A mixed method study exploring similarities and differences in general and social services-specific barriers to treatment-seeking among individuals with a problematic use of alcohol, cannabis, or gambling.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment gap for addictive disorders is one of the largest in health care. Several studies have investigated barriers to treatment for different addictive disorders, but very few studies conducted have explored whether the barriers differ depending on substance or behavior or if they are common among all addictive disorders. In Sweden, addiction care is provided both by the healthcare and social services, where the latter is common, but also less popular. To our knowledge, there are no studies exploring whether the barriers are different depending on where the treatment is given. AIM: The aim was to thoroughly explore both which general and social services-specific barriers to treatment that are common, which barriers that differs, and how the barriers are described among individuals with a problematic use of alcohol, cannabis and/or gambling. METHOD: A mixed method convergent parallel design was conducted. For the quantitative measures, surveys including the validated Barriers to Treatment Inventory as well as questions regarding barriers in the Swedish multi-provider landscape, were collected from individuals with a problematic use of alcohol (n = 207), cannabis (n = 51), and gambling (n = 37). In parallel, 17 semi-structured interviews from the same population were conducted and analyzed with thematic analysis. Thereafter, the quantitative and qualitative data was compared, contrasted, and at last, interpreted. RESULTS: The quantitative data showed that the largest general barriers in all groups were privacy concern and poor availability, and the largest barriers for seeking help from the social services was stigma, unawareness of what is offered, and fear of consequences for all groups. The qualitative data resulted in five general barriers: stigma, ambivalence, accessibility, fear of consequences, and lack of knowledge about addiction and its' treatments, and three barriers specifically towards social services: social services reputation, fear of meeting acquaintances, and lack of knowledge. The themes were developed from data from all groups, but different aspects of the themes were mentioned by different groups. CONCLUSION: There are details and aspects that differentiates both the general and social service-specific barriers to treatment between individuals with a problematic use of alcohol, cannabis, and gambling, but in large they perceive similar barriers.

Why Are Adolescent Cannabis Use Disorder Treatment Admissions Declining in the US? The Mediated Pathway of State Treatment Admissions Rates before and after Recreational Cannabis Legalization.

Purpose: State-level prevalence data are used to investigate whether recreational cannabis legalization moderates the mediated pathway from the perception of low risk of harm, to cannabis use, to cannabis use disorder (CUD) treatment admissions, among adolescents (age 12-17) in the US. Methods: Annual state prevalence measures of perception of low risk, cannabis use, and CUD treatment admissions between 2008 and 2019 (N = 542 state-year observations) were collected from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) and the Treatment Episode Dataset - Admissions (TEDS-A). A two-way fixed effects (state and year) moderated mediation model was used to test whether recreational legalization moderated the indirect effect of perception of low risk on treatment admissions via cannabis use. Results: A positive indirect effect of perceiving cannabis as low risk on CUD treatment admissions via cannabis use was observed prior to legalization but not afterwards. After legalization, the positive association of perceiving cannabis as low risk with cannabis use was strengthened, and the positive association of cannabis use with treatment admissions was suppressed, as compared to before legalization. Discussion: Recreational legalization may alter the social acceptability and medical self-administration of cannabis, potentially leading to CUD treatment utilization decline among adolescents even as risk factors for CUD increase. Linking recreational cannabis legalization to advancing awareness of the health risks associated with adolescent cannabis use and promoting adolescent CUD treatment engagement through mHealth approaches and primary care providers are key to addressing potential adolescent health challenges brought about by expanding cannabis legalization.

A call for mindfulness-based interventions for cannabis-use disorders.

Cannabis use is being increasingly liberalized worldwide, and an increasing prevalence of cannabis-use disorder (CUD) is observed. The few current therapeutic options for CUD are only modestly effective. Mindfulness-based interventions offer promising prospects for the management of substance-use disorders. However, despite proliferating literature on mindfulness and substance use, few studies have explored mindfulness in terms of cannabis use and CUD. There are many possibilities for the implementation of mindfulness-based interventions for cannabis use reduction, especially for younger users, who are more vulnerable to cannabis-related harms. Accordingly, large controlled trials are needed to reliably assess the potential of such interventions.

[EMDR in delusional disorder and substance use disorder: integrated treatment]. / EMDR bij een waanstoornis en stoornis in het gebruik van een middel: geïntegreerd behandelen.

