-
Pharmacological Research Jul 2022Cannabis sativa is a recreational drug commonly consumed in Europe and is getting popularity for both recreational and therapeutic use. In some individuals, the use of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Cannabis sativa is a recreational drug commonly consumed in Europe and is getting popularity for both recreational and therapeutic use. In some individuals, the use of cannabis leads to psychotic disorders. This systematic review summarizes the current evidence linking genetic polymorphisms and inter-individual susceptibility to psychosis induced by cannabis.
METHOD
Studies published from 2005 to 2020 were identified through Medline using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus database and searches were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Initial search was performed with terms: "cannabis induced psychosis" AND "genetics".
RESULTS
From the initial group of 108 papers, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria. Many of the findings revealed associations with genetic polymorphisms modulations of genes involved directly (COMT, DRD2 and DAT) or indirectly (AKT1) to dopamine pathways. The most consistent finding was with COMT rs4680, where the presence of the Val allele was associated with a higher risk for cannabis-induced psychosis. This higher susceptibility was also reported for AKT1 (rs2494732) with the CC genotype. Of note, the only genome-wide association study identified a significant signal close to the cholinergic receptor muscarinic 3 represented by rs115455482 and rs74722579 predisposing to cannabis-induced hallucinations and remarkably no dopaminergic target was found.
CONCLUSION
Actual evidence supports the role of dopamine in cannabis induced psychosis. However, most of genetic polymorphism studies have as a starting point the pre-existing dopaminergic theoretical basis for psychosis. This alerts to the importance of more broad genetic studies. Integrate genetic results into biological systems may enhance our knowledge of cannabis induced psychosis and could help in the prevention and treatment of these patients.
Topics: Cannabis; Catechol O-Methyltransferase; Dopamine; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Genome-Wide Association Study; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 35588917
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2022.106258 -
Cureus Feb 2023There is a rising incidence of coronary artery diseases and myocardial infarction (MI). Mortality associated with acute MI (AMI) is directly linked to the time to... (Review)
Review
There is a rising incidence of coronary artery diseases and myocardial infarction (MI). Mortality associated with acute MI (AMI) is directly linked to the time to receive treatment and missed diagnoses. Although health professionals are aware of typical AMI presentation, atypical MI is difficult to diagnose, which on the other hand, is likely to have an impact on morbidity and mortality. Therefore, it is prudent to know such atypical presentations, especially for emergency and primary care physicians. We aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical presentations of atypical MI and analyze them to characterize the common clinical presentations of atypical MI. We researched the PubMed database, did citation tracking, and performed Google Scholar advanced search to find the cases reported on the atypical presentation of MI published from January 2000 to September 2022. Articles of all languages were included; Google Translate was used to translate articles published in languages other than English. A total of 496 (56 PubMed articles, 340 citations from included PubMed articles, and 100 articles from Google Scholar advanced search) were screened; 52 case reports were evaluated, and their data were analyzed. Atypical presentations of myocardial infarction are vast; patients may have chest pain without typical characteristics of angina pain or may not have chest pain. No typical characterization could be done. Most patients were in their fifth decade or above of their life and commonly presented with pain and discomfort in the abdomen, head, and neck regions. Prodromal symptoms were consistent findings, and many patients had two to three comorbidities out of four common comorbidities, i.e., diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and substance abuse. A patient who is 50 years old or more, having comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, history of tobacco or marijuana usage, presenting with prodromal symptoms like shortness of breath, dizziness, fatigue, syncope, gastrointestinal discomfort or head/neck pain should be suspected for atypical MI.
PubMed: 36999116
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.35492 -
JAMA Pediatrics Jan 2022Vaping products were initially designed to deliver nicotine as a tobacco cigarette substitute (eg, electronic cigarettes) but are now frequently used to deliver... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Vaping products were initially designed to deliver nicotine as a tobacco cigarette substitute (eg, electronic cigarettes) but are now frequently used to deliver psychoactive substances, such as cannabis and its derivatives. Large, nationally representative surveys, such as Monitoring the Future, found that approximately 1 in 3 grade-12 students vaped cannabis in 2018 alone.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the findings of epidemiological studies that reported the global prevalence of cannabis vaping in adolescents by survey year and school grades.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched systematically on August 19, 2020, for studies published globally between January 1, 2003, and August 19, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Publications that reported the prevalence of cannabis vaping in adolescents in the general population were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Study characteristics and prevalence estimates were extracted from each article. Random-effects meta-analysis based on the DerSimonian and Laird method and meta-regression were performed on lifetime, 12-month, and 30-day prevalence estimates. Meta-regression was also conducted using survey year and school grades as moderators.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prevalence of cannabis vaping.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria (n = 198 845 adolescents). Although no restrictions were imposed on study location, all 17 studies were from the US and Canada. Across all school grades, the pooled prevalence increased for lifetime use (6.1% in 2013-2016 to 13.6% in 2019-2020), use in the past 12 months (7.2% in 2017-2018 to 13.2% in 2019-2020), and use in the past 30 days (1.6% in 2013-2016 to 8.4% in 2019-2020). Heterogeneity across studies was large. The limited evidence from studies using similar survey and study designs suggested that adolescents' preference for cannabis products other than dried herbs, which usually contain higher Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol levels, may have shifted over time.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this study suggest that the prevalence of cannabis vaping has increased among adolescents in the US and Canada and that more effective preventive and response measures are required.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020219644.
