A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of venlafaxine-extended release for co-occurring cannabis dependence and depressive disorders

Ligne directrice canadienne pour la prise en charge clinique de la consommation d’alcool à risque élevé et du trouble d’utilisation de l’alcool

Contexte:

Au Canada, on note que les équipes soignantes et les personnes qui bénéficieraient de soins ciblés connaissent peu les interventions fondées sur des données probantes pour la prise en charge clinique du trouble d’utilisation de l’alcool. Pour combler cette lacune, l’Initiative canadienne de recherche sur l’abus de substances a créé un comité national dans le but d’élaborer une ligne directrice pour la prise en charge clinique de la consommation d’alcool à risque élevé et du trouble lié à la consommation d’alcool.

Méthodes:

L’élaboration de cette ligne directrice s’est faite selon le processus ADAPTE, et est inspirée par une ligne directrice britanno-colombienne de 2019 pour le trouble lié à la consommation d’alcool. Un comité national de rédaction de la ligne directrice (composé de 36 membres de divers horizons, notamment des universitaires, des médecins, des personnes ayant ou ayant eu des expériences de consommation d’alcool et des personnes s’identifiant comme Autochtones ou Métis) a choisi les thèmes prioritaires, a passé en revue les données probantes et atteint un consensus relatif aux recommandations. Nous avons utilisé l’outil AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II) et les principes de divulgation des intérêts et de gestion des conflits lors du processus de rédaction des lignes directrices (Principles for Disclosure of Interests and Management of Conflicts in Guidelines) publiés en anglais par le Réseau international des lignes directrices (Guidelines International Network) pour nous assurer que la ligne directrice répondait aux normes internationales de transparence, de qualité élevée et de rigueur méthodologique. Nous avons évalué les recommandations finales à l’aide de l’approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Les recommandations ont fait l’objet d’une revue externe par 13 spécialistes et parties prenantes d’ici et de l’étranger.

Recommandations:

La ligne directrice comprend 15 recommandations qui concernent le dépistage, le diagnostic, la prise en charge du sevrage et le traitement continu, y compris les interventions psychosociales, les pharmacothérapies et les programmes communautaires. Le comité de rédaction de la ligne directrice a reconnu la nécessité d’insister sur la sous-utilisation des interventions qui pourraient être bénéfiques et sur les modes de prescription et autres pratiques d’usage courant qui ne reposent pas sur des données probantes et pourraient aggraver les effets de la consommation d’alcool.

Interprétation:

La ligne directrice se veut une ressource à l’intention des médecins, des responsables des orientations politiques et des membres des équipes cliniques et autres, de même que des personnes, des familles et des communautés affectées par la consommation d’alcool. Ces recommandations proposent un cadre fondé sur des données probantes pour alléger le lourd fardeau du trouble d’utilisation de l’alcool au Canada et combler les besoins en matière de traitements et de soins.

Canadian guideline for the clinical management of high-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

In Canada, low awareness of evidence-based interventions for the clinical management of alcohol use disorder exists among health care providers and people who could benefit from care. To address this gap, the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse convened a national committee to develop a guideline for the clinical management of high-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder.

METHODS

Development of this guideline followed the ADAPTE process, building upon the 2019 British Columbia provincial guideline for alcohol use disorder. A national guideline committee (consisting of 36 members with diverse expertise, including academics, clinicians, people with lived and living experiences of alcohol use, and people who self-identified as Indigenous or Métis) selected priority topics, reviewed evidence and reached consensus on the recommendations. We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument (AGREE II) and the Guidelines International Network's Principles for Disclosure of Interests and Management of Conflicts to ensure the guideline met international standards for transparency, high quality and methodological rigour. We rated the final recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool; the recommendations underwent external review by 13 national and international experts and stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline includes 15 recommendations that cover screening, diagnosis, withdrawal management and ongoing treatment, including psychosocial treatment interventions, pharmacotherapies and community-based programs. The guideline committee identified a need to emphasize both underused interventions that may be beneficial and common prescribing and other practice patterns that are not evidence based and that may potentially worsen alcohol use outcomes.

