-
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2021marijuana, the common name for cannabis sativa preparations, is one of the most consumed drug all over the world, both at therapeutical and recreational levels. With the...
BACKGROUND
marijuana, the common name for cannabis sativa preparations, is one of the most consumed drug all over the world, both at therapeutical and recreational levels. With the legalization of medical uses of cannabis in many countries, and even its recreational use in most of these, the prevalence of marijuana use has markedly risen over the last decade. At the same time, there is also a higher prevalence in the health concerns related to cannabis use and abuse. Thus, it is mandatory for oral healthcare operators to know and deal with the consequences and effects of cannabis use on oral cavity health. This review will briefly summarize the components of cannabis and the endocannabinoid system, as well as the cellular and molecular mechanisms of biological cannabis action in human cells and biologic activities on tissues. We will also look into oropharyngeal tissue expression of cannabinoid receptors, together with a putative association of cannabis to several oral diseases. Therefore, this review will elaborate the basic biology and physiology of cannabinoids in human oral tissues with the aim of providing a better comprehension of the effects of its use and abuse on oral health, in order to include cannabinoid usage into dental patient health records as well as good medicinal practice.
METHODS
the paper selection was performed by PubMed/Medline and EMBASE electronic databases, and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. The scientific products were included for qualitative analysis.
RESULTS
the paper search screened a total of 276 papers. After the initial screening and the eligibility assessment, a total of 32 articles were considered for the qualitative analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
today, cannabis consumption has been correlated to a higher risk of gingival and periodontal disease, oral infection and cancer of the oral cavity, while the physico-chemical activity has not been completely clarified. Further investigations are necessary to evaluate a therapeutic efficacy of this class of drugs for the promising treatment of several different diseases of the salivary glands and oral diseases.
Topics: Cannabinoids; Humans; Mouth Diseases; Oral Health; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34361095
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22158329 -
The American Journal of Drug and... Sep 2021While males are more likely diagnosed with cannabis use disorder (CUD), females are more susceptible to developing and maintaining CUD. Yet, for both sexes, CUD is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
While males are more likely diagnosed with cannabis use disorder (CUD), females are more susceptible to developing and maintaining CUD. Yet, for both sexes, CUD is associated with high rates of comorbid mental illness (MI).
OBJECTIVES
To identify and compare sex differences in the prevalence of comorbid CUD amongst individuals with/without MIs.
METHODS
This systematic review generated pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from 37 studies (including clinical trials, cohort, and case-control studies) among individuals with and without MIs, quantifying sex differences in rates of comorbid CUD. A meta-analysis was also completed.
RESULTS
In the CUD-only group, males were twice as likely to have CUD than females (OR = 2.0, CI = 1.9-2.1). Among MIs, males were more likely than females to have CUD comorbid with schizophrenia (OR ~2.6, CI = 2.5-2.7) and other psychotic, mood, and substance use disorders (1> OR <2.2, CI = 0.7-2.6). The reverse association (females > males) was observed for anxiety disorders and antisocial personality disorder (OR = 0.8, CI = 0.7-1.0). Among females, MIs increased the likelihood of having CUD, except for psychotic disorders and depression. A meta-analysis was inconclusive due to high heterogeneity across studies. Thus, comparisons across MI groups were not possible.
CONCLUSION
While males are more likely to be diagnosed with CUD, there are important sex differences in the prevalence of CUD across MI diagnoses that should be taken into account when approaching CUD prevention and determining treatment efficacy.