Recently, a patient was admitted to our department, who reported personality disorder symptoms and a cannabis use disorder. Additionally, a delusional disorder, aggression regulation issues and PTSD were classified. After employing CBT for substance use, the Hero Without Violence module and EMDR, the treatment was completed. Integrated treatment in this patient proved successful regarding the PTSD, aggression regulation problems and SUD. With the described case, the authors hope to provide a clear description of the possibilities of integrated treatment for a patient with complex problems.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) Task Force Report: A Systematic Review and Recommendations of Cannabis use in Bipolar Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Given the increasing acceptability and legalization of cannabis in some jurisdictions, clinicians need to improve their understanding of the effect of cannabis use on mood disorders. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this task force report is to examine the association between cannabis use and incidence, presentation, course and treatment of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, and the treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to October 2020 focusing on cannabis use and bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder, and treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and clinical considerations were integrated to generate Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments recommendations. RESULTS: Of 12,691 publications, 56 met the criteria: 23 on bipolar disorder, 21 on major depressive disorder, 11 on both diagnoses and 1 on treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder and major depressive disorder. Of 2,479,640 participants, 12,502 were comparison participants, 73,891 had bipolar disorder and 408,223 major depressive disorder without cannabis use. Of those with cannabis use, 2,761 had bipolar disorder and 5,044 major depressive disorder. The lifetime prevalence of cannabis use was 52%-71% and 6%-50% in bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, respectively. Cannabis use was associated with worsening course and symptoms of both mood disorders, with more consistent associations in bipolar disorder than major depressive disorder: increased severity of depressive, manic and psychotic symptoms in bipolar disorder and depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder. Cannabis use was associated with increased suicidality and decreased functioning in both bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. Treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder and major depressive disorder did not show significant results. CONCLUSION: The data indicate that cannabis use is associated with worsened course and functioning of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. Future studies should include more accurate determinations of type, amount and frequency of cannabis use and select comparison groups which allow to control for underlying common factors.

Cannabis use disorder in relation to socioeconomic factors and psychiatric comorbidity: A cluster analysis of three million individuals born in 1970-2000.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is one of the main reasons for seeking substance use treatment. It is thus important to monitor and increase knowledge of individuals with CUD utilizing healthcare. We aimed to examine the number of CUD diagnoses over time, compare individuals with CUD with those without and identify subgroups based on CUD diagnosis, sex, birth year, socioeconomic factors and psychiatric comorbidity. METHODS: A Swedish, population-based study with 3,307,759 individuals, born in 1970-2000, with register data extending to 2016. K-mode cluster analysis was used to identify potential subgroups. RESULTS: The number of individuals with a CUD diagnosis was 14,046 (0.42%). CUD diagnoses increased over time (born 1990-1994: 61 per 100,000, born 1995-2000: 107 per 100,000, by 2016). A majority of those with a CUD had another psychiatric diagnosis (80%, compared with 19% for those without CUD). Four clusters were identified. Cluster 1 comprised mainly men with low income and substance use disorders, clusters 2, 3 and 4 comprised mainly women with higher proportions of mood-related, neurotic and stress-related and behavioural disorders. CONCLUSIONS: There was an increase in CUD diagnoses in Sweden over time, especially among younger birth cohorts. Individuals with CUD were more often male, from younger birth cohorts, with lower education and income than those without CUD. Men and women with CUD exhibited differences in education, income and psychiatric comorbidity. Our results demonstrate the importance of monitoring the impact of socioeconomic factors and psychiatric comorbidity in relation to CUD.

Scoping Review of Cannabis-Reduction Psychosocial Interventions and Reasons for Use among Young Adults with Psychosis.

Objective: No evidence-based intervention effectively reduces cannabis use in young adults with psychosis (YAP). To generate hypotheses about why, a scoping review was conducted to synthesize evidence about motivations for cannabis use and reduction/cessation for YAP and the psychosocial interventions trialed to identify possible gaps between motivations and interventive strategies. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in December, 2022. Reviews of titles and abstracts (N = 3,216) and full-texts (n = 136) resulted in 46 articles. Results: YAP use cannabis for pleasure, to reduce dysphoria, and for social and recreational reasons; motivations for cessation include insight about cannabis-psychosis interactions, incompatibility with goals and social roles, and support from social networks. Interventions with at least minimal evidence of efficacy include motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavioral strategies, and family skills training. Conclusions: Authors recommend additional research on mechanisms of change and motivational enhancement therapy, behavioral activation, and family-based skills interventions matched to YAP motivations for use/cessation.

