Is cannabis a gateway drug? Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs

We outline and evaluate competing explanations of three relationships that have consistently been found between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs, namely, ( 1) that cannabis use typically precedes the use of other illicit drugs; and that ( 2) the earlier cannabis is used, and ( 3) the more regularly it is used, the more likely a young person is to use other illicit drugs. We consider three major competing explanations of these patterns: ( 1) that the relationship is due to the fact that there is a shared illicit market for cannabis and other drugs which makes it more likely that other illicit drugs will be used if cannabis is used; ( 2) that they are explained by the characteristics of those who use cannabis; and ( 3) that they reflect a causal relationship in which the pharmacological effects of cannabis on brain function increase the likelihood of using other illicit drugs. These explanations are evaluated in the light of evidence from longitudinal epidemiological studies, simulation studies, discordant twin studies and animal studies. The available evidence indicates that the association reflects in part but is not wholly explained by: ( 1) the selective recruitment to heavy cannabis use of persons with pre-existing traits ( that may be in part genetic) that predispose to the use of a variety of different drugs; ( 2) the affiliation of cannabis users with drug using peers in settings that provide more opportunities to use other illicit drugs at an earlier age; ( 3) supported by socialisation into an illicit drug subculture with favourable attitudes towards the use of other illicit drugs. Animal studies have raised the possibility that regular cannabis use may have pharmacological effects on brain function that increase the likelihood of using other drugs. We conclude with suggestions for the type of research studies that will enable a decision to be made about the relative contributions that social context, individual characteristics, and drug effects make to the relationship between cannabis use and the use of other drugs.

Predictors of cannabis use in men with and without psychosis

Background: Factors associated with cannabis use among people with psychosis are not well understood. ----- Aims: To examine whether people with psychosis and age-matched controls modified cannabis use in response to recent experiences. ----- Method: This study predicted 4 weeks of cannabis use prospectively, using expectancies derived from recent occasions of use. ----- Results: People with psychosis used cannabis less frequently than controls, but had more cannabis-related problems. More negative cannabis expectancies resulted in less frequent cannabis use over Follow-up. The psychosis group was more likely to moderate cannabis use after negative effects than controls. ----- Conclusions: Results offer optimism about abilities of people with psychosis tomoderate cannabis use in the short term.

Treatment of cannabis use among people with psychotic disorders : critical review of randomised controlled trials

There is growing and converging evidence that cannabis may be a major risk factor in people with psychotic disorders and prodromal psychotic symptoms. The lack of available pharmacological treatments for cannabis use indicates that psychological interventions should be a high priority, especially among people with psychotic disorders. However, there have been few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions among this group. In the present study we critically overview RCTs of psychological and pharmacologic interventions among people with psychotic disorders, giving particular attention to those studies which report cannabis use outcomes. We then review data regarding treatment preferences among this group. RCTs of interventions within "real world" mental health systems among adults with severe mental disorders suggest that cannabis use is amenable to treatment in real world settings among people with psychotic disorders. RCTs of manual guided interventions among cannabis users indicate that while brief interventions are associated with reductions in cannabis use, longer interventions may be more effective. Additionally, RCTs reviewed suggest treatment with antipsychotic medication is not associated with a worsening of cannabis cravings or use and may be beneficial. The development of cannabinoid agonist medication may be an effective strategy for cannabis dependence and suitable for people with psychotic disorders. The development of cannabis use interventions for people with psychotic disorders should also consider patients' treatment preferences. Initial results indicate face-to-face interventions focussed on cannabis use may be preferred. Further research investigating the treatment preferences of people with psychotic disorders using cannabis is needed.

The global epidemiology and contribution of cannabis use and dependence to the global burden of disease: results from the GBD 2010 study

Aim Estimate the prevalence of cannabis dependence and its contribution to the global burden of disease. Methods Systematic reviews of epidemiological data on cannabis dependence (1990-2008) were conducted in line with PRISMA and meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Culling and data extraction followed protocols, with cross-checking and consistency checks. DisMod-MR, the latest version of generic disease modelling system, redesigned as a Bayesian meta-regression tool, imputed prevalence by age, year and sex for 187 countries and 21 regions. The disability weight associated with cannabis dependence was estimated through population surveys and multiplied by prevalence data to calculate the years of life lived with disability (YLDs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). YLDs and DALYs attributed to regular cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia were also estimated. Results There were an estimated 13.1 million cannabis dependent people globally in 2010 (point prevalence0.19% (95% uncertainty: 0.17-0.21%)). Prevalence peaked between 20-24 yrs, was higher in males (0.23% (0.2-0.27%)) than females (0.14% (0.12-0.16%)) and in high income regions. Cannabis dependence accounted for 2 million DALYs globally (0.08%; 0.05-0.12%) in 2010; a 22% increase in crude DALYs since 1990 largely due to population growth. Countries with statistically higher age-standardised DALY rates included the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Western European countries such as the United Kingdom; those with lower DALY rates were from Sub-Saharan Africa-West and Latin America. Regular cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia accounted for an estimated 7,000 DALYs globally. Conclusion Cannabis dependence is a disorder primarily experienced by young adults, especially in higher income countries. It has not been shown to increase mortality as opioid and other forms of illicit drug dependence do. Our estimates suggest that cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia is not a major contributor to population-level disease burden.