INTERPRETATION

The guideline is intended to be a resource for physicians, policymakers and other clinical and nonclinical personnel, as well as individuals, families and communities affected by alcohol use. The recommendations seek to provide a framework for addressing a large burden of unmet treatment and care needs for alcohol use disorder within Canada in an evidence-based manner.

Who responds to a multi-component treatment for cannabis use disorder? Using multivariable and machine learning models to classify treatment responders and non-responders

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Treatments for cannabis use disorder (CUD) have limited efficacy and little is known about who responds to existing treatments. Accurately predicting who will respond to treatment can improve clinical decision-making by allowing clinicians to offer the most appropriate level and type of care. This study aimed to determine whether multivariable/machine learning models can be used to classify CUD treatment responders versus non-responders.

METHODS

This secondary analysis used data from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network multi-site outpatient clinical trial in the United States. Adults with CUD (n = 302) received 12 weeks of contingency management, brief cessation counseling and were randomized to receive additionally either (1) N-Acetylcysteine or (2) placebo. Multivariable/machine learning models were used to classify treatment responders (i.e. two consecutive negative urine cannabinoid tests or a 50% reduction in days of use) versus non-responders using baseline demographic, medical, psychiatric and substance use information.

RESULTS

Prediction performance for various machine learning and regression prediction models yielded area under the curves (AUCs) >0.70 for four models (0.72-0.77), with support vector machine models having the highest overall accuracy (73%; 95% CI = 68-78%) and AUC (0.77; 95% CI = 0.72, 0.83). Fourteen variables were retained in at least three of four top models, including demographic (ethnicity, education), medical (diastolic/systolic blood pressure, overall health, neurological diagnosis), psychiatric (depressive symptoms, generalized anxiety disorder, antisocial personality disorder) and substance use (tobacco smoker, baseline cannabinoid level, amphetamine use, age of experimentation with other substances, cannabis withdrawal intensity) characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Multivariable/machine learning models can improve on chance prediction of treatment response to outpatient cannabis use disorder treatment, although further improvements in prediction performance are likely necessary for decisions about clinical care.

Influence of pregabalin maintenance on cannabis effects and related behaviors in daily cannabis users

No medications are approved for cannabis use disorder (CUD), though a small clinical trial demonstrated that the voltage-dependent calcium channel (VDCC) ligand gabapentin reduced cannabis use in treatment seekers. VDCCs are modulated by cannabinoid (CB) ligands, and there are shared effects between CB agonists and VDCC ligands. This overlapping neuropharmacology and the initial clinical results supported the evaluation of pregabalin, a "next-generation" VDCC ligand, as a CUD medication. Two separate placebo-controlled, double-blind, counterbalanced, within-subjects human laboratory studies tested placebo and 300 (N = 2 females, 11 males; Experiment [EXP] 1) or 450 (N = 3 females, 11 males; EXP 2) mg/day pregabalin in cannabis users who were not seeking treatment or trying to reduce/quit their cannabis use. The protocol consisted of two outpatient maintenance phases (11 days in EXP 1 and 15 days in EXP 2) that concluded with four experimental sessions within each phase. During experimental sessions, maintenance continued, and participants completed two 2-day blocks of sampling and self-administration sessions to determine the reinforcing effects of smoked cannabis (0% and 5.9% delta⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]), as well as subjective, attentional bias, performance, and physiological responses. In addition, naturalistic cannabis use, side effects, sleep quality, craving, and other self-reported substance use were measured during pregabalin maintenance. Cannabis was self-administered and produced prototypical effects, but pregabalin generally did not impact the effects of cannabis or alter naturalistic use. These human laboratory results in cannabis users not trying to reduce/quit their use do not support the efficacy of pregabalin as a stand-alone pharmacotherapy for CUD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Interventions for Co-occurring Cannabis Use and Depression

This review aimed to investigate the effective intervention options for depression in patients with a history of cannabis use. The study eligibility criteria were as follows: English-language, peer-reviewed human studies; data not previously reported elsewhere; randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials comparing an intervention group and a control group, and single-group trials.

