Associations between cannabis policies and state-level specialty cannabis use disorder treatment in the United States, 2004-2019.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder (CUD) treatment prevalence decreased in the US between 2002 and 2019, yet structural mechanisms for this decrease are poorly understood. We tested associations between cannabis laws becoming effective and self-reported CUD treatment. METHODS: Restricted-use 2004-2019 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health included people ages 12+ classified as needing CUD treatment (i.e., past-year DSM-5-proxy CUD or last/current specialty treatment for cannabis). Time-varying indicators of medical cannabis laws (MCL) with/without cannabis dispensary provisions differentiated state-years before/after laws using effective dates. Multi-level logistic regressions with random state intercepts estimated individual- and state-adjusted CUD treatment odds by MCLs and model-based changes in specialty CUD treatment state-level prevalence. Secondary analyses tested associations between CUD treatment and MCL or recreational cannabis laws (RCL). RESULTS: Using a broad treatment need sample definition in 2004-2014, specialty CUD treatment prevalence decreased by 1.35 (95 % CI = -2.51, -0.18) points after MCL without dispensaries and by 2.15 points (95 % CI = -3.29, -1.00) after MCL with dispensaries provisions became effective, compared to before MCL. Among people with CUD in 2004-2014, specialty treatment decreased only in MCL states with dispensary provisions (aPD = -0.91, 95 % CI = -1.68, -0.13). MCL were not associated with CUD treatment use in 2015-2019. RCL were associated with lower CUD treatment among people classified as needing CUD treatment, but not among people with past-year CUD. CONCLUSIONS: Policy-related reductions in specialty CUD treatment were concentrated in states with cannabis dispensary provisions in 2004-2014, but not 2015-2019, and partly driven by reductions among people without past-year CUD. Other mechanisms (e.g., CUD symptom identification, criminal-legal referrals) could contribute to decreasing treatment trends.

Association between cannabis use disorder symptom severity and probability of clinically-documented diagnosis and treatment in a primary care sample.

BACKGROUND: Brief cannabis screening followed by standardized assessment of symptoms may support diagnosis and treatment of cannabis use disorder (CUD). This study tested whether the probability of a medical provider diagnosing and treating CUD increased with the number of substance use disorder (SUD) symptoms documented in patients' EHRs. METHODS: This observational study used EHR and claims data from an integrated healthcare system. Adult patients were included who reported daily cannabis use and completed the Substance Use Symptom Checklist, a scaled measure of DSM-5 SUD symptoms (0-11), during routine care 3/1/2015-3/1/2021. Logistic regression estimated associations between SUD symptom counts and: 1) CUD diagnosis; 2) CUD treatment initiation; and 3) CUD treatment engagement, defined based on Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) ICD-codes and timelines. We tested moderation across age, gender, race, and ethnicity. RESULTS: Patients (N=13,947) were predominantly middle-age, male, White, and non-Hispanic. Among patients reporting daily cannabis use without other drug use (N=12,568), the probability of CUD diagnosis, treatment initiation, and engagement increased with each 1-unit increase in Symptom Checklist score (p's<0.001). However, probabilities of diagnosis, treatment, and engagement were low, even among those reporting ≥2 symptoms consistent with SUD: 14.0% diagnosed (95% CI: 11.7-21.6), 16.6% initiated treatment among diagnosed (11.7-21.6), and 24.3% engaged in treatment among initiated (15.8-32.7). Only gender moderated associations between Symptom Checklist and diagnosis (p=0.047) and treatment initiation (p=0.012). Findings were similar for patients reporting daily cannabis use with other drug use (N=1379). CONCLUSION: Despite documented symptoms, CUD was underdiagnosed and undertreated in medical settings.