Topics: Canada; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Prevalence; United States; Vaping; Visual Analog Scale
PubMed: 34694342
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.4102 -
Substance Abuse : Research and Treatment 2023Recreational cannabis legalization has become more prevalent over the past decade, increasing the need to understand its impact on downstream health-related outcomes.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recreational cannabis legalization has become more prevalent over the past decade, increasing the need to understand its impact on downstream health-related outcomes. Although prior reviews have broadly summarized research on cannabis liberalization policies (including decriminalization and medical legalization), directed efforts are needed to synthesize the more recent research that focuses on recreational cannabis legalization specifically. Thus, the current review summarizes existing studies using longitudinal designs to evaluate impacts of recreational cannabis legalization on cannabis use and related outcomes.
METHOD
A comprehensive bibliographic search strategy revealed 61 studies published from 2016 to 2022 that met criteria for inclusion. The studies were predominantly from the United States (66.2%) and primarily utilized self-report data (for cannabis use and attitudes) or administrative data (for health-related, driving, and crime outcomes).
RESULTS
Five main categories of outcomes were identified through the review: cannabis and other substance use, attitudes toward cannabis, health-care utilization, driving-related outcomes, and crime-related outcomes. The extant literature revealed mixed findings, including some evidence of negative consequences of legalization (such as increased young adult use, cannabis-related healthcare visits, and impaired driving) and some evidence for minimal impacts (such as little change in adolescent cannabis use rates, substance use rates, and mixed evidence for changes in cannabis-related attitudes).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the existing literature reveals a number of negative consequences of legalization, although the findings are mixed and generally do not suggest large magnitude short-term impacts. The review highlights the need for more systematic investigation, particularly across a greater diversity of geographic regions.
PubMed: 37187466
DOI: 10.1177/11782218231172054 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2020There is evidence that sex- and gender-related factors are involved in cannabis patterns of use, health effects and biological mechanisms. Women and men report different...
There is evidence that sex- and gender-related factors are involved in cannabis patterns of use, health effects and biological mechanisms. Women and men report different cannabis use disorder (CUD) symptoms, with women reporting worse withdrawal symptoms than men. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of cannabis pharmacological interventions for women and men and the uptake of sex- and gender-based analysis in the included studies. Two reviewers performed the full-paper screening, and data was extracted by one researcher. The search yielded 6098 unique records-of which, 68 were full-paper screened. Four articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. From the randomized clinical studies of pharmacological interventions, few studies report sex-disaggregated outcomes for women and men. Despite emergent evidence showing the influence of sex and gender factors in cannabis research, sex-disaggregated outcomes in pharmacological interventions is lacking. Sex- and gender-based analysis is incipient in the included articles. Future research should explore more comprehensive inclusion of sex- and gender-related aspects in pharmacological treatments for CUD.
Topics: Cannabis; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Sex Factors; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 32019247
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17030872 -
Adicciones Jan 2020The use of cannabis for recreational purposes has increased worldwide, and the proportion of cannabis users in the adolescent population is high. Susceptibility to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The use of cannabis for recreational purposes has increased worldwide, and the proportion of cannabis users in the adolescent population is high. Susceptibility to cannabis use involves various factors, including childhood adversity; however, the effects of different types of violence on cannabis use have not been evaluated. The aim of this review was to analyze the effects of different types of violence on cannabis use in adolescence. We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Ovid and CONRICyT) using the following algorithm: (("Cannabis" OR "Marijuana Smoking" OR "Marijuana Abuse") AND ("Child Abuse" OR "Domestic Violence" AND "Adolescent")), considering all articles published up to November 3th, 2017. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for the effects of experiencing different types of violence during childhood on cannabis use. Six studies, which represented 10 843 adolescents of both sexes, were ultimately included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Three types of early-life adversity were associated with cannabis abuse/dependence: physical abuse (OR: 1.58, 95% CI [1.01-2.46]), sexual abuse (OR: 2.35, 95% CI [1.64-3.35]), and witnessing violence (OR: 3.22, 95% CI [0.63-16.54]). The results indicated that two specific types of child maltreatment, sexual and physical abuse, were critical factors affecting vulnerability to cannabis use in adolescence. The number of studies examining other types of violence was limited. The results highlighted the importance of enhancing efforts to prevent violence, particularly sexual abuse, as part of integral programs designed to prevent cannabis abuse and dependence.