In total, eight studies of interventions for patients with depression who reported cannabis use were identified. Four studies evaluated the effectiveness of the following three pharmacological interventions: extended quetiapine release, extended venlafaxine release, and fluoxetine. However, all studies failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of these drugs. Four studies evaluated the following psychological interventions: motivational interviewing (MI) and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). These studies found that CBT may improve depression symptoms and cannabis dependence, and MI was associated with improvements in cannabis dependence.

CBT and MI may be effective in improving depression and reducing cannabis use. However, the conclusions of this review are limited because of the small number of studies and their low quality. Higher-quality research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of CBT, MI, and other interventions for comorbid cannabis use and depression.

Consideration of sex and gender differences in addiction medication response

Substance use continues to contribute to significant morbidity and mortality in the United States, for both women and men, more so than another other preventable health condition. To reduce the public health burden attributable to substances, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism have identified that medication development for substance use disorder is a high priority research area. Furthermore, both Institutes have stated that research on sex and gender differences in substance use medication development is a critical area. The purpose of the current narrative review is to highlight how sex and gender have been considered (or not) in medication trials for substance use disorders to clarify and summarize what is known regarding sex and gender differences in efficacy and to provide direction to the field to advance medication development that is consistent with current NIH 'sex as a biological variable' (SABV) policy. To that end, we reviewed major classes of abused substances (nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, cannabis, opioids) demonstrating that, sex and gender have not been well-considered in addiction medication development research. However, when adequate data on sex and gender differences have been evaluated (i.e., in tobacco cessation), clinically significant differences in response have been identified between women and men. Across the other drugs of abuse reviewed, data also suggest sex and gender may be predictive of outcome for some agents, although the relatively low representation of women in clinical research samples limits making definitive conclusions. We recommend the incorporation of sex and gender into clinical care guidelines and improved access to publicly available sex-stratified data from medication development investigations.

Associations between cannabis use, cannabis use disorder, and mood disorders: longitudinal, genetic, and neurocognitive evidence

RATIONALE

Cannabis use among people with mood disorders increased in recent years. While comorbidity between cannabis use, cannabis use disorder (CUD), and mood disorders is high, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate (1) the epidemiological evidence for an association between cannabis use, CUD, and mood disorders; (2) prospective longitudinal, genetic, and neurocognitive evidence of underlying mechanisms; and (3) prognosis and treatment options for individuals with CUD and mood disorders.

METHODS

Narrative review of existing literature is identified through PubMed searches, reviews, and meta-analyses. Evidence was reviewed separately for depression, bipolar disorder, and suicide.

RESULTS

Current evidence is limited and mixed but suggestive of a bidirectional relationship between cannabis use, CUD, and the onset of depression. The evidence more consistently points to cannabis use preceding onset of bipolar disorder. Shared neurocognitive mechanisms and underlying genetic and environmental risk factors appear to explain part of the association. However, cannabis use itself may also influence the development of mood disorders, while others may initiate cannabis use to self-medicate symptoms. Comorbid cannabis use and CUD are associated with worse prognosis for depression and bipolar disorder including increased suicidal behaviors. Evidence for targeted treatments is limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence base is limited by the lack of well-controlled prospective longitudinal studies and clinical studies including comorbid individuals. Future studies in humans examining the causal pathways and potential mechanisms of the association between cannabis use, CUD, and mood disorder comorbidity are crucial for optimizing harm reduction and treatment strategies.

Pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

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.

Non-abstinent treatment outcomes for cannabis use disorder

BACKGROUND

Abstinence remains a standard outcome for potential treatment interventions for Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD). However, there needs to be validation of non-abstinent outcomes. This study explores reductions in self-reported days of use as another viable outcome measure using data from three completed randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for CUD.

METHODS

The three trials tested the effect of quetiapine (QTP, n = 113); dronabinol (DRO, n = 156); and lofexidine + dronabinol (LFD, n = 122). Self-reported cannabis use was categorized into three use-groups/week: heavy (5-7 days/week), moderate (2-4 days/week) and light use (0-1 days/week). Multinomial logistic regressions analyzed the treatment by time effect on the likelihood of light and moderate use compared to heavy use in each study.