Monitoring adherence and abstinence of cannabis use disorder patients: Profile identification and relationship with long-term treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cannabis use disorder (CUD) show heterogeneous sociodemographic and consumption patterns. Although previous studies, focused on identifying subgroups of CUD patients using input variables, have yielded useful results for planning individualized treatments, no published research has analyzed the profiles of CUD patients according to their therapeutic progress. This study therefore aims to identify subgroups of patients using adherence and abstinence indicators and to explore whether these profiles are associated with sociodemographic characteristics, consumption variables, and long-term therapeutic outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study with a multisite sample of 2055 CUD outpatients who were beginning treatment. The study monitored patient data at two-year follow-up. We conducted latent profiles analysis on the appointment attendance ratio and percentage of negative cannabis tests. RESULTS: A three profile solution emerged: i) moderate abstinence/moderate adherence (n = 997); ii) high abstinence/moderate adherence (n = 613); and iii) high abstinence/high adherence (n = 445). The study found the most marked differences at the beginning of treatment for education level (chi2 (8) = 121.70, p < .001), source of referral (chi2 (12) = 203.55, p < .001), and frequency of cannabis use (chi2 (10) = 232.39, p < .001). Eighty percent of patients from the "high abstinence/high adherence" group were relapse-free at two year follow-up. This percentage decreased to 24.3 % in the "moderate abstinence/moderate adherence" group. CONCLUSIONS: Research has shown adherence and abstinence indicators to be useful for identifying subgroups of patients with different prognoses regarding long-term success. Recognizing the sociodemographic and consumption variables associated with these profiles at the beginning of treatment could help to inform the design of more individualized interventions.

Recommendation for Cannabis Use Disorder Diagnosis in a Context of Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes.

This Viewpoint proposes a model of cannabis use disorder diagnosis in the context of cannabis for therapeutic purposes that is based on DSM-5 model of diagnosing substance use disorder in the context of prescribed medication use.

Treatment of Adolescent Cannabis Use Disorders.

This review summarizes treatments for cannabis use disorder (CUD) in adolescents. The best supported CUD treatments are cognitive behavioral psychotherapies, including family-based models that facilitate environmental changes and youth-focused models that incorporate skills training, motivational interviewing, and contingency management to promote reductions in cannabis use. Some medications show promise in reducing cannabis craving and withdrawal symptoms. Further research is needed on the efficacy and implementation of existing treatments given the changes in cannabis use trends over time and on emerging technologies that may expand access to evidence-based CUD treatments.

Cannabis Essentials: Tools for Clinical Practice.

Cannabis use in the United States is increasing annually in people of all ages. This increase is fueled by state-level legalization, decreased risk perception, and increased social acceptability. Cannabis and its active components, cannabinoids, have been studied for medical uses and marketed in many commercial forms. Cannabis can impair short-term memory, judgment, and coordination, and there is substantial evidence that it can adversely affect multiple organ systems. Cannabinoids have potential adverse drug interactions with commonly prescribed analgesic, psychotropic, and cardiovascular medications. Current evidence supports cannabinoid use only for a limited number of conditions (chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, specific pain and spasticity syndromes, and certain forms of childhood epilepsy); thus, physicians recommending cannabinoids need to weigh the potential harms vs. perceived benefits. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends universal screening for unhealthy drug use, including cannabis, in adults 18 years and older. However, the American Academy of Family Physicians does not support this recommendation because of the lack of evidence of benefit in screening patients for unhealthy drug use, except for opioid use disorder. Treatment of cannabis use disorder is largely behavioral and requires a patient-centered, multifaceted approach with a focus on patient education. Pharmacotherapy for cannabis use disorder is limited and experimental. Harm reduction strategies and education about cannabis withdrawal syndrome should be provided to patients. Interpretation of urine drug testing for cannabis is challenging because of the persistence of metabolites for four to five days after a single use and for one month after chronic daily use.

Integrated cognitive-behavioral therapy for comorbid cannabis use and anxiety disorders: The impact of severity of cannabis use.

