A marijuana smoking cessation clinical trial utilizing THC-free marijuana, aversion therapy, and self-management counseling

Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder

BACKGROUND

Cannabis use disorder is the most commonly reported illegal substance use disorder in the general population; although demand for assistance from health services is increasing internationally, only a minority of those with the disorder seek professional assistance. Treatment studies have been published, but pressure to establish public policy requires an updated systematic review of cannabis-specific treatments for adults.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder (compared with inactive control and/or alternative treatment) delivered to adults in an out-patient or community setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cumulaive Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and reference lists of articles. Searched literature included all articles published before July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled studies examining a psychosocial intervention for cannabis use disorder (without pharmacological intervention) in comparison with a minimal or inactive treatment control or alternative combinations of psychosocial interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 randomised controlled trials involving 4045 participants. A total of 15 studies took place in the United States, two in Australia, two in Germany and one each in Switzerland, Canada, Brazil and Ireland. Investigators delivered treatments over approximately seven sessions (range, one to 14) for approximately 12 weeks (range, one to 56).Overall, risk of bias across studies was moderate, that is, no trial was at high risk of selection bias, attrition bias or reporting bias. Further, trials included a large total number of participants, and each trial ensured the fidelity of treatments provided. In contrast, because of the nature of the interventions provided, participant blinding was not possible, and reports of researcher blinding often were unclear or were not provided. Half of the reviewed studies included collateral verification or urinalysis to confirm self report data, leading to concern about performance and detection bias. Finally, concerns of other bias were based on relatively consistent lack of assessment of non-cannabis substance use or use of additional treatments before or during the trial period.A subset of studies provided sufficient detail for comparison of effects of any intervention versus inactive control on primary outcomes of interest at early follow-up (median, four months). Results showed moderate-quality evidence that approximately seven out of 10 intervention participants completed treatment as intended (effect size (ES) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.78, 11 studies, 1424 participants), and that those receiving psychosocial intervention used cannabis on fewer days compared with those given inactive control (mean difference (MD) 5.67, 95% CI 3.08 to 8.26, six studies, 1144 participants). In addition, low-quality evidence revealed that those receiving intervention were more likely to report point-prevalence abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.83, six studies, 1166 participants) and reported fewer symptoms of dependence (standardised mean difference (SMD) 4.15, 95% CI 1.67 to 6.63, four studies, 889 participants) and cannabis-related problems compared with those given inactive control (SMD 3.34, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.42, six studies, 2202 participants). Finally, very low-quality evidence indicated that those receiving intervention reported using fewer joints per day compared with those given inactive control (SMD 3.55, 95% CI 2.51 to 4.59, eight studies, 1600 participants). Notably, subgroup analyses found that interventions of more than four sessions delivered over longer than one month (high intensity) produced consistently improved outcomes (particularly in terms of cannabis use frequency and severity of dependence) in the short term as compared with low-intensity interventions.The most consistent evidence supports the use of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), motivational enhancement therapy (MET) and particularly their combination for assisting with reduction of cannabis use frequency at early follow-up (MET: MD 4.45, 95% CI 1.90 to 7.00, four studies, 612 participants; CBT: MD 10.94, 95% CI 7.44 to 14.44, one study, 134 participants; MET + CBT: MD 7.38, 95% CI 3.18 to 11.57, three studies, 398 participants) and severity of dependence (MET: SMD 4.07, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.17, two studies, 316 participants; MET + CBT: SMD 7.89, 95% CI 0.93 to 14.85, three studies, 573 participants), although no particular intervention was consistently effective at nine-month follow-up or later. In addition, data from five out of six studies supported the utility of adding voucher-based incentives for cannabis-negative urines to enhance treatment effect on cannabis use frequency. A single study found contrasting results throughout a 12-month follow-up period, as post-treatment outcomes related to overall reduction in cannabis use frequency favoured CBT alone without the addition of abstinence-based or treatment adherence-based contingency management. In contrast, evidence of drug counselling, social support, relapse prevention and mindfulness meditation was weak because identified studies were few, information on treatment outcomes insufficient and rates of treatment adherence low. In line with treatments for other substance use, abstinence rates were relatively low overall, with approximately one-quarter of participants abstinent at final follow-up. Finally, three studies found that intervention was comparable with treatment as usual among participants in psychiatric clinics and reported no between-group differences in any of the included outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Included studies were heterogeneous in many aspects, and important questions regarding the most effective duration, intensity and type of intervention were raised and partially resolved. Generalisability of findings was unclear, most notably because of the limited number of localities and homogeneous samples of treatment seekers. The rate of abstinence was low and unstable although comparable with treatments for other substance use. Psychosocial intervention was shown, in comparison with minimal treatment controls, to reduce frequency of use and severity of dependence in a fairly durable manner, at least in the short term. Among the included intervention types, an intensive intervention provided over more than four sessions based on the combination of MET and CBT with abstinence-based incentives was most consistently supported for treatment of cannabis use disorder.

Psychotherapeutic interventions for cannabis abuse and/or dependence in outpatient settings

BACKGROUND

Cannabis use disorder is the most common illicit substance use disorder in general population. Despite that, only a minority seek assistance from a health professional, but the demand for treatment is now increasing internationally. Trials of treatment have been published but to our knowledge, there is no published systematic review .

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for cannabis abuse or dependence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL) The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004; MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2004), PsycInfo (1985 to October 2004), CINAHL (1982 to October 2004), Toxibase (until September 2004) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled studies examining a psychotherapeutic intervention for cannabis dependence or abuse in comparison with a delayed-treatment control group or combinations of psychotherapeutic interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials involving 1297 people were included. Five studies took place in the United States, one in Australia. Studies were not pooled in meta-analysis because of heterogeneity. The six included studies suggested that counseling approaches might have beneficial effects for the treatment of cannabis dependence. Group and individual sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) had both efficacy for the treatment of cannabis dependence and associated problems, CBT produced better outcomes than a brief intervention when CBT was delivered in individual sessions. Two studies suggested that adding voucher-based incentives may enhance treatment when used in combination with other effective psychotherapeutic interventions. Abstinence rates were relatively small overall but favored the individual CBT 9-session (or more) condition. All included trials reported a statistically significant reductions in frequency of cannabis use and dependence symptoms. But other measures of problems related to cannabis use were not consistently different.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included studies were too heterogenous and could not allow to draw up a clear conclusion. The studies comparing different therapeutic modalities raise important questions about the duration, intensity and type of treatment. The generalizability of findings is also unknown because the studies have been conducted in a limited number of localities with fairly homogenous samples of treatment seekers. However, the low abstinence rate indicated that cannabis dependence is not easily treated by psychotherapies in outpatient settings.

Is the party over? Cannabis and juvenile psychiatric disorder: the past 10 years

OBJECTIVE

To critically review cannabis research during the past 10 years in relation to rates of use, behavioral problems, and mental disorders in young people.

METHOD

Studies published in English between 1994 and 2004 were identified through systematic searches of literature databases. The material was selectively reviewed focusing on child and adolescent data.

RESULTS

In the 27 years between 1976 and 2002, approximately half of all 12th graders had been exposed to cannabis in the United States. There is growing evidence that early and regular marijuana use is associated with later increases in depression, suicidal behavior, and psychotic illness and may bring forward the onset of schizophrenia. Most of the recent data reject the view that marijuana is used to self-medicate psychotic or depressive symptoms. Research on treatment is very limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on the mental health effects of cannabis has increased dramatically. Although doubts still remain about the role of cannabis in the causation of juvenile psychiatric disorder, the weight of the evidence points in the direction of early and regular cannabis use having substantial negative effects on psychosocial functioning and psychopathology.

Treatment of marijuana dependence: a review of the literature

Until recently, relatively little research has focused on the treatment of marijuana abuse or dependence; however, marijuana use disorders are now receiving increased attention. This paper reviews the initial clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of outpatient treatments for adult marijuana dependence. Findings from five controlled trials of psychotherapeutic interventions suggest that this disorder appears responsive to the same types of treatment as other substance dependencies. Moreover, these initial studies suggest that many patients do not show a positive treatment response, indicating that marijuana dependence is not easily treated. Strengths and weaknesses of the data are presented. Preliminary data from less controlled studies relevant to the treatment of marijuana dependence are discussed to suggest future research areas. Although very few studies on treatment for marijuana abuse and dependence have been completed, the initial reports identify promising treatment approaches and demonstrate a need for more research on the development of effective interventions.

A randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive-behavioral interventions for cannabis use disorder

The increasing demand for treatment for cannabis dependence in Australia and internationally has led to the identification of significant gaps in knowledge of effective interventions. A randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive-behavioral interventions (CBT) for cannabis dependence was undertaken to address this issue. A total of 229 participants were assessed and randomly assigned to either a six-session CBT program (6CBT), a single-session CBT intervention (1CBT), or a delayed-treatment control (DTC) group. Participants were assisted in acquiring skills to promote cannabis cessation and maintenance of abstinence. Participants were followed-up a median of 237 days after last attendance. Participants in the treatment groups reported better treatment outcomes than the DTC group. They were more likely to report abstinence, were significantly less concerned about their control over cannabis use, and reported significantly fewer cannabis-related problems than those in the DTC group. Those in the 6CBT group also reported more significantly reduced levels of cannabis consumption than the DTC group. While the therapist variable had no effect on any outcome, a secondary analysis of the 6CBT and 1CBT groups showed that treatment compliance was significantly associated with decreased dependence and cannabis-related problems. This study supports the attractiveness and effectiveness of individual CBT interventions for cannabis use disorders and the need for multisite replication trials.

Treatment outcome of 600 chemically dependent patients treated in a multimodal inpatient program including aversion therapy and pentothal interviews

A sample of 600 patients treated in a multimodal treatment program using aversion therapy and narcotherapy at three Schick freestanding addiction treatment hospitals and one Schick unit in a general hospital were followed-up. Contact was made a minimum of 12 months and as many as 20 months after completion of treatment (mean 14.7 mos.). Telephone contact was made by an independent research organization with 427 of the patients (71.2%). Of these, 65.1% were totally abstinent for 1 year after treatment and 60.2% were abstinent until follow-up a mean of 14.7 months later. Fifty-two percent of the alcoholics were using or dependent on other drugs at admission. Seventy-five of these treated for cocaine dependence and 47 treated for marijuana dependence. The cocaine 12 month and "total" abstinence (mean 14.7 mos.) rates for the 49 contacted patients were 83.7% and 81.6%, respectively. The marijuana 12 month and "total" abstinence (mean 14.7 mos.) rates for the 30 contacted patients was 70.0% for both groups. Abstinence rates for alcohol and/or other drugs were also calculated including noncontacted patients who had chart documented evidence of relapse. The most powerful predictor of success was whether or not all urges to drink or use had been eliminated (presumably by aversion therapy). Of additional importance was the use of support groups and reinforcement treatments after completion of the initial hospitalization. The two most prominent factors initiating a relapse were "intrapersonal determinants" such as stress from work or marriage/family relationships and "interpersonal determinants" such as being around others who were drinking/using or being at a celebration or special event. The two factors were of equal importance in the alcoholics. However, interpersonal determinants were far more important in the cocaine and marijuana treated patients. Increased utilization of reinforcement treatments was associated with decreased urges to drink/use and increased abstinence rates. In contrast, increased frequency of support group utilization was associated with increased urges to drink/use and lower abstinence rates. This suggests the need to take seriously patient reports of "urges" in the first year after treatment and to carefully assess the cause and initiate or update an individualized plan of treatment. Such treatment may include increased reinforcement treatments, treatment of depression, and additional assistance in coping with intrapersonal and interpersonal determinants of relapse.

One-year follow-up after multimodal inpatient treatment for cocaine and methamphetamine dependencies

Of a randomly selected sample of 214 patients treated with aversion therapy for cocaine dependence in four chemical dependency units operated by Schick Shadel Hospitals, 156 were followed up 12 to 20 months posttreatment (average 15.2 months). Significant other validation was obtained in 33%. Total abstinence from cocaine for the group overall was 53% at one year post treatment, and current abstinence of at least 6 months at follow-up was 68.6%. Those treating with aversion for cocaine alone had a one-year abstinence of 39% and a current abstinence of 62.4%. Those treating with aversion for alcohol and cocaine had a one-year total abstinence from cocaine of 69% and a current abstinence of 76%. Those treating with aversion for cocaine and marijuana had a one-year total abstinence from cocaine of 50% and a current abstinence of 65%. Those treating with aversion for alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana had a one-year total abstinence from cocaine of 73% and a current abstinence of 73%. One-year total abstinence from alcohol was 54% for those receiving aversion for both alcohol and cocaine and 77% for those receiving aversion for alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana. Current abstinence from alcohol at follow-up was 68% and 81%, respectively. One-year total abstinence from marijuana was 42% for those treating with aversion for cocaine and marijuana and 64% for those treating with aversion for alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana. Current abstinence at follow-up from marijuana was 61% and 81%, respectively. The use of aversion therapy for both alcohol and cocaine in alcoholics who were also using cocaine was associated with higher total abstinence rates (88% vs. 55%) from cocaine when compared with alcoholics who used cocaine but received no aversion as part of their program. The conclusion is tentative since the follow-up rate in this study was lower than that of the previous study (64% vs. 84%). Being around other users accounted for 49% of relapse situations. Family/Work stress was associated with relapse in 33% of cases and unpleasant feelings in 24% of cases. The use of both reinforcement treatments and the use of support following treatment were associated with improved abstinence rates from cocaine. Those patients who reported losing all urges for cocaine after treatment had a total abstinence from cocaine of 90%, those who reported losing all the uncontrollable urges had a total abstinence of 64%, and those who reported still having the urge reported only 33% total abstinence from cocaine.

Contributions to a social conditioning model of cocaine recovery

This article describes recent developments in a theory of recovery from drug addiction and in the adaptation of Recovery Training and Self Help (RTSH) to cocaine addiction. RTSH is an example of a new element of treatment known as "relapse prevention" (RP), which is an application of the discovery that addiction follows the laws of operant conditioning. We learned, however, that to understand and to treat cocaine addiction, we had to expand upon the conditioning paradigm to include a sociological analysis of the deviant lifestyle from which cocaine addiction stems. The theory presented here postulates three stages of recovery from cocaine addiction. Cocaine addicts can recover as outpatients by (1) initially building "walls" against drug triggers and supplies, (2) extinguishing addiction in the protective community of recovering persons, and (3) gradually lowering the walls and expanding beyond the recovering community to function more fully in conventional society. We have developed an outpatient group treatment system based on this recovery model. The Cocaine Recovery System includes a month-long cessation program, followed by a six-month recovery program, and active participation in the recovering community. A professional and a recovering person colead both the cessation and recovery programs, which feature Recovery Training sessions designed to help cocaine addicts achieve treatment goals and avoid or cope with threats to recovery. Clients in the recovery program also meet weekly for a support session, a weekend recreational activity, and individual counseling. The program also encourages group members to attend 12-step fellowship meetings. Clients achieve difficult lifestyle changes by taking a series of "commitment steps," which increasingly engage the clients in a recovering lifestyle and make relapse more difficult.