RESULTS

Across the three trials, there was no significant overall time-by-treatment interaction (QTP: p = .06; DRO: p = .15; LFD: p = .21). However, the odds of moderate compared to heavy use were significantly higher in treatment than in placebo groups starting around the midpoint of each trial. No treatment differences were found between the odds of light compared to heavy use.

CONCLUSIONS

While study-end abstinence rates have been a standard treatment outcome for CUD trials, reduction from heavy to moderate use has not been standardly assessed. During the last several weeks of each trial, those on active medication were more likely to move from heavy to moderate use, which suggests that certain medications may be more impactful than previously assessed. Future studies should determine if this pattern is associated with less CUD severity and/or improved quality of life.

Down and High: Reflections Regarding Depression and Cannabis

In light of the recent changes in the legal status of cannabis in Canada, the understanding of the potential impact of the use of cannabis by individuals suffering from depression is increasingly considered as being important. It is fundamental that we look into the existing literature to examine the influence of cannabis on psychiatric conditions, including mood disorders. In this article, we will explore the relationship that exists between depression and cannabis. We will examine the impact of cannabis on the onset and course of depression, and its treatment. We have undertaken a wide-ranging review of the literature in order to address these questions. The evidence from longitudinal studies suggest that there is a bidirectional relationship between cannabis use and depression, such that cannabis use increases the risk for depression and vice-versa. This risk is possibly higher in heavy users having initiated their consumption in early adolescence. Clinical evidence also suggests that cannabis use is associated with a worse prognosis in individuals with major depressive disorder. The link with suicide remains controversial. Moreover, there is insufficient data to determine the impact of cannabis use on cognition in individuals with major depression disorder. Preliminary evidence suggesting that the endogenous cannabinoid system is involved in the pathophysiology of depression. This will need to be confirmed in future positron emission tomography studies. Randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate the potential efficacy of motivational interviewing and/or cognitive behavioral therapy for the treatment of cannabis use disorder in individuals with major depressive major disorder. Finally, although there is preclinical evidence suggesting that cannabidiol has antidepressant properties, randomized controlled trials will need to properly investigate this possibility in humans.

Psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for cannabis use disorder and mental health comorbidities: a narrative review

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug worldwide, and it is estimated that up to 30% of people who use cannabis will develop a cannabis use disorder (CUD). Demand for treatment of CUD is increasing in almost every region of the world and cannabis use is highly comorbid with mental disorders, where sustained use can reduce treatment compliance and increase risk of relapse. In this narrative review, we outline evidence for psychosocial and pharmacological treatment strategies for CUD, both alone and when comorbid with psychosis, anxiety or depression. Psychosocial treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy, motivational enhancement therapy and contingency management are currently the most effective strategy for treating CUD but are of limited benefit when comorbid with psychosis. Pharmacological treatments targeting the endocannabinoid system have the potential to reduce cannabis withdrawal and cannabis use in CUD. Mental health comorbidities including anxiety, depression and psychosis hinder effective treatment and should be addressed in treatment provision and clinical decision making to reduce the global burden of CUDs. Antipsychotic medication may decrease cannabis use and cannabis craving as well as psychotic symptoms in patients with CUD and psychosis. Targeted treatments for anxiety and depression when comorbid with CUD are feasible.

Quetiapine treatment for cannabis use disorder

BACKROUND

Pharmacotherapy for cannabis use disorder (CUD) is an important unmet public health need.

METHODS

In a 12-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, the efficacy of quetiapine (300 mg nightly) for the treatment of CUD was tested in 130 outpatients. Weekly cannabis use was categorized into three groups: heavy use (5-7 days), moderate use (2-4 days) and light use (0-1 days).