Topics: Adolescent; Adolescent Behavior; Adverse Childhood Experiences; Child Abuse; Exposure to Violence; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse
PubMed: 30627731
DOI: 10.20882/adicciones.1050 -
Substance Abuse : Research and Treatment 2022The COVID-19 pandemic has generated a remarkable change in the behaviour of Healthcare workers (HCWs) around the world. However, there is a lack of evidence on substance... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic has generated a remarkable change in the behaviour of Healthcare workers (HCWs) around the world. However, there is a lack of evidence on substance use among HCWs in Latin America. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the current frequency of substance use among Latin American among HCWs.
METHODS
We searched 8 databases (PubMed, Scopus, ScientDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scielo, LILACS and Latindex), 4 public prepublication servers (SocArXiv, medRxiv, bioRxiv and Preprints) and Google scholar from 1/9/2019 to 11/1/2021. We determined the frequency of each study based on original studies, scientific letters, and clinical trials in English, Spanish and Portuguese.
RESULTS
A total of 17 175 study articles were identified from electronic databases and preprints, and 2 cross-sectional studies conducted in 2020 were included in the qualitative analysis. Both studies included HCWs but did not perform a differential analysis. The first was developed by the Pan-American Health Organization and included interviewees from 35 countries, while the second was conducted with 1145 Brazilian participants. Both studies showed increases in substance use during the pandemic, with alcohol being the most commonly used substance (30%), but PAHO's study reported a 13.8% increase in self-reported heavy-episodic drinking, with differences among genders (males, 15.4%), age groups (highest increase in the 40-49 age group, 16.5%) and area of residence (urban with 14%). The second study showed that 21 32% of participants reported initiating psychoactive substance use, 29.3% added some substance to their initial use and 4% of them had to replace the substance, mainly due to difficulty of access. Other substances of abuse that showed significant increases were tobacco (0.5%) and marijuana (0.3%).
CONCLUSION
Overall, despite the analysis of the 2 studies, the results provided are not a conclusive description of the frequency of substance use by HCWs in Latin America during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research is required to understand the impact of the pandemic on drug abuse in the region.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
The protocol has been registered on 30 November 2021 on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with ID: CRD420212919700.
PubMed: 35369382
DOI: 10.1177/11782218221085592 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co-occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.This review addresses the following questions.• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce drug use?• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity?• Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)?• Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)?
SEARCH METHODS
We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane .
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias.Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate-certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive-behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug-related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low-certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate-certainty evidence.One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow-up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self-report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re-incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low-certainty evidence.Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three-month follow-up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate-certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self-reported drug use based on the ASI (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low-certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD -1.05, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re-arrest (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low-certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD -0.7, 95% CI -3.5 to 2.1), providing very low-certainty evidence.Two studies reported on the use of multi-systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD -0.22, 95% CI -2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low-certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re-arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low-certainty evidence.One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low-certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap-around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi-systemic therapy, legal defence wrap-around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes.
PubMed: 31588993
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010901.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low-certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low-certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low-certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug-related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow-up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low-certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty-evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low-certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD -0.89, 95% CI -4.83 to 3.05; low certainty-evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT-CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow-up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self-reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low-certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low- to low-certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate-certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre- and post-release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post-release; low certainty-evidence. No adverse effects were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence.
Topics: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; Buprenorphine; Case Management; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Criminals; Female; Humans; Law Enforcement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 31834635
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010910.pub3 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Apr 2024The prevalence of cannabis use disorders (CUDs) in people who use cannabis recreationally has been estimated at 22%, yet there is a dearth of literature exploring CUDs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of cannabis use disorders (CUDs) in people who use cannabis recreationally has been estimated at 22%, yet there is a dearth of literature exploring CUDs among people who use medicinal cannabis. We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis.
METHODS
In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we followed PRISMA guidelines and searched three databases (PsychInfo, Embase and PubMed) to identify studies examining the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis. Meta-analyses were calculated on the prevalence of CUDs. Prevalence estimates were pooled across different prevalence periods using the DSM-IV and DSM-5.
RESULTS
We conducted a systematic review of 14 eligible publications, assessing the prevalence of CUDs, providing data for 3681 participants from five different countries. The systematic review demonstrated that demographic factors, mental health disorders and the management of chronic pain with medicinal cannabis were associated with an elevated risk of CUDs. Meta-analyses were conducted on the prevalence of CUDs. For individuals using medicinal cannabis in the past 6-12 months, the prevalence of CUDs was 29% (95% CI: 21-38%) as per DSM-5 criteria. Similar prevalence was observed using DSM-IV (24%, CI: 14-38%) for the same period. When including all prevalence periods and using the DSM-5, the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis was estimated at 25% (CI: 18-33%).
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis is substantial and comparable to people who use cannabis for recreational reasons, emphasizing the need for ongoing research to monitor the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis.
Topics: Humans; Cannabis; Marijuana Abuse; Medical Marijuana; Prevalence; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 38493566
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.111263