Paediatric cannabinoid hyperemesis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prevalence of adolescent cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) continues to grow, as clinicians increasingly recognize the presenting features of cyclical nausea, emesis, abdominal pain and relief of symptoms with hot showers, in the setting of chronic cannabinoid use. RECENT FINDINGS: Our understanding of the contributory mechanisms continues to grow, but high-quality evidence of effective treatment in adolescents remains lacking. Current best evidence in the treatment of acute paediatric CHS suggests intravenous rehydration and electrolyte correction, followed by 0.05 mg/kg haloperidol with or without a benzodiazepine. The only long-term treatment remains complete cessation of cannabinoid use. SUMMARY: This article reviews our growing knowledge of adolescent CHS and provides practical guidance for diagnosis, treatment and understanding the underlying mechanisms of the condition.

Admissions to substance use treatment facilities for cannabis use disorder, 2000-2017: Does legalization matter?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A growing number of US states have legalized marijuana use in the past decade. We examined if marijuana legalization is associated with increased marijuana-related admissions to substance use treatment facilities between 2000 and 2017. METHODS: Data from the Treatment Episode Data Set-Admissions were used to examine the relationship between marijuana-related admissions among adults aged ≥18 by year and legalization status (i.e., fully legalized, medical use only [partially legalized], and illegal) (N = 35,457,854). Using interaction analyses, we further examined whether certain patient characteristics were associated with residence in states that legalized marijuana use as compared to those in which marijuana remained illegal. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of marijuana-related admissions in states with legalization decreased by 2.3% from 31.7% in 2000-2005 to 29.4% in 2012-2017 (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.89-0.90) with little difference from states where marijuana use remained illegal, in which marijuana use as any reason for admissions decreased by 0.3% from 39.8% in 2000-2005 to 39.5% in 2012-2017 (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99). We did not find any striking patient characteristics (e.g., referral by the police) associated with admissions in states that legalized compared to those that had not. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: While earlier studies suggested that marijuana legalization is associated with increased levels of use, emergency department visits, and traffic fatalities, our findings suggest that marijuana legalization did not increase marijuana-related treatment use in the United States. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first study to examine the association of marijuana legalization with marijuana-related treatment use.

Comparing Cannabis Use Disorder in the General Population with Cannabis Treatment Seekers Using Multi-Source National Datasets: Who Receives Treatment?

INTRODUCTION: Given the increased prevalence of cannabis use in Ireland and increase in cannabis potency, this study aimed to estimate the size of the potential population in Ireland that may be in need of cannabis treatment and the percentage of people with cannabis use disorder (CUD) who actually access treatment. We also compared the profile of those with CUD in the general population to those who receive treatment for their cannabis use to explore whether certain subgroups are more or less likely to enter treatment. METHOD: This was a retrospective, multi-source database study. Data were obtained from (1) Ireland's 2014/2015 national general population survey (GPS) on drug use and (2) treatment data from the Irish National Drug Treatment Reporting System (NDTRS) for 2015. The profiles of GPS cases with CUD and NDTRS cases were compared using 2-sided t tests designed for independent samples. RESULTS: The prevalence of last year cannabis use among adults aged 15 and older was 6.5% and the prevalence of CUD was 2.6%, representing 94,515 of the Irish population. A total of 4,761 cases entered treatment for problem cannabis use. NDTRS treatment cases were significantly more likely than GPS cases to be unemployed (63.7% vs. 26.6%) and have no or primary level only educational attainment (56.3% vs. 21.2%). Over half (53.3%) of NDTRS cases first used cannabis before the age of 15 years, compared to 14.7% of CUD cases in the population. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that earlier users and those with more complex or disadvantaged lives are more likely to seek treatment. A broad population health approach that engages multiple sectors such as health, social welfare, and education is recommended to ensure that there is increased opportunity for people with CUD to be identified and signposted towards treatment.