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is the most common illicit substance use disorder and individuals with CUD have high rates of comorbid anxiety disorders. Comorbidity between CUD and anxiety disorders is of public health relevance given that although motivation enhancement therapy (MET) combined with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is an efficacious intervention for CUD, outcomes are worse for patients with elevated anxiety. Integrated cannabis and anxiety reduction treatment (ICART) was developed based on translational research; it integrates a transdiagnostic CBT for anxiety disorders with MET/cognitive behavior therapy (MET-CBT) for CUD, with outcomes comparable to MET-CBT alone. The current study tested whether ICART is more efficacious than MET-CBT alone for patients with more severe baseline cannabis use and use-related problems. Individuals seeking treatment for CUD (56.4% male, Mage = 23.2, 63.3% non-Hispanic White) with at least one comorbid anxiety disorder were randomly assigned to ICART (n = 27) or MET-CBT (n = 28). Baseline severity of cannabis use and use-related problems moderated the relation between condition and posttreatment outcomes, such that among patients with the greatest baseline cannabis use, ICART was associated with less posttreatment cannabis use than MET-CBT alone. Further, among those with the greatest number of cannabis-related problems, patients in ICART reported fewer posttreatment problems than those in the MET-CBT alone condition. These data suggest that for dually diagnosed patients with more severe cannabis use, ICART may be more efficacious than a gold-standard psychosocial CUD treatment, MET-CBT. MET-CBT may be more efficacious for those with less baseline cannabis use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome: A Review of the Presentation and Treatment.

After the increasing legalization of cannabis, there has been a rising trend in cannabis consumption, especially among heavy users. Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome is a syndrome of cyclic vomiting related to chronic cannabis use. The difficulty of diagnosis and treatment of this syndrome has led to a disproportionately high use of health care resources. Although the exact mechanism of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome is still unknown, patients typically progress through prodromal, hyperemetic, and recovery phases. Persistent vomiting in a patient who reports relief with hot showers should trigger the consideration of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome as a possible diagnosis. For treatment, antipsychotics such as haloperidol or droperidol have been shown to be more effective than conventional antiemetics for symptom control. Capsaicin should also be considered, given its positive efficacy and low adverse-effect profile. Providers must be aware of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, its diagnosis, and treatment, given the increasing prevalence. Further research is required to elicit the exact mechanism and additional therapies for this syndrome.

Alcohol substitution during one month of cannabis abstinence among non-treatment seeking youth.

OBJECTIVE: Cannabis and alcohol use are correlated behaviors among youth. It is not known whether discontinuation of cannabis use is associated with changes in alcohol use. This study assessed alcohol use in youth before, during, and after 4 weeks of paid cannabis abstinence. METHODS: Healthy, non-treatment seeking, cannabis users (n = 160), aged 14-25 years, 84% of whom used alcohol in the last month, were enrolled for a 4-week study with a 2-4 week follow-up. Participants were randomly assigned to 4 weeks of either biochemically-verified cannabis abstinence achieved through a contingency management framework (CB-Abst) or monitoring with no abstinence requirement (CB-Mon). Participants were assessed at baseline and approximately 4, 6, 10, 17, 24, and 31 days after enrollment. A follow-up visit with no cannabis abstinence requirement for CB-Abst was conducted after 2-4 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty percent of individuals assigned to the CB-Abst condition increased in frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption during the 4-week period of incentivized cannabis abstinence. As a whole, CB-Abst increased by a mean of 0.6 drinking days and 0.2 drinks per day in the initial week of abstinence (p's < 0.006). There was no evidence for further increases in drinking frequency or quantity during the 30-day abstinence period (p's > 0.53). There was no change in drinking frequency or quantity during the 4-week monitoring or follow-up periods among CB-Mon. CONCLUSIONS: On average, 4 weeks of incentivized (i.e., paid) cannabis abstinence among non-treatment seeking youth was associated with increased frequency and amount of alcohol use in week 1 that was sustained over 4 weeks and resolved with resumption of cannabis use. However, there was notable variability in individual-level response, with 60% increasing in alcohol use and 23% actually decreasing in alcohol use during cannabis abstinence. Findings suggest that increased alcohol use during cannabis abstinence among youth merits further study to determine whether this behavior occurs among treatment seeking youth and its clinical significance.

