures and over a long time period.

[0172] The addition of a chelating agent such as citric acid, and antioxidants such as citric acid and ascorbyl palmitate, can further improve drug product impurity profiles.

[0173] Thus, it can be concluded that the above-outlined process, being more efficient and streamlined than prior described methods, is able to manufacture cannabinoids for use in pharmaceuticals that is both stable and substantially pure.