Cannabis Use in Adults Who Screen Positive for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: CANreduce 2.0 Randomized Controlled Trial Subgroup Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence rates for lifetime cannabis use and cannabis use disorder are much higher in people with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder than in those without. CANreduce 2.0 is an intervention that is generally effective at reducing cannabis use in cannabis misusers. This self-guided web-based intervention (6-week duration) consists of modules grounded in motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate whether the CANreduce 2.0 intervention affects cannabis use patterns and symptom severity in adults who screen positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder more than in those who do not. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a previous study with the inclusion criterion of cannabis use at least once weekly over the last 30 days. Adults with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (based on the Adult Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder Self-Report screener) who were enrolled to the active intervention arms of CANreduce 2.0 were compared regarding the number of days cannabis was used in the preceding 30 days, the cannabis use disorder identification test score (CUDIT) and the severity of dependence scale score (SDS) at baseline and the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were Generalized Anxiety Disorder score, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale score, retention, intervention adherence, and safety. RESULTS: Both adults with (n=94) and without (n=273) positive attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening reported significantly reduced frequency (reduction in consumption days: with: mean 11.53, SD 9.28, P<.001; without: mean 8.53, SD 9.4, P<.001) and severity of cannabis use (SDS: with: mean 3.57, SD 3.65, P<.001; without: mean 2.47, SD 3.39, P<.001; CUDIT: with: mean 6.38, SD 5.96, P<.001; without: mean 5.33, SD 6.05, P<.001), as well as anxiety (with: mean 4.31, SD 4.71, P<.001; without: mean 1.84, SD 4.22, P<.001) and depression (with: mean 10.25, SD 10.54; without: mean 4.39, SD 10.22, P<.001). Those who screened positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder also reported significantly decreased attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder scores (mean 4.65, SD 4.44, P<.001). There were no significant differences in change in use (P=.08), dependence (P=.95), use disorder (P=.85), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder status (P=.84), depression (P=.84), or anxiety (P=.26) between baseline and final follow-up, dependent on positive attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity at baseline was not associated with reduced cannabis use frequency or severity but was linked to greater reductions in depression (Spearman ρ=.33) and anxiety (Spearman ρ=.28). Individuals with positive attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening were significantly less likely to fill out the consumption diary (P=.02), but the association between continuous attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity and retention (Spearman ρ=-0.10, P=.13) was nonsignificant. There also was no significant intergroup difference in the number of completed modules (with: mean 2.10, SD 2.33; without: mean 2.36, SD 2.36, P=.34), and there was no association with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity (Spearman ρ=-0.09; P=.43). The same was true for the rate of adverse effects (P=.33). CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis users screening positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder may benefit from CANreduce 2.0 to decrease the frequency and severity of cannabis dependence and attenuate symptoms of depression and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder-related symptoms. This web-based program's advantages include its accessibility for remote users and a personalized counselling option that may contribute to increased adherence and motivation to change among program users. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 11086185; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11086185.

Profiles of individuals with cannabis-related disorders.

Background: Profiles of individuals with cannabis-related disorders (CRD) in specialized addiction treatment centers serving high-need patients have not been identified. This longitudinal study developed a typology for 9,836 individuals with CRD attending Quebec (Canada) addiction treatment centers in 2012-2013. Methods: Data on sociodemographic, clinical and service use variables were extracted from several databases for the years 1996-1997 to 2014-2015. Individual profiles were produced using Latent Class Analysis and compared predicting health outcomes on emergency department (ED) use, hospitalizations and suicidal behaviors for 2015-2016. Results: Six profiles were identified: 1-Older individuals, many living in couples and working, with moderate health problems, receiving intensive general practitioner (GP) care and high continuity of physician care; 2-Older individuals with chronic CRD, multiple social and health problems, and low health service use (chronic CRD referred to experiencing CRD for several years; social problems related to homelessness, unemployment, having criminal records or living alone); 3-Students with few social and health problems, and low health service use; 4-Young adults, many working, with few health problems, least health service use and continuity of physician care; 5-Youth, many working but some criminal offenders, with 1 or 2 years of CRD, few health problems and high addiction treatment center use; and 6-Older individuals with chronic CRD and multiple social and health problems, high health service use and continuity of physician care. Profiles 6 and 2 had the worst health outcomes. Conclusions: For Profiles 2 to 5, outreach and motivational services should be prioritized, integrated health and criminal justice services for profile 5 and, for Profiles 2 and 6, assertive community treatments. Screening, brief intervention and referrals to addiction treatment centers may also be encouraged for individuals with CRD, particularly those in Profile 2. This cohort had high social and health needs relative to services received, suggesting continued need for care.

A Systematic Review on Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome and Its Management Options.