Individualized assessment and treatment program (IATP) for cannabis use disorder: Randomized controlled trial with and without contingency management.

This study tested a new approach to the treatment of cannabis use disorder (CUD). CUD is difficult to treat, and achieving abstinence is particularly difficult. The individualized assessment and treatment program (IATP) was intended to address this problem by providing a highly individualized approach to the training of coping skills most relevant for each individual. To do this, an experience sampling procedure was used prior to treatment to record patients' marijuana use behavior and associated thoughts, feelings, coping behaviors, and situations. This information was used by therapists to plan treatment that would address the specific strengths and weaknesses of each patient in drug-use situations. The present study tested IATP against a conventional combined motivational enhancement cognitive-behavioral treatment (MET-CBT), with or without the addition of contingency management (CM) for abstinence. The patients were 198 men and women randomly assigned to 1 of 4 nine-session treatment conditions: MET-CBT, MET-CBT-CM, IATP, or IATP-CM. Patients were assessed out to 14 months. Planned contrasts indicated that the IATP conditions yielded greater levels of abstinence than did the MET-CBT conditions. The addition of CM did not bolster the performance of IATP but did do so for MET-CBT. As expected, IATP lead to greater use of coping skills than did the MET-CBT conditions. However, coping skills use was not a significant predictor of outcome when other variables were in the same analyses. Self-efficacy was a robust predictor and mediator of outcome. We suggest that the IATP may act by enhancing self-efficacy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Integration of screening, assessment, and treatment for cannabis and other drug use disorders in primary care: An evaluation in three pilot sites.

BACKGROUND: This pilot study evaluated whether use of evidence-based implementation strategies to integrate care for cannabis and other drug use into primary care (PC) as part of Behavioral Health Integration (BHI) increased diagnosis and treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). METHODS: Patients who visited the three pilot PC sites were eligible. Implementation strategies included practice coaching, electronic health record decision support, and performance feedback (3/2015-4/2016). BHI introduced annual screening for past-year cannabis and other drug use, a Symptom Checklist for DSM-5 SUDs, and shared decision-making about treatment options. Main analyses tested whether the proportions of PC patients diagnosed with, and treated for, new cannabis or other drug use disorders (CUDs and DUDs, respectively), differed significantly pre- and post-implementation. RESULTS: Of 39,599 eligible patients, 57% and 59% were screened for cannabis and other drug use, respectively. Among PC patients reporting daily cannabis use (2%) or any drug use (1%), 51% and 37%, respectively, completed an SUD Symptom Checklist. The proportion of PC patients with newly diagnosed CUD increased significantly post-implementation (5 v 17 per 10,000 patients, p < 0.0001), but not other DUDs (10 vs 13 per 10,000, p = 0.24). The proportion treated for newly diagnosed CUDs did not increase post-implementation (1 vs 1 per 10,000, p = 0.80), but did for those treated for newly diagnosed other DUDs (1 vs 3 per 10,000, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: A pilot implementation of BHI to increase routine screening and assessment for SUDs was associated with increased new CUD diagnoses and a small increase in treatment of new other DUDs.

Short- and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Frequent Cannabis use has been linked to a variety of negative mental, physical, and social consequences. We assessed the effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions on Cannabis use reduction in comparison with control conditions. METHODS: Systematic review with two separate meta-analyses. Thirty randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the review, and 21 were included in the meta-analyses. Primary outcome was self-reported Cannabis use at post-treatment and follow-up. Hedges's g was calculated for all comparisons with non-active control. Risk of bias was examined with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: The systematic review included 10 prevention interventions targeting 8138 participants (aged 12 to 20) and 20 treatment interventions targeting 5195 Cannabis users (aged 16 to 40). The meta-analyses showed significantly reduced Cannabis use at post-treatment in the prevention interventions (6 studies, N = 2564, g = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.54, p = 0.001) and in the treatment interventions (17 comparisons, N = 3813, g = 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22, p = 0.02) as compared with controls. The effects of prevention interventions were maintained at follow-ups of up to 12 months (5 comparisons, N = 2445, g = 0.22; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.33, p < 0.001) but were no longer statistically significant for treatment interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Digital prevention and treatment interventions showed small, significant reduction effects on Cannabis use in diverse target populations at post-treatment compared to controls. For prevention interventions, the post-treatment effects were maintained at follow-up up to 12 months later.