RESULTS

At baseline both groups were considered heavy users (using days per week: median = 7.0; interquartile range (IQR): 6.5-7.0; daily dollar value: median = $121.4; IQR: 73.8-206.3). The week-by-treatment interaction was marginally significant (χ²(2) = 5.56, P = .06). With each week, the odds of moderate compared to heavy use significantly increased in the quetiapine group (OR=1.17, P < .0001), but not significantly in the placebo group (OR=1.05, P = .16). The odds of light versus heavy use did not significantly differ over time (P = .12). Treatment was also associated with reduced cannabis withdrawal symptoms by 10.4% each week (95% CI: 8.9-11.8). No serious adverse events occurred during the study and no evidence of development of a movement disorder was detected. Adverse effects were not significantly different between the quetiapine and placebo treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of quetiapine to treat CUD was associated with an increased likelihood of heavy frequency use transitioning to moderate use, but not light use. The clinical significance of reductions in cannabis use, short of abstinence warrants further study.

Pharmacological Treatment of Mood Disorders and Comorbid Addictions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Traitement Pharmacologique des Troubles de L'humeur et des Dépendances Comorbides: Une Revue Systématique et une Méta-Analyse

OBJECTIVE

Addiction comorbidity is an important clinical challenge in mood disorders, but the best way of pharmacologically treating people with mood disorders and addictions remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for mood and addiction symptoms in people with mood disorders and addiction comorbidity.

METHODS

A systematic search of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of pharmacological treatments in people with bipolar disorder (BD) or major depressive disorder (MDD), and comorbid addictions was performed. Treatment-related effects on mood and addiction measures were assessed in a meta-analysis, which also estimated risks of participant dropout and adverse effects.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies met systematic review inclusion criteria. Pharmacological therapy was more effective than placebo for improving manic symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.15; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -0.29 to -0.02; P = 0.03) but not BD depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.09; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.03; P = 0.15). Quetiapine significantly improved manic symptoms (SMD = -0.23; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.06; P = 0.008) but not BD depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.07; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.10; P = 0.42). Pharmacological therapy was more effective than placebo for improving depressive symptoms in MDD (SMD = -0.16; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.03; P = 0.02). Imipramine improved MDD depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.58; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.13; P = 0.01) but Selective serotonin reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI)-based treatments had no effect (SMD = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.30 to 0.17; P = 0.60). Pharmacological treatment improved the odds of alcohol abstinence in MDD but had no effects on opiate abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacological treatments were significantly better than placebo in improving manic symptoms, MDD depressive symptoms, and alcohol abstinence but were not better for bipolar depression symptoms. Importantly, quetiapine was not more effective than placebo in improving bipolar depression symptoms nor were SSRI's for the treatment of MDD depression. Our findings highlight the need for further high-quality clinical trials of treatments for mood disorders and comorbid addictions.

Meta-analysis of placebo group dropout in adult antidepressant trials

BACKGROUND

Minimizing dropouts across antidepressant, placebo-controlled trials remains a major opportunity to improve the efficiency of trials. This meta-analysis investigated placebo dropout rate and its predictors in second generation antidepressant (SGA) for anxiety, depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

METHODS

A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to examine placebo group dropout rate in SGA trials for depression, anxiety and OCD using Freeman - Tukey transformation. Stratified subgroup analysis by diagnostic indication was performed to examine the dropout rate across disorders. Meta-regression was performed to identify correlates between placebo dropout rate and trial and subject characteristics.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis included 148 trials with 18,016 participants receiving placebo. Across antidepressant trials the overall placebo dropout rate was 25% (dropout rate ± standard error (SE) = 0.25 ± 0.01, 95% CI: 0.23-0.27, z = 23.95, p < .001) and was similar across disorders (χ2 = 1.09, df = 2, p = .58). The placebo group dropout rate was 26% in depressive disorders, 25% in anxiety disorders and 22% in OCD. Across all diagnostic indications, earlier publication year, placebo lead-in, studies conducted in a single country (instead of internationally), longer trial duration, fewer study sites, more study visits and less baseline illness severity were associated with higher placebo dropout rate. Significant predictors of placebo dropout did not replicate across disorders.