INTRODUCTION: Several forms of cannabinoids are currently being used to manage nausea and vomiting (N/V). Emerging cases of refractory N/V associated with chronic cannabis use among adults and older patients have been reported named cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). CHS is a condition that leads to repeated and severe N/V in long-term users of cannabinoids. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to outline current treatments for the management of CHS. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Databases were used to search for articles on CHS published from January 2009 to June 2021, yielding 225 results of which 17 were deemed relevant and underwent review by 2 separate reviewers. RESULTS: The duration of cannabis administration ranged between 6 months to 11 years may precipitate symptoms of CHS. The Rome IV diagnostic criteria of CHS require cannabinoid use and persistence of N/V symptoms for at least the past 6 months. Cannabis cessation is noted to be the most successful management, but other treatments also demonstrated symptom relief; these include hot water hydrotherapy, topical capsaicin cream, haloperidol, droperidol, benzodiazepines, propranolol, and aprepitant administration. CONCLUSION: More research on CHS is needed to enhance knowledge translation, education, and create awareness in the medical community on the side effects of cannabinoids and to propose the best treatment options.

Psychotherapeutic interventions for cannabis use disorder. What do we know and what should we do?

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder is the most commonly reported illegal substance use disorder and demand for treatment is growing worldwide. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the two last Cochrane systematic reviews of the literature concerning psychotherapeutic and psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder to determine what new evidence emerged and how craving was considered as a treatment mediator. METHOD: We extracted raw data from both reviews regarding their titles, objectives, methods and results. This information was analyzed by face validity to distinguish apparent differences from real differences. It enabled us to describe similarities and differences between reviews. We also screened both reviews looking for craving or related words. RESULTS: The objective and methods of both reviews were mostly similar. Although the second review covered a wider range of psychotherapies, including drug counseling and mindfulness-based meditation as an intervention group and minimal treatment as a control group. Five of the six studies included in the first review were also included in the second review. One study excluded from the first review was included in the last review that included an additional 17 studies published after the first review. The 2016 review performed a meta-analysis whereas the first review was descriptive. Both reviews supported the efficacy of motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive and behavioral therapy interventions with adjunction of contingency management for abstinence when possible. There was no relevant mention of craving in the 2006 review and very few in the 2016 review. CONCLUSION: The methods and results of the last two Cochrane reviews on psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder were mostly similar. Consistent with other reviews on the same subject and reviews of psychotherapies for other substance use disorders, the 2016 review confirmed evidence already available in the 2006 review. Instead of confirming already confirmed evidence, future research is needed to determine if craving focused treatment would increase efficiency and how to maintain initial treatment outcomes long-term.

Psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for cannabis use disorder and mental health comorbidities: a narrative review.

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug worldwide, and it is estimated that up to 30% of people who use cannabis will develop a cannabis use disorder (CUD). Demand for treatment of CUD is increasing in almost every region of the world and cannabis use is highly comorbid with mental disorders, where sustained use can reduce treatment compliance and increase risk of relapse. In this narrative review, we outline evidence for psychosocial and pharmacological treatment strategies for CUD, both alone and when comorbid with psychosis, anxiety or depression. Psychosocial treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy, motivational enhancement therapy and contingency management are currently the most effective strategy for treating CUD but are of limited benefit when comorbid with psychosis. Pharmacological treatments targeting the endocannabinoid system have the potential to reduce cannabis withdrawal and cannabis use in CUD. Mental health comorbidities including anxiety, depression and psychosis hinder effective treatment and should be addressed in treatment provision and clinical decision making to reduce the global burden of CUDs. Antipsychotic medication may decrease cannabis use and cannabis craving as well as psychotic symptoms in patients with CUD and psychosis. Targeted treatments for anxiety and depression when comorbid with CUD are feasible.

Impaired motor cortical plasticity associated with cannabis use disorder in young adults.

Maladaptive cortical plasticity has been described in individuals with heroin and methamphetamine addiction and may mediate other substance abuse disorders. It is unknown whether cannabis dependence in humans alters the capacity for induction of cortical plasticity. The aim of this study was to non-invasively investigate cortical plasticity with transcranial magnetic stimulation in young adults who meet DSM-5 criteria for cannabis use disorder (CUD). Thirty men (ages 20- 30) who used cannabis daily over the previous 6 months (15 diagnosed of CUD) and 15 demographically matched non-users were enrolled in this study. All participants underwent two sessions of theta burst stimulation (TBS) in which either continuous TBS (cTBS; 600 pulses, 80% active motor threshold) or intermittent TBS (iTBS; 2-s train of cTBS repeated every 10 s for a total of 190 s, 600 pulses) was applied over the primary motor cortex. The effects of these protocols were assessed by analysing the contralateral motor evoked potentials (MEPs). The relationships between cortical plasticity and problematic cannabis use, degree of dependence, and nicotine addiction were also investigated. Significant MEP inhibition after cTBS was observed in both cannabis users without CUD and non-users, while this inhibition was not seen in cannabis users with CUD. Strikingly, less motor cortical plasticity was observed in subjects with severe problematic cannabis use. No significant differences between users and non-users were found in the iTBS-induced cortical plasticity measures. Our study provides the first evidence of maladaptive cortical plasticity associated with cannabis use disorder and problematic cannabis use in humans.