Patient characteristics associated with treatment initiation and engagement among individuals diagnosed with alcohol and other drug use disorders in emergency department and primary care settings.

Background: Treatment initiation and engagement rates for alcohol and other drug (AOD) use disorders differ depending on where the AOD use disorder was identified. Emergency department (ED) and primary care (PC) are 2 common settings where patients are identified; however, it is unknown whether characteristics of patients who initiate and engage in treatment differ between these settings. Methods: Patients identified with an AOD disorder in ED or PC settings were drawn from a larger study that examined Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) AOD treatment initiation and engagement measures across 7 health systems using electronic health record data (n = 54,321). Multivariable generalized linear models, with a logit link, clustered on health system, were used to model patient factors associated with initiation and engagement in treatment, between and within each setting. Results: Patients identified in the ED had higher odds of initiating treatment than those identified in PC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.73-2.07), with no difference in engagement between the settings. Among those identified in the ED, compared with patients aged 18-29, older patients had higher odds of treatment initiation (age 30-49: aOR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.12-1.40; age 50-64: aOR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.26-1.60; age 65+: aOR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.08-1.49). However, among those identified in PC, compared with patients aged 18-29, older patients were less likely to initiate (age 30-49: aOR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.71-0.94; age 50-64: aOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.58-0.78; age 65+: aOR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.40-0.56). Women identified in ED had lower odds of initiating treatment (aOR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.72-0.88), whereas sex was not associated with treatment initiation in PC. In both settings, patients aged 65+ had lower odds of engaging compared with patients aged 18-29 (ED: aOR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38-0.98; PC: aOR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.26-0.68). Conclusion: Initiation and engagement in treatment differed by sex and age depending on identification setting. This information could inform tailoring of future AOD interventions.

The characteristics and patterns of utilization of healthcare services among Omanis with substance use disorders attending therapy for cessation.

BACKGROUND: It is indicated that Oman is witnessing an increase in issues pertinent to alcohol and psychoactive substance use. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify the characteristics of Omanis with substance use disorder attending a specialized hospital in Oman and the pattern of their utilization of healthcare services. A related aim was to ascertain the age group most vulnerable to alcohol and substance use in Oman. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care center specialized for treatment of those engaging in substance use in Oman. The participants in the study were selected from a convenience sample among patients seeking consultation at the center for alcohol and substance use. A six-part questionnaire was designed to obtain information regarding socio-demographic background, clinical history, healthcare utilization and perceived hurdles to access. Chi-square analyses were used to evaluate the significance of differences among categorical data. Logistic regression modelling was used to obtain measures of association after adjusting for confounding factors. RESULTS: Among the patients (n = 293) seeking cessation therapy, 99% were male and less than 30 years of age. Peer influences on the initiation of substance use were significant. Most patients had a history of polysubstance use, including intravenous substance use. Cannabis and alcohol were the first substances consumed by most patients and Hepatitis C and psychiatric disorders were found to be the most common co-morbidities. The participants that reported use of cannabis and benzodiazepines were more likely to perceive "improvement" upon receiving treatment. CONCLUSION: This study indicated that males below 30 years of age with a history of polysubstance use were likely to attend a hospital specialized in treating substance use disorder in Oman. This study identified information regarding socio-demographic background, risk factors and perceived hurdles to healthcare that could serve as groundwork for further studies conducted on newly emerging issues of substance use in Oman.

The prevalence of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) initiation and engagement in treatment among patients with cannabis use disorders in 7 US health systems.