CONCLUSION

No significant difference was found in placebo dropout rate between internalizing disorders with overall dropout rate for placebo groups in antidepressant trials being around 25%. Placebo dropouts in trials can be minimized by reducing subject burden in trials, enrolling more severely affected subjects and foregoing placebo lead-in periods.

Depressive symptoms and cannabis use in a placebo-controlled trial of N-Acetylcysteine for adult cannabis use disorder

RATIONALE

Depression is common among individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD), particularly individuals who present to CUD treatment. Treatments that consider this comorbidity are essential.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this secondary analysis was to examine whether N-acetylcysteine (NAC) reduced depressive symptoms among adults (age 18-50) with CUD (N = 302) and whether the effect of NAC on cannabis cessation varied as a result of baseline levels of depression. Bidirectional associations between cannabis use amount and depression were also examined.

METHODS

Data for this secondary analysis were from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (NIDA CTN) multi-site clinical trial for CUD. Adults with CUD (N = 302) were randomized to receive 2400 mg of NAC daily or matched placebo for 12 weeks. All participants received abstinence-based contingency management. Cannabis quantity was measured by self-report, and weekly urinary cannabinoid levels (11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol) confirmed abstinence. Depressive symptoms were measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

RESULTS

Depressive symptoms did not differ between the NAC and placebo groups during treatment. There was no significant interaction between treatment and baseline depression predicting cannabis abstinence during treatment. Higher baseline depression was associated with decreased abstinence throughout treatment and a significant gender interaction suggested that this may be particularly true for females. Cross-lagged panel models suggested that depressive symptoms preceded increased cannabis use amounts (in grams) during the subsequent month. The reverse pathway was not significant (i.e., greater cannabis use preceding depressive symptoms).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study suggest that depression may be a risk factor for poor CUD treatment outcome and therefore should be addressed in the context of treatment. However, results do not support the use of NAC to concurrently treat co-occurring depressive symptoms and CUD in adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01675661.

Pharmacotherapies for Cannabis Use Disorders: Clinical Challenges and Promising Therapeutic Agents

This chapter reviews pharmacotherapies that have been trialled for cannabis dependence, identifying those that warrant further research and those of little or uncertain value. A diverse range of medicines have been tested, representing a broad range of pharmacological strategies. These include tetrahydrocannabinol preparations, various types of antidepressant, anxiolytics, a glutamatergic modulator and the neuropeptide oxytocin. Cannabinoid agonists warrant further research. For the FAAH inhibitor PF-04457845, oxytocin, varenicline and gabapentin, although there is a signal to indicate further research is warranted, these medications do not yet have sufficient evidence to support clinical use, and larger, longer-term trials are needed in representative treatment-seeking populations. Special populations that warrant consideration are those with cannabis dependence and concurrent mental health conditions and those that develop dependence through therapeutic use.

Psychosocial and Pharmacological Interventions for the Treatment of Cannabis Use Disorder

(Reprinted with permission from Sabioni P and Le Foll B. Psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for the treatment of cannabis use disorder [version 1; referees: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7(F1000 Faculty Rev):173 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11191.1)).