Prevalence and impact of cannabis use disorders in adolescents with early onset first episode psychosis

Previous studies on the impact of cannabis use disorders (CU) on outcome in psychosis were predominantly based on non representative samples, often have not controlled for confounders and rarely focused on adolescent patients. Thus, the aims of the present study were to assess: (i) prevalence of CU; (ii) baseline and pretreatment differences between CU and those without CU (NCU); (iii) the impact of baseline and course of CU on 18-month outcomes in a representative cohort of adolescents with early onset first episode psychosis (EOP).

The psychotogenic effects of cannabis use: challenges in reducing residual uncertainties and communicating the risks

No Abstract

Duration of cannabis use - a novel phenotype?

Although cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug, duration of cannabis use is typically short, with many of those who initiate cannabis use ceasing use by their late twenties. In this paper we analyze data from a volunteer Australian cohort of 6265 male and female twins to examine whether the duration of cannabis use is an informative phenotype for future genetic analyses. Genetic modeling indicated: (a) moderate genetic influences on duration of cannabis use in both males (41%; 95% CI = 31–51) and females (55%; 95% CI = 46–63); (b) strong genetic influences on cannabis dependence in both males (72%, 95% CI = 61–81) and females (62%, 95% CI = 48–74); (c) no evidence of shared environmental influences on duration of cannabis use or on cannabis dependence in either males or females. Importantly, this model fitting indicated that a substantial component of genetic influences (rg = .90, 95% CI = .77–.99 (males); .70, 95% CI = .57–.83 (females)) on duration of cannabis use was shared with those influencing liability to cannabis dependence. While there were high genetic correlations in both women and men, lifetime duration of cannabis may be uniquely informative in assessing components of liability to cannabis use.

Is cannabis use a contributory cause of psychosis?

Objective: To assess whether cannabis use in adolescence and young adulthood is a contributory cause of schizophreniform psychosis in that it may precipitate psychosis in vulnerable individuals. Method: We reviewed longitudinal studies of adolescents and young adults that examined the relations between self-reported cannabis use and the risk of diagnosis with a psychosis or of reporting psychotic symptoms. We also reviewed studies that controlled for potential confounders, such as other forms of drug use and personal characteristics that predict an increased risk of psychosis. We assessed evidence for the biological plausibility of a contributory causal relation. Results: Evidence from 6 longitudinal studies in 5 countries shows that regular cannabis use predicts an increased risk of a schizophrenia diagnosis or of reporting symptoms of psychosis. These relations persisted after controlling for confounding variables, such as personal characteristics and other drug use. The relation did not seem to be a result of cannabis use to self-medicate symptoms of psychosis. A contributory causal relation is biologically plausible because psychotic disorders involve disturbances in the dopamine neurotransmitter systems with which the cannabinoid system interacts, as demonstrated by animal studies and one human provocation study. Conclusion: It is most plausible that cannabis use precipitates schizophrenia in individuals who are vulnerable because of a personal or family history of schizophrenia.

Systematic analysis of changes in cannabis use among participants in control conditions of randomised controlled trials

Introduction Cannabis remains the most used illegal substance across the globe, and negative outcomes and disorders are common. A spotlight therefore falls on reductions in cannabis use in people with cannabis use disorder. Current estimates of unassisted cessation or reduction in cannabis use rely on community surveys, and few studies focus on individuals with disorder. A key interest of services and researchers is to estimate effect size of reductions in consumption among treatment seekers who do not obtain treatment. Effects within waiting list or information-only control conditions of randomised controlled trials offer an opportunity to study this question. Method This paper examines the extent of reductions in days of cannabis use in the control groups of randomised controlled trials on treatment of cannabis use disorders. A systematic literature search was performed to identify trials that reported days of cannabis use in the previous 30 (or equivalent). Results Since all but one of the eight identified studies had delayed treatment controls, results could only be summarised across 2–4 months. Average weighted days of use in the previous 30 days fell from 24.5 to 19.9, and a meta-analysis using a random effects model showed an average reduction of 0.442 SD. However, every study had at least one significant methodological issue. Conclusions While further high-quality data is needed to confirm the observed effects, these results provide a baseline from which researchers and practitioners can estimate the extent of change required to detect effects of cannabis treatments in services or treatment trials.