Care of the Patient Using Cannabis.

The past 2 decades have seen a revolution in legal access to cannabis, driven largely by activists and business interests. As a result, the population of cannabis users nationwide-especially daily users-has grown significantly. An estimated 4.5-7 million persons in the United States now meet criteria for cannabis use disorder annually. This article focuses on the effects of cannabis use, intoxication, and withdrawal while also reviewing the developmental pathways of cannabis use disorder as well as evidence-based pharmacologic and psychosocial treatments.

CANreduce 2.0 Adherence-Focused Guidance for Internet Self-Help Among Cannabis Users: Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing demand for treatment among cannabis users in many countries, most users are not in treatment. Internet-based self-help offers an alternative for those hesitant to seek face-to-face therapy, though low effectiveness and adherence issues often arise. OBJECTIVE: Through adherence-focused guidance enhancement, we aimed to increase adherence to and the effectiveness of internet-based self-help among cannabis users. METHODS: From July 2016 to May 2019, cannabis users (n=775; male: 406/575, 70.6%, female: 169/575, 29.4%; age: mean 28.3 years) not in treatment were recruited from the general population and were randomly assigned to (1) an adherence-focused guidance enhancement internet-based self-help intervention with social presence, (2) a similar intervention with an impersonal service team, and (3) access to internet as usual. Controls who were placed on a waiting list for the full intervention after 3 months underwent an assessment and had access to internet as usual. The primary outcome measurement was cannabis-use days over the preceding 30 days. Secondary outcomes included cannabis-dependence severity, changes in common mental disorder symptoms, and intervention adherence. Differences between the study arms in primary and secondary continuous outcome variables at baseline, posttreatment, and follow-up were tested using pooled linear models. RESULTS: All groups exhibited reduced cannabis-use days after 3 months (social presence: -8.2 days; service team: -9.8 days; internet as usual: -4.2 days). The participants in the service team group (P=.01, d=.60) reported significantly fewer cannabis-use days than those in the internet as usual group; the reduction of cannabis use in the social presence group was not significant (P=.07, d=.40). There was no significant difference between the 2 intervention groups regarding cannabis-use reduction. The service team group also exhibited superior improvements in cannabis-use disorder, cannabis-dependence severity, and general anxiety symptoms after 3 months to those in the internet as usual group. CONCLUSIONS: The adherence-focused guidance enhancement internet-based self-help intervention with an impersonal service team significantly reduced cannabis use, cannabis-use disorder, dependence severity, and general anxiety symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11086185; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11086185.

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.

Ketamine-facilitated behavioral treatment for cannabis use disorder: A proof of concept study.

BACKGROUND: Sub-anesthetic ketamine infusions may benefit a range of psychiatric conditions, including alcohol and cocaine use disorders. Currently, there are no effective pharmacological treatments for cannabis use disorder. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this uncontrolled proof of concept trial was to test the feasibility, tolerability, and potential therapeutic effects of integrating ketamine infusions with a behavioral platform of motivational enhancement therapy and mindfulness-based relapse prevention in treating cannabis use disorder (CUD). METHODS: Eight cannabis-dependent individuals (four female, four male) receiving motivational enhancement therapy and mindfulness-based relapse prevention behavioral treatments completed this single-blind outpatient 6-week study. Participants received either one or two infusions of ketamine (0.71 mg/kg [infusion 1]; 1.41 mg/kg [infusion 2] for non-responders) during the study. Participants self-reported cannabis use (Timeline Follow-Back) and underwent an assessment of confidence in abstaining from using cannabis (Drug-Taking Confidence Questionnaire) at predetermined time points throughout the study. RESULTS: Ketamine infusions were well-tolerated and there were no adverse events. Frequency of cannabis use decreased significantly from baseline (B = 5.1, s.e = 0.7) to the week following the first infusion (B = 0.8, s.e = 0.412), and remained reduced at the end of the study (B = 0.5, s.e = 0.3). Participants' confidence in their ability to abstain from cannabis in potentially triggering situations increased significantly from baseline to the end of study. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that combining ketamine with behavioral therapy is feasible,tolerable, and potentially helpful, in treating cannabis-dependent individuals.