Pharmacotherapies for cannabis dependence

BACKGROUND

Globally, cannabis use is prevalent and widespread. There are currently no pharmacotherapies approved for treatment of cannabis use disorders.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in the Cochrane Library in Issue 12, 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapies as compared with each other, placebo or no pharmacotherapy (supportive care) for reducing symptoms of cannabis withdrawal and promoting cessation or reduction of cannabis use.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to March 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving the use of medications to treat cannabis withdrawal or to promote cessation or reduction of cannabis use, or both, in comparison with other medications, placebo or no medication (supportive care) in people diagnosed as cannabis dependent or who were likely to be dependent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 RCTs involving 1755 participants: 18 studies recruited adults (mean age 22 to 41 years); three studies targeted young people (mean age 20 years). Most (75%) participants were male. The studies were at low risk of performance, detection and selective outcome reporting bias. One study was at risk of selection bias, and three studies were at risk of attrition bias.All studies involved comparison of active medication and placebo. The medications were diverse, as were the outcomes reported, which limited the extent of analysis.Abstinence at end of treatment was no more likely with Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) preparations than with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.52; 305 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence). For selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine, there was no difference in the likelihood of abstinence at end of treatment compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was qualitative evidence of reduced intensity of withdrawal symptoms with THC preparations compared to placebo. For other pharmacotherapies, this outcome was either not examined, or no significant differences was reported.Adverse effects were no more likely with THC preparations (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.17; 318 participants; 3 studies) or N-acetylcysteine (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.23; 418 participants; 2 studies) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence). For SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine, there was no difference in adverse effects compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was no difference in the likelihood of withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects with THC preparations, SSRIs antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was no difference in the likelihood of treatment completion with THC preparations, SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants and buspirone compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence) or with N-acetylcysteine compared to placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21; 418 participants; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers appeared to reduce the likelihood of treatment completion (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92; 141 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence).Available evidence on gabapentin (anticonvulsant), oxytocin (neuropeptide) and atomoxetine was insufficient for estimates of effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is incomplete evidence for all of the pharmacotherapies investigated, and for many outcomes the quality of the evidence was low or very low. Findings indicate that SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, bupropion, buspirone and atomoxetine are probably of little value in the treatment of cannabis dependence. Given the limited evidence of efficacy, THC preparations should be considered still experimental, with some positive effects on withdrawal symptoms and craving. The evidence base for the anticonvulsant gabapentin, oxytocin, and N-acetylcysteine is weak, but these medications are also worth further investigation.

Systematic review of outcome domains and measures used in psychosocial and pharmacological treatment trials for cannabis use disorder

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is prevalent and demand for treatment is increasing, yet few individuals engage in formal treatment and the efficacy of established interventions for CUD is modest. Existing clinical trials evaluating psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for CUD have incorporated a wide variety of measures for assessing cannabis use outcomes, including abstinence, self-reported frequency and quantity used, withdrawal, use/dependence severity, and other psychosocial outcomes. The heterogeneity of measures and outcomes has limited quantitative analyses of the comparative effectiveness of existing interventions. The purpose of this systematic review is to: 1) identify and characterize approaches for measuring cannabis use in existing CUD intervention trials, including abstinence, frequency and quantity of use, and 2) summarize measures used to assess treatment efficacy in other outcome domains (e.g., cannabis use severity, psychosocial functioning, cannabis withdrawal), and provide a platform for future research to evaluate which outcome measures are most likely to reflect treatment efficacy and clinically significant improvement in other outcome domains.

The role of depressive symptoms in treatment of adolescent cannabis use disorder with N-Acetylcysteine

Relative to adults, adolescents are at greater risk of developing a cannabis use disorder (CUD) and risk may be exacerbated by co-occurring depressive symptoms. N-Acetylcysteine (NAC), an over-the-counter antioxidant, is thought to normalize glutamate transmission. Oxidative stress and glutamate transmission are disrupted in both depression and CUD. Thus, NAC may be particularly effective at promoting cannabis abstinence among adolescents with elevated depressive symptoms. Secondary analyses were conducted using a sub-sample of adolescents with CUD (N = 74) who participated in an 8-week randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial examining the efficacy of NAC for cannabis cessation. It was hypothesized that NAC would reduce severity of depressive symptoms, and that decreases depressive symptom severity would mediate decreases in positive weekly urine cannabinoid tests (11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol). Additionally, it was expected that adolescents with greater severity of baseline depressive symptoms would be more likely to become abstinent when assigned NAC relative to placebo. Results from linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations did not suggest that NAC reduced severity of depressive symptoms, and the hypothesis that NAC's effect on cannabis cessation would be mediated by reduced depressive symptoms was not supported. However, an interaction between treatment condition and baseline severity of depressive symptoms as a predictor of weekly urine cannabinoid tests was significant, suggesting that NAC was more effective at promoting abstinence among adolescents with heightened baseline depressive symptoms. These secondary findings, though preliminary, suggest a need for further examination of the role of depressive symptoms in treatment of adolescent CUD with NAC.