Background: Cannabis use disorders (CUDs) have increased with more individuals using cannabis, yet few receive treatment. Health systems have adopted the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures of initiation and engagement in alcohol and other drug (AOD) dependence treatment, but little is known about the performance of these among patients with CUDs. Methods: This cohort study utilized electronic health records and claims data from 7 health care systems to identify patients with documentation of a new index CUD diagnosis (no AOD diagnosis ≤60 days prior) from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth revision, codes (October 1, 2014, to August 31, 2015). The adjusted prevalence of each outcome (initiation, engagement, and a composite of both) was estimated from generalized linear regression models, across index identification settings (inpatient, emergency department, primary care, addiction treatment, and mental health/psychiatry), AOD comorbidity (patients with CUD only and CUD plus other AOD diagnoses), and patient characteristics. Results: Among 15,202 patients with an index CUD diagnosis, 30.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.2-30.7%) initiated, 6.9% (95% CI: 6.2-7.7%) engaged among initiated, and 2.1% (95% CI: 1.9-2.3%) overall both initiated and engaged in treatment. The adjusted prevalence of outcomes varied across index identification settings and was highest among patients diagnosed in addiction treatment, with 25.0% (95% CI: 22.5-27.6%) initiated, 40.9% (95% CI: 34.8-47.0%) engaged, and 12.5% (95% CI: 10.0-15.1%) initiated and engaged. The adjusted prevalence of each outcome was generally highest among patients with CUD plus other AOD diagnosis at index diagnosis compared with those with CUD only, overall and across index identification settings, and was lowest among uninsured and older patients. Conclusion: Among patients with a new CUD diagnosis, the proportion meeting HEDIS criteria for initiation and/or engagement in AOD treatment was low and demonstrated variation across index diagnosis settings, AOD comorbidity, and patient characteristics, pointing to opportunities for improvement.

Use of marijuana exclusively for medical purposes.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the socio-demographic characteristics, medical conditions, and psychiatric comorbidities of users of marijuana for medical and non-medical purposes. METHODS: Data were from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III, a US nationally representative in-person interview of 36,309 adults age ≥18 years in 2012-2013. RESULTS: In relation to non-medical only users (n = 3339), combined (n = 362) and medical only (n = 82) users had higher prevalence of every medical condition examined. As compared to the combined use group, those using marijuana only for medical purposes were much less likely to have anxiety, alcohol, or non-medical prescription opioid use disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Medical-only users appear to use it for evidence-based medical reasons and have lower prevalence of substance use disorder than other marijuana users. Nonetheless, because most medical marijuana users also use non-medically, screening for psychiatric disorders and prevention efforts for cannabis use disorder should be implemented when authorizing medical marijuana.

Who responds best to text-delivered cannabis use disorder treatment? A randomized clinical trial with young adults.

Young adults ages 18 to 25 have the highest percentage (5%) of cannabis use disorder (CUD) among all age groups, and are the least likely to receive treatment compared with other age groups. Because this population is in need of creative approaches for treatment engagement, we tested Peer Network Counseling-txt (PNC-txt), a 4-week, automated text-delivered cannabis treatment that focuses on close peer relations with 96 treatment seeking young adults. Participants meeting CUD criteria were randomized to PNC-txt, or assessment only control condition and followed for 3-months. At 3-months, the PNC-txt group reduced number of heavy cannabis-use days and relationship problems due to cannabis use compared with controls. Subgroup analyses were conducted with cases having more and fewer CUD symptoms than the full sample. For cases with fewer symptoms, but not for those with more, PNC-txt reduced past 30-day use, urges to use, memory problems, and relationship problems due to cannabis use compared with controls. Treatment satisfaction data from the full sample indicated that participants thought the intervention texts helped them reduce or manage their cannabis use and increased their understanding of the negative relational effects associated with ongoing cannabis use. Findings provide evidence of the efficacy of PNC-txt in treating CUD in young adults, support clinically targeting peer relations, and suggest that PNC-txt may be most helpful for those with mild to moderate CUD severity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).