Age differences in the behavioural economics of cannabis use: Do adolescents and adults differ on demand for cannabis and discounting of future reward?

BACKGROUND: Adolescence is a period of psychological and neural development in which harms associated with cannabis use may be heightened. We hypothesised that adolescent who use cannabis (adolescentsWUC) would have steeper delay discounting (preference for immediate over future rewards) and greater demand (relative valuation) for cannabis than adults who use cannabis (adultsWUC). METHODS: This cross-sectional study, part of the 'CannTeen' project, compared adultsWUC (n = 71, 26-29 years old) and adolescentsWUC (n = 76, 16-17 years old), and gender- and age-matched adolescent (n = 63) and adult (n = 64) controls. AdolescentsWUC and adultsWUC used cannabis 1-7 days/week and were matched on cannabis use frequency (4 days/week). The Monetary Choice Questionnaire assessed delay discounting. A modified Marijuana Purchase Task (MPT) assessed cannabis demand in adolescentsWUC and adultsWUC. The MPT yielded five indices: intensity (amount of cannabis used at zero cost), Omax (total peak expenditure), Pmax (price at peak expenditure), breakpoint (cost at which cannabis demand is suppressed to zero) and elasticity (degree to which cannabis use decreases with increasing price). Analyses were adjusted for covariates of gender, socioeconomic status, other illicit drug use. RESULTS: Both adolescentsWUC and adultsWUC had steeper delay discounting than controls (F, (1,254)= 9.13, p = 0.003, ηp2= 0.04), with no significant age effect or interaction. AdolescentsWUC showed higher intensity (F, (1,138)= 9.76, p = 0.002, ηp2= 0.07) and lower elasticity (F, (1,138)= 15.25, p < 0.001, ηp2= 0.10) than adultsWUC. There were no significant differences in Pmax, Omax or breakpoint. CONCLUSION: Individuals who use cannabis prefer immediate rewards more than controls. AdolescentsWUC, compared to adultsWUC, may be in a high-risk category with diminished sensitivity to cannabis price increases and a greater consumption of cannabis when it is free.

The CannTeen study: verbal episodic memory, spatial working memory, and response inhibition in adolescent and adult cannabis users and age-matched controls.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and human studies suggest that adolescent cannabis use may be associated with worse cognitive outcomes than adult cannabis use. We investigated the associations between chronic cannabis use and cognitive function in adolescent and adult cannabis users and controls. We hypothesised user-status would be negatively associated with cognitive function and this relationship would be stronger in adolescents than adults. METHODS: As part of the 'CannTeen' project, this cross-sectional study assessed cognitive performance in adolescent cannabis users (n = 76; 16-17-year-olds), adolescent controls (n = 63), adult cannabis users (n = 71; 26-29-year-olds) and adult controls (n = 64). Users used cannabis 1-7 days/week. Adolescent and adult cannabis users were matched on cannabis use frequency (4 days/week) and time since last use (2.5 days). Verbal episodic memory (VEM) was assessed using the prose recall task, spatial working memory (SWM) was assessed using the spatial n-back task, and response inhibition was assessed with the stop-signal task. Primary outcome variables were: delayed recall, 3-back discriminability, and stop signal reaction time, respectively. RESULTS: Users had worse VEM than controls (F(1,268) = 7.423, p = 0.007). There were no significant differences between user-groups on SWM or response inhibition. Null differences were supported by Bayesian analyses. No significant interactions between age-group and user-group were found for VEM, SWM, or response inhibition. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous research, there was an association between chronic cannabis use and poorer VEM, but chronic cannabis use was not associated with SWM or response inhibition. We did not find evidence for heightened adolescent vulnerability to cannabis-related cognitive impairment.

Are adolescents more vulnerable to the harmful effects of cannabis than adults? A placebo-controlled study in human males.

Preclinical research demonstrates that cannabinoids have differing effects in adolescent and adult animals. Whether these findings translate to humans has not yet been investigated. Here we believe we conducted the first study to compare the acute effects of cannabis in human adolescent (n=20; 16-17 years old) and adult (n=20; 24-28 years old) male cannabis users, in a placebo-controlled, double-blind cross-over design. After inhaling vaporized active or placebo cannabis, participants completed tasks assessing spatial working memory, episodic memory and response inhibition, alongside measures of blood pressure and heart rate, psychotomimetic symptoms and subjective drug effects (for example, 'stoned', 'want to have cannabis'). Results showed that on active cannabis, adolescents felt less stoned and reported fewer psychotomimetic symptoms than adults. Further, adults but not adolescents were more anxious and less alert during the active cannabis session (both pre- and post-drug administration). Following cannabis, cognitive impairment (reaction time on spatial working memory and prose recall following a delay) was greater in adults than adolescents. By contrast, cannabis impaired response inhibition accuracy in adolescents but not in adults. Moreover, following drug administration, the adolescents did not show satiety; instead they wanted more cannabis regardless of whether they had taken active or placebo cannabis, while the opposite was seen for adults. These contrasting profiles of adolescent resilience (blunted subjective, memory, physiological and psychotomimetic effects) and vulnerability (lack of satiety, impaired inhibitory processes) show some degree of translation from preclinical findings, and may contribute to escalated cannabis use by human adolescents.