Meta-analysis: Second generation antidepressants and headache

BACKGROUND

To assess the risk of headache associated with commonly prescribed antidepressant medications and to examine the impact of medication class, pharmacodynamics and dosage on risk of headache.

METHODS

We searched PubMed to identify all randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy of second generation antidepressant medications in the treatment of adults with depression, anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorders. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis to examine the pooled risk ratio of headache reported as a side-effect in adults treated with second generation antidepressants compared to placebo. We used stratified subgroup analysis and meta-regression to examine the effects of medication type, class, dosage, indication, and receptor affinity profile on the measured risk of headache.

RESULTS

SSRIs were associated with a significantly increased risk of headache (RR = 1.06, 95%CI = 1.00-1.13, z = 2.0, p = 0.045) when compared to placebo. There was no significant difference (test for subgroup differences χ² = 2.2, df = 1, p = 0.14) in the risk of headache between SSRIs and SNRIs (RR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.88-1.06, p = 0.63). There was no significant difference in the relative risk of headache with second generation antidepressants based on diagnostic indication, pharmacological properties and dosage of medications. The only antidepressants that were found to be significantly associated with increased risk of headache compared to placebo were bupropion (RR = 1.22, 95%CI = 1.06-1.41, z = 2.73, p = 0.006) and escitalopram (RR = 1.18, 95%CI = 1.01-1.37, z = 2.11, p = 0.04).

LIMITATIONS

The small number of studies that examined side effects within fixed-dose trials may have limited the power to examine the association between medication dosing and risk of headache. Additionally, reporting bias could potentially occur non-randomly across agents and therefore effect meta-analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

Headaches reported after the initiation of second generation antidepressant medications are more likely to be coincidental than a treatment-emergent side effect of these medications.

A scoping review and meta-analysis of psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for cannabis and tobacco use among African Americans

The rates of co-occurring cannabis and tobacco use are higher among African Americans relative to other racial/ethnic groups. One plausible approach to treating co-use among African Americans is to examine the effectiveness of treatments for the sole use of cannabis and tobacco to identify effective approaches that might be combined to treat the dual use of these substances. The current meta-analysis sought to include studies that reported cannabis and/or tobacco use outcomes from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 100% African American samples. A total of 843 articles were considered for inclusion, 29 were reviewed by independent qualitative coders, and 22 were included in the review. There were no articles on cannabis use treatment with a 100% African American sample, resulting in a need to lower the threshold (60%) and conduct a scoping review of cannabis studies. Preliminary evidence from a small number of studies (k = 7) supports the use of Motivational Interviewing and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy to treat cannabis use among African Americans, but not Contingency Management. Results from a meta-analysis of 15 tobacco studies found higher rates of smoking abstinence in the treatment condition relative to control conditions overall and across short and long-term follow-up periods. Significant differences in smoking abstinence were also found when examining the effects of pharmacological treatments relative to their control conditions. The clinical and research implications of these findings for future psychosocial and pharmacological trials for cannabis and tobacco use and co-use among African Americans are described. (PsycINFO Database Record

When and How to Treat Possible Cannabis Use Disorder

Cannabis (marijuana) is a drug product derived from the plant Cannabis sativa. Cannabinoid is a general term for all chemical constituents of the cannabis plant. Legalization of marijuana in numerous US states, the availability of cannabis of higher potency, and the emergence of synthetic cannabinoids may have contributed to increased demand for related medical services. The most effective available treatments for cannabis use disorder are psychosocial approaches. There is no pharmacotherapy approved treatment. This article reviews the current state of knowledge regarding effective treatments for cannabis use disorder.

Biological correlates of self-reported new and continued abstinence in cannabis cessation treatment clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The agreement between self-reported cannabis abstinence with urine cannabinoid concentrations in a clinical trials setting is not well characterized. We assessed the agreement between various cannabinoid cutoffs and self-reported abstinence across three clinical trials, one including contingency management for abstinence.

METHODS

Three cannabis cessation clinical trials where participants reported use and provided weekly urine samples for cannabis and creatinine concentration measurements were included. Bootstrapped data