Topics: Comorbidity; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Mental Disorders; Odds Ratio; Prevalence; Sex Distribution; Sex Factors
PubMed: 34280058
DOI: 10.1080/00952990.2021.1946071 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Nov 2021This study aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to determine the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder (CUD).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis, searching five electronic databases for randomized placebo-controlled trials of individuals diagnosed with CUD receiving pharmacotherapy with or without concomitant psychotherapy. Primary outcomes were the reduction in cannabis use and retention in treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, discontinuation due to adverse events, total abstinence, withdrawal symptoms, cravings, and CUD severity. We applied a frequentist, random-effects Network Meta-Analysis model to pool effect sizes across trials using standardized mean differences (SMD, g) and rate ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
We identified a total of 24 trials (n=1912, 74.9% male, mean age 30.2 years). Nabilone (d=-4.47 [-8.15; -0.79]), topiramate (d=-3.80 [-7.06; -0.54]), and fatty-acid amyl hydroxylase inhibitors (d=-2.30 [-4.75; 0.15]) reduced cannabis use relative to placebo. Dronabinol improved retention in treatment (RR=1.27 [1.02; 1.57]), while topiramate worsened treatment retention (RR=0.62 [0.42; 0.91]). Gabapentin reduced cannabis cravings (d=-2.42 [-3.53; -1.32], while vilazodone worsened craving severity (d=1.69 [0.71; 2.66]. Buspirone (RR=1.14 [1.00; 1.29]), venlafaxine (RR=1.78 [1.40; 2.26]), and topiramate (RR=9.10 [1.27; 65.11]) caused more adverse events, while topiramate caused more dropouts due to adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this review, some medications appeared to show promise for treating individual aspects of CUD. However, there is a lack of robust evidence to support any particular pharmacological treatment. There is a need for additional studies to expand the evidence base for CUD pharmacotherapy. While medication strategies may become an integral component for CUD treatment one day, psychosocial interventions should remain the first line given the limitations in the available evidence.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34062288
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103295 -
Public Health Reports (Washington, D.C.... 2022Although marijuana use has increased since 2012, the perceived risk of adverse outcomes has decreased. This systematic review summarizes articles that examined the...
INTRODUCTION
Although marijuana use has increased since 2012, the perceived risk of adverse outcomes has decreased. This systematic review summarizes articles that examined the association between nonmedical marijuana use (ie, observed smoking, self-report, or urinalysis) and cardiovascular events in observational or experimental studies of adults aged ≥18.
METHODS
We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane Library Database, and Global Health from January 1, 1970, through August 31, 2018. Of 3916 citations, 16 articles fit the following criteria: (1) included adults aged ≥18; (2) included marijuana/cannabis use that is self-reported smoked, present in diagnostic coding, or indicated through a positive diagnostic test; (3) compared nonuse of cannabis; (4) examined events related to myocardial infarction, angina, acute coronary syndrome, and/or stroke; (5) published in English; and (6) had observational or experimental designs.
RESULTS
Of the 16 studies, 4 were cohort studies, 8 were case-control studies, 1 was a case-crossover study, 2 were randomized controlled trials, and 1 was a descriptive study. Studies ranged from 10 participants to 118 659 619 hospitalizations. Marijuana use was associated with an increased likelihood of myocardial infarction within 24 hours in 2 studies and stroke in 6 studies. Results of studies suggested an increased risk for angina and acute coronary syndrome, especially among people with a history of a cardiovascular event.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that people who use marijuana may be at increased risk for cardiovascular events. As states expand new laws permitting marijuana use, it will be important to monitor the effect of marijuana use on cardiovascular disease outcomes, perhaps through the inclusion of data on nonmedical marijuana use in diverse national and local surveillance systems.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Cross-Over Studies; Humans; Marijuana Use
PubMed: 33636088
DOI: 10.1177/0033354920988285 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Sep 2020Despite the high prevalence in patients with schizophrenia, the association of cannabis and nicotine use with negative symptoms remains unclear. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Despite the high prevalence in patients with schizophrenia, the association of cannabis and nicotine use with negative symptoms remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of observational studies addressing the association of cannabis and nicotine use with negative symptoms. Twenty cannabis studies (n = 2611) and 45 nicotine studies (n = 8942) were analyzed. There was no significant effect for current cannabis use alone or in combination with other substances. However, recently abstinent users of cannabis showed less severe negative symptoms than nonusers. Nicotine users were not different from nonusers with respect to negative symptoms. With respect to positive symptoms, very small increases were found for cannabis users and patients using nicotine along with other drugs. In conclusion, while patients with schizophrenia who use cannabis did not differ from nonusers, recently abstinent patients showed less severe negative symptoms than nonusers. This finding suggests that cannabis-using patients might be less susceptible to the development of negative symptoms. The amotivational effects of cannabis may obscure these differences in current users.
