-
Systematic Reviews Oct 2022Cannabis-based medicines are widely used in the treatment of a number of medical conditions. Unfortunately, cognitive disturbances are often reported as adverse events,...
BACKGROUND
Cannabis-based medicines are widely used in the treatment of a number of medical conditions. Unfortunately, cognitive disturbances are often reported as adverse events, although conversely, cognitive improvements have been reported. Hence, the objective of the present study was to identify, critically appraise and synthesise research findings on the potential impact of cannabis-based medicines on cognitive functioning.
METHODS
Four databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus) were systematically searched. Studies were included if they provided findings on the impact of cannabis-based medicines in controlled settings on cognitive functioning measured by recognised cognitive tests in human adults. Study participants were required to be their own case-control, and neither studies on abuse, abstinences, patients with severe neurodegenerative diseases nor cancer-related pain conditions were included. Screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers. Findings were tabulated and synthesised by outcome.
FINDINGS
Twenty-three studies were included, comprising a total of N = 917. Eight studies used Sativex as the cannabis-based medicine two used Epidiolex, two other studies used sprays, three studies used gelatine capsules, five smoked cannabis, two other and finally one studied cannabis withdrawal. Fifteen studies reported non-significant findings; six reported cognitive impairments; one study found cognitive improvement and a single study found improvement following withdrawal. Thirteen studies had cognitive or neuropsychological functioning as the primary outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to a large heterogeneity and methodological limitations across studies, it is not possible to make any definite conclusions about the impact of cannabis-based medicines on cognitive functioning. However, the majority of high-quality evidence points in the direction that the negative impact of cannabis-based medicines on cognitive functioning is minor, provided that the doses of THC are low to moderate. On the other hand, long-term use of cannabis based medicines may still adversely affect cognitive functioning. In the studies that found impaired cognitive functioning to be significant, all of the test scores were either within the normal range or below what would be characterised as a neuropsychologically cognitive impairment.
Topics: Adult; Cannabidiol; Cannabis; Cognition; Dronabinol; Humans; Marijuana Smoking; Medical Marijuana
PubMed: 36192811
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-02073-5 -
JAMA Network Open Apr 2020Cannabis withdrawal syndrome (CWS)-a diagnostic indicator of cannabis use disorder-commonly occurs on cessation of heavy and prolonged cannabis use. To date, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cannabis withdrawal syndrome (CWS)-a diagnostic indicator of cannabis use disorder-commonly occurs on cessation of heavy and prolonged cannabis use. To date, the prevalence of CWS syndrome has not been well described, nor have the factors potentially associated with CWS.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the prevalence of CWS among individuals with regular or dependent use of cannabinoids and identify factors associated with CWS.
DATA SOURCES
A search of literature from database inception to June 19, 2019, was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest, Allied and Complementary Medicine, and Psychiatry online, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists of included articles.
STUDY SELECTION
Articles were included if they (1) were published in English, (2) reported on individuals with regular use of cannabinoids or cannabis use disorder as a primary study group, (3) reported on the prevalence of CWS or CWS symptoms using a validated instrument, (4) reported the prevalence of CWS, and (5) used an observational study design (eg, cohort or cross-sectional).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
All abstracts, full-text articles, and other sources were reviewed, with data extracted in duplicate. Cannabis withdrawal syndrome prevalence was estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis model, alongside stratification and meta-regression to characterize heterogeneity.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Cannabis withdrawal syndrome prevalence was reported as a percentage with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Of 3848 unique abstracts, 86 were selected for full-text review, and 47 studies, representing 23 518 participants, met all inclusion criteria. Of 23 518 participants included in the analysis, 16 839 were white (72%) and 14 387 were men (69%); median (SD) age was 29.9 (9.0) years. The overall pooled prevalence of CWS was 47% (6469 of 23 518) (95% CI, 41%-52%), with significant heterogeneity between estimates (I2 = 99.2%). When stratified by source, the prevalence of CWS was 17% (95% CI, 13%-21%) in population-based samples, 54% in outpatient samples (95% CI, 48%-59%), and 87% in inpatient samples (95% CI, 79%-94%), which were significantly different (P < .001). Concurrent cannabis (β = 0.005, P < .001), tobacco (β = 0.002, P = .02), and other substance use disorders (β = 0.003, P = .05) were associated with a higher CWS prevalence, as was daily cannabis use (β = 0.004, P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that cannabis withdrawal syndrome appears to be prevalent among regular users of cannabis. Clinicians should be aware of the prevalence of CWS in order to counsel patients and support individuals who are reducing their use of cannabis.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Cannabinoids; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Marijuana Smoking; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Young Adult
PubMed: 32271390
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2370 -
Campbell Systematic Reviews Dec 2022At-risk youth may be defined as a diverse group of young people in unstable life circumstances, who are currently experiencing or are at risk of developing one or more... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
At-risk youth may be defined as a diverse group of young people in unstable life circumstances, who are currently experiencing or are at risk of developing one or more serious problems. At-risk youth are often very unlikely to seek out help for themselves within the established venues, as their adverse developmental trajectories have installed a lack of trust in authorities such as child protection agencies and social workers. To help this population, a number of outreach programmes have been established seeking to help the young people on an ad hoc basis, meaning that the interventions are designed to fit the individual needs of each young person rather than as a one-size-fits-all treatment model. The intervention in this review is targeted outreach work which may be (but does not have to be) multicomponent programmes in which outreach may be combined with other services.
OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this review was to answer the following research questions: What are the effects of outreach programmes on problem/high-risk behaviour of young people between 8 and 25 years of age living in OECD countries? Are they less likely to experience an adverse outcome such as school failure or drop-out, runaway and homelessness, substance and/or alcohol abuse, unemployment, long-term poverty, delinquency and more serious criminal behaviour?
SEARCH METHODS
We identified relevant studies through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, governmental and grey literature repositories, hand search in specific targeted journals, citation tracking, and Internet search engines. The database searches were carried out in September 2020 and other resources were searched in October and November 2021. We searched to identify both published and unpublished literature, and reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The intervention was targeted outreach work which may have been combined with other services. Young people between 8 and 25 years of age living in OECD countries, who either have experienced or is at-risk of experiencing an adverse outcome were eligible. Our primary focus was on measures of problem/high-risk behaviour and a secondary focus was on social and emotional outcomes. All study designs that used a well-defined control group were eligible for inclusion. Studies that utilised qualitative approaches were not included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The total number of potentially relevant studies constituted 17,659 hits. A total of 16 studies (17 different interventions) met the inclusion criteria. Only five studies could be used in the data synthesis. Eight studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to have critical risk of bias and, in accordance with the protocol, were excluded from the meta-analysis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform. Two studies (three interventions) did not provide enough information enabling us to calculate an effect size and standard error, and one study did not provide enough information to assess risk of bias. Meta-analysis of all outcomes were conducted on each conceptual outcome separately. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models incorporating both the sampling variance and between study variance components into the study level weights. Random effects weighted mean effect sizes were calculated using 95% confidence intervals. Too few studies were included to carry out any sensitivity analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Four of the five studies used for meta analysis were from the USA and one was from Canada. The timespan in which included studies were carried out was 32 years, from 1985 to 2017; on average the intervention year was 2005. The average number of participants in the analysed interventions was 116, ranging from 30 to 346 and the average number of controls was 81, ranging from 32 to 321. At most, the results from two studies could be pooled in a single meta-analysis. It was only possible to pool the outcomes drug (other than marijuana) use, marijuana use and alcohol use each at two different time points (one and 3 months follow up). At 1 month follow up the weighted averages varied between zero and 0.05 and at 3 months follow up between -0.17 and 0.07. None of them were statistically significant. In addition, a number of other outcomes were reported in a single study only.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there were too few studies included in any of the meta-analyses in order for us to draw any conclusion concerning the effectiveness of outreach. The vast majority of studies were undertaken in the USA. The dominance of the USA as the main country in which outreach interventions meeting our inclusion criteria have been evaluated using rigorous methods and within our specific parameters clearly limits the generalisability of the findings. None of the studies, however, was considered to be of overall high quality in our risk of bias assessment and the process of excluding studies with critical risk of bias from the meta-analysis applied in this review left us with only five of a total of 16 possible studies to synthesise. Further, because too few studies reported results on the same type of outcome at most two studies could be combined in a particular meta-analysis. Given the limited number of rigorous studies available from countries other than the USA, it would be natural to consider conducting a series of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of outreach for at-risk youth in countries outside the USA. The trial(s) should be designed, conducted and reported according to methodological criteria for rigour in respect of internal and external validity to achieve robust results and preferably reporting a larger number of outcomes.
PubMed: 36908846
DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1282 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2024Catatonia presents itself as a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome, giving rise to various motor, speech, and behavioral challenges. It is noteworthy that approximately...
BACKGROUND
Catatonia presents itself as a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome, giving rise to various motor, speech, and behavioral challenges. It is noteworthy that approximately 10% of psychiatric hospital admissions can be attributed to this condition. It is imperative to note that cannabis-induced catatonia, while infrequent, has been linked to the use of marijuana. This connection has the potential to disrupt neurotransmitter systems, necessitating further research for a comprehensive understanding and effective treatment, particularly given the evolving trends in cannabis use. In this context, we shall delve into a unique case of recurrent cannabis-induced catatonia.
CASE PRESENTATION
A 23-year-old gentleman, who has previously struggled with substance use disorder, experienced the emergence of mutism, social isolation, and a fixed gaze subsequent to his use of cannabis. Remarkably, despite the absence of hallucinations, he exhibited recurrent episodes of catatonia. These episodes were effectively addressed through a combination of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and lorazepam administration. Notably, when the lorazepam dosage was gradually reduced to below 2 mg per day, the catatonic symptoms resurfaced; however, they promptly abated upon reinstating the medication. The diagnosis of cannabis-induced catatonia was established, and its management primarily involved a therapeutic approach encompassing ECT and lorazepam. It is pertinent to underscore that this catatonic condition can be directly linked to the individual's cannabis usage.
CONCLUSION
The connection between cannabis and catatonia is intricate and not entirely comprehended. Although cannabis possesses therapeutic advantages, it can paradoxically trigger catatonia in certain individuals. Multiple factors, such as genetics, cannabinoids, and neurotransmitter systems, contribute to this intricacy, underscoring the necessity for additional research.
PubMed: 38313688
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1332310