Are IQ and educational outcomes in teenagers related to their cannabis use? A prospective cohort study.

There is much debate about the impact of adolescent cannabis use on intellectual and educational outcomes. We investigated associations between adolescent cannabis use and IQ and educational attainment in a sample of 2235 teenagers from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. By the age of 15, 24% reported having tried cannabis at least once. A series of nested linear regressions was employed, adjusted hierarchically by pre-exposure ability and potential confounds (e.g. cigarette and alcohol use, childhood mental-health symptoms and behavioural problems), to test the relationships between cumulative cannabis use and IQ at the age of 15 and educational performance at the age of 16. After full adjustment, those who had used cannabis ⩾ 50 times did not differ from never-users on either IQ or educational performance. Adjusting for group differences in cigarette smoking dramatically attenuated the associations between cannabis use and both outcomes, and further analyses demonstrated robust associations between cigarette use and educational outcomes, even with cannabis users excluded. These findings suggest that adolescent cannabis use is not associated with IQ or educational performance once adjustment is made for potential confounds, in particular adolescent cigarette use. Modest cannabis use in teenagers may have less cognitive impact than epidemiological surveys of older cohorts have previously suggested.

Attentional bias and treatment adherence in substitute-prescribed opiate users.

BACKGROUND: Attentional bias (AB) is implicated in the development and maintenance of substance dependence and in treatment outcome. We assessed the effects of attentional bias modification (ABM), and the relationship between AB and treatment adherence in opiate dependent patients. METHOD: An independent groups design was used to compare 23 opiate dependent patients with 21 healthy controls. Participants completed an AB task before either a control or an ABM task designed to train attention away from substance-related stimuli. Pre- and post-ABM AB and craving were assessed to determine any changes. Relationships between treatment adherence ('using on top' of prescribed opiates or not) and AB, craving and psychopathology were also examined. RESULTS: There was no baseline difference in AB between patients and controls, and no significant effect of ABM on AB or substance craving. However, treatment adherent patients who did not use illicit opiates on top of their prescribed opiates had statistically significantly greater AB away from substance-related stimuli than both participants using on top and controls, and reported significantly lower levels of craving than non-treatment adherent patients. CONCLUSION: Whilst we did not find any significant effects of ABM on AB or craving, patients who were treatment adherent differed from both those who were not and from controls in their attentional functioning and substance craving. These findings are the first to suggest that AB may be a within-treatment factor predictive of adherence to pharmacological treatment and potentially of recovery in opiate users.

The effects of nicotine dependence and acute abstinence on the processing of drug and non-drug rewards.

RATIONALE: Drug addiction may be characterised by a hypersensitivity to drug rewards and a hyposensitivity to non-drug rewards. This imbalance may become further polarised during acute abstinence. OBJECTIVES: (i) Examine the differences between dependent and occasional smokers in choices for, motivation for and self-reported wanting and liking of cigarette and non-drug rewards. (ii) Examine the effects of 12-h nicotine abstinence on these metrics. METHODS: Dependent (n = 20) and occasional, non-dependent smokers (n = 20) were tested after ad libitum smoking and ≥12-h of nicotine abstinence. A novel task was developed (Drug, Reward and Motivation-Choice (DReaM-Choice)) in which different rewards (cigarettes, music and chocolate) could be won. In each trial, participants chose between two rewards and then could earn the chosen reward via repeated button-pressing. Participants subsequently 'consumed' and rated subjective liking of the rewards they had won. RESULTS: Compared with occasional smokers, dependent smokers made more choices for (p < 0.001), pressed more for (p = 0.046) and reported more wanting (p = 0.007) and liking (p < 0.001) of cigarettes, and also made fewer choices for chocolate (p = 0.005). There were no differences between the groups on button-pressing for chocolate or music. However, the balance between drug and non-drug reward processing was different between the groups across all metrics. Twelve-hour nicotine abstinence led to more cigarette choices (p < 0.001) and fewer music choices (p = 0.042) in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine dependence was associated with a hypersensitivity to cigarette rewards, but we found little evidence indicating a hyposensitivity to non-drug rewards. Our findings question the moderating influence of dependence on how acute nicotine abstinence affects reward processing.