Topics: Cannabis; Hallucinogens; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Nicotine; Observational Studies as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 32679232
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.07.007 -
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 -
European Psychiatry : the Journal of... Jan 2020The implications of cannabis use in the onset of early psychosis and the severity of psychotic symptoms have resulted in a proliferation of studies on this issue.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The implications of cannabis use in the onset of early psychosis and the severity of psychotic symptoms have resulted in a proliferation of studies on this issue. However, few have examined the effects of cannabis use on the cognitive symptoms of psychosis (i.e., neurocognitive functioning) in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP). This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess the neurocognitive functioning of cannabis users (CU) and nonusers (NU) with FEP.
METHODS
Of the 110 studies identified through the systematic review of 6 databases, 7 met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 14 independent samples and 78 effect sizes. The total sample included 304 CU with FEP and 369 NU with FEP. The moderator variables were age at first use, duration of use, percentage of males, and age.
RESULTS
Effect sizes were not significantly different from zero in any neurocognitive domain when users and NU were compared. Part of the variability in effect sizes was explained by the inclusion of the following moderator variables: (1) frequency of cannabis use (β = 0.013, F = 7.56, p = 0.017); (2) first-generation antipsychotics (β = 0.019, F = 34.46, p ≤ 0.001); and (3) country where the study was carried out (β = 0.266, t = 2.06, p = 0.043).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis indicates that cannabis use is not generally associated with neurocognitive functioning in patients with FEP. However, it highlights the deleterious effect of low doses of cannabis in some patients. It also stresses the importance of the type of antipsychotic prescription and cannabis dose as moderator variables in the neurocognitive functioning of CU with FEP.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cannabis; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Mental Status and Dementia Tests; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 32093788
DOI: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2019.9 -
Sports Health 2020Cannabis use has increased, in large part due to decriminalization. Despite this increase in usage, it remains unclear what proportion of athletes use cannabis and what...
CONTEXT
Cannabis use has increased, in large part due to decriminalization. Despite this increase in usage, it remains unclear what proportion of athletes use cannabis and what effect it has on athletic performance and recovery.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review cannabis use among athletes, including epidemiology, effect on performance and recovery, and regulations for use in sport.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were queried from database inception through November 15, 2018. A hand search of policies, official documents, and media reports was performed for relevant information.
STUDY SELECTION
All studies related to cannabis use in athletes, including impact on athletic performance or recovery, were included.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level 4.
DATA EXTRACTION
Demographic and descriptive data of included studies relating to epidemiology of cannabis use in athletes were extracted and presented in weighted means or percentages where applicable.
RESULTS
Overall, 37 studies were included, of which the majority were cross-sectional studies of elite and university athletes. Among 11 studies reporting use among athletes (n = 46,202), approximately 23.4% of respondents reported using cannabis in the past 12 months. Two studies found a negative impact on performance, while another 2 studies found no impact. There was no literature on the influence of cannabis on athletic recovery. Across athletic organizations and leagues, there is considerable variability in acceptable thresholds for urine tetrahydrocannabinol levels (>15 to 150 ng/mL) and penalties for athletes found to be above these accepted thresholds.
CONCLUSION
Overall, these results suggest that approximately 1 in 4 athletes report using cannabis within the past year. Based on the available evidence, cannabis does not appear to positively affect performance, but the literature surrounding this is generally poor. Given the variability in regulation across different sport types and competition levels, as well as the growing number of states legalizing recreational cannabis use, there is a need to improve our understanding of the effects of cannabis use on the athlete and perhaps adopt a clearer and overarching policy for the use of cannabis by athletes in all sports and at all levels.
Topics: Athletic Performance; Dronabinol; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Marijuana Smoking; Organizational Policy; Sports; Substance Abuse Detection
PubMed: 32023171
DOI: 10.1177/1941738120901670 -
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 -
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