Subclinical Depressive Symptoms and Continued Cannabis Use: Predictors of Negative Outcomes in First Episode Psychosis

Background Although depressive symptoms in first episode psychosis have been associated with cannabis abuse, their influence on the long-term functional course of FEP patients who abuse cannabis is unknown. The aims of the study were to examine the influence of subclinical depressive symptoms on the long-term outcome in first episode-psychosis patients who were cannabis users and to assess the influence of these subclinical depressive symptoms on the ability to quit cannabis use. Methods 64 FEP patients who were cannabis users at baseline were followed-up for 5 years. Two groups were defined: (a) patients with subclinical depressive symptoms at least once during follow-up (DPG), and (b) patients without subclinical depressive symptoms during follow-up (NDPG). Psychotic symptoms were measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), depressive symptoms using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS)-17, and psychosocial functioning was assessed using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). A linear mixed-effects model was used to analyze the combined influence of cannabis use and subclinical depressive symptomatology on the clinical outcome. Results Subclinical depressive symptoms were associated with continued abuse of cannabis during follow-up (beta=4.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78 to 11.17; P=.001) and with worse functioning (beta=-5.50; 95% CI: -9.02 to -0.33; P=.009). Conclusions Subclinical depressive symptoms and continued cannabis abuse during follow-up could be predictors of negative outcomes in FEP patients.

Effects of peer network interactions on adolescent cannabis use

Purpose
This study capitalises on three waves of longitudinal data from a cohort of 4351 secondary school pupils to examine the effects on individuals’ cannabis use uptake of both peer cannabis use and position within a peer network.

Design/methodology/approach
Both cross-sectional and individual fixed effects models are used to estimate the effect on cannabis use of nominated friends’ cannabis use, of reciprocity and transitivity of nominations across the friendship cluster, and of interactions between these nominated friends. Post hoc analyses parsed the behaviour of reciprocating and non-reciprocating friends.

Findings
Cannabis use varied depending on the stability of friendship network and the degree of reciprocity and interconnectedness within the group. Behavioural influence was strong, but interaction effects were observed between the prevalence of cannabis use among friends, the structure of the friendship group and ego’s proximity to group members. These interactions demonstrate that behavioural influence is more salient in more cohesive groups. When reciprocating and non-reciprocating friends’ mean cannabis use were separated, influence from reciprocating friends was estimated at twice the magnitude of other friends.

Originality/value
While preventing any one individual from using cannabis is likely to have a multiplier effect on classmates, the bonds and interactions between classmates will determine which classmates are affected by this multiplier and the salience of that effect.

Cannabis use disorder and age at onset of psychosis--a study in first-episode patients

INTRODUCTION Age at onset of psychosis (AAO) may be younger in patients with cannabis use disorders (CUD) compared to those without CUD (NCUD). Previous studies included CUD co-morbid with other substance use disorders (SUD), and many did not control for confounders. METHODS Controlling for relevant confounders, differences in AAO between patients with and without CUD excluding those with any other SUD were analyzed in a large representative file audit of 625 first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients (age 14 to 29years) admitted to the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre in Melbourne, Australia. RESULTS Three quarters of the 625 FEP patients had a CUD. Cannabis use started before psychosis onset in 87.6% of patients. AAO was not significantly different between CUD (without other SUD, n=201) and NCUD (n=157). However, AAO was younger in those with early CUD (starting age 14 or younger) compared to NCUD (F(1)=5.2; p=0.024; partial η(2)=0.026). Earlier age at onset of cannabis use predicted earlier age at onset of psychosis (β=-0.49, R(2)-change=0.25, p<0.001). CONCLUSION Only CUD starting age 14 or younger was associated with an earlier AAO at a small effect size. These findings suggest that CUD may exert an indirect effect on brain maturation resulting in earlier AAO potentially only in cannabis sensitive subjects.

"I Use Weed for My ADHD": A Qualitative Analysis of Online Forum Discussions on Cannabis Use and ADHD.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a risk factor for problematic cannabis use. However, clinical and anecdotal evidence suggest an increasingly popular perception that cannabis is therapeutic for ADHD, including via online resources. Given that the Internet is increasingly utilized as a source of healthcare information and may influence perceptions, we conducted a qualitative analysis of online forum discussions, also referred to as threads, on the effects of cannabis on ADHD to systematically characterize the content patients and caregivers may encounter about ADHD and cannabis. METHODS: A total of 268 separate forum threads were identified. Twenty percent (20%) were randomly selected, which yielded 55 separate forum threads (mean number of individual posts per forum thread = 17.53) scored by three raters (Cohen's kappa = 0.74). A final sample of 401 posts in these forum threads received at least one endorsement on predetermined topics following qualitative coding procedures. RESULTS: Twenty-five (25%) percent of individual posts indicated that cannabis is therapeutic for ADHD, as opposed to 8% that it is harmful, 5% that it is both therapeutic and harmful, and 2% that it has no effect on ADHD. This pattern was generally consistent when the year of each post was considered. The greater endorsement of therapeutic versus harmful effects of cannabis did not generalize to mood, other (non-ADHD) psychiatric conditions, or overall domains of daily life. Additional themes emerged (e.g., cannabis being considered sanctioned by healthcare providers). CONCLUSIONS: Despite that there are no clinical recommendations or systematic research supporting the beneficial effects of cannabis use for ADHD, online discussions indicate that cannabis is considered therapeutic for ADHD-this is the first study to identify such a trend. This type of online information could shape ADHD patient and caregiver perceptions, and influence cannabis use and clinical care.