Is Cannabis Use Treatment Also Indicated for Patients with Low to Moderate Polysubstance Use

BACKGROUND

Polysubstance use (PSU) is common among patients with cannabis use (CU) and is related to more severe CU problems. However, it is unclear how PSU predicts CU treatment outcomes beyond CU patterns. We examined the frequency, amount, and class of additionally used substances as predictors for primary and secondary outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted crude and adjusted regression analyses for PSU variables as predictors of remission, abstinence, -reduction, and secondary outcomes in 166 help-seeking -patients from a randomized clinical trial of CANDIS, a -cognitive behavioral treatment program.

RESULTS

Patients with recent illegal PSU experienced more difficulties in reducing their CU (B = -1.22, p < 0.001). In contrast, remission rates were slightly higher in patients with a wide variety of -last-year-PSU (RD = 0.04, p < 0.001). Amphetamine use -predicted poorer outcomes regarding CU-related problems (B = -4.22, p = 0.019), and the use of opiates, inhalants, and dissociative substances predicted poorer physical health outcomes (B = -0.62, p = 0.009; B = -0.96, p = 0.039; B = -1.18, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

CU treatment is also effective for patients with moderate PSU. However, treatment effects may be enhanced by addressing specific PSU characteristics as part of a modularized program.

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.

CANDIS treatment program for cannabis use disorders: findings from a randomized multi-site translational trial

BACKGROUND

In a recent paper, we reported the efficacy of a modular cognitive-behavioral intervention for treating adolescents and adults with cannabis use disorders (CUD). In this study, we examine the outcome of this intervention after translating it into clinical practice.

METHODS

A multi-site, randomized controlled trial of 279 treatment seekers with ICD-10 cannabis use disorders aged 16- 63 years was conducted in 11 outpatient addiction treatment centers in Germany. Patients were randomly assigned to an Active Treatment (AT, n=149) or Delayed Treatment Control (DTC, n=130). Treatment consisted of 10 sessions of fully manualized individual psychotherapy that combined Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, Motivational EnhancementTherapy and problem-solving training. Assessments were conducted at baseline, during each therapy session, at post-treatment and at three and six month follow-ups.

RESULTS

At post assessment 53.3% of AT patients reported abstinence (46.3% negative urine screenings) compared to 22% of DTC patients (17.7% negative drug screenings) (p<0.001, Intention-to-treat analysis). AT patients improved in the frequency of cannabis use, number of cannabis dependence criteria, severity of dependence, as well as number and severity of cannabis-related problems. Effect sizes were moderate to high. While abstinence rates in the AT group decreased over the 3-month (negative urine screenings: 32.4%) and 6-month (negative urine screenings: 35.7%) follow-up periods, the effects in secondary outcomes were maintained.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention can successfully be translated to and applied in clinical practice. It has the potential to improve access to evidence-based care for chronic CUD patients.

Efficacy of a targeted cognitive-behavioral treatment program for cannabis use disorders (CANDIS)

AIMS

To examine the efficacy, 3- and 6-month follow-up effects of a psychological treatment for older adolescents and adults with DSM-IV cannabis use disorders. The program was tailored to the needs of this patient population.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

A randomized controlled clinical trial of 122 patients aged 16 to 44 years with DSM-IV cannabis dependence as the main substance use diagnosis was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to either Active Treatment (AT, n = 90) or a Delayed Treatment Control group (DTC, n = 32). Treatment consisted of 10 sessions of therapy, detailed in a strictly enforced manual. Assessments were conducted at baseline, during each therapy session, at post treatment and at follow-up assessments at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

The treatment retention rate was 88%. Abstinence was achieved in 49% of AT patients and in 13% of those in DTC (p < 0.001; intend-to-treat (ITT) analysis). Further, AT patients improved significantly (p < = 0.001) in the frequency of cannabis use per week, addiction severity, number of disability days, and overall level of psychopathology. Program effects were maintained over a 3-month- (abstinence rate: 51%) and 6-month follow-up (45%) period.

CONCLUSION

The treatment program is effective in obtaining abstinence as well as reducing cannabis use and improves the associated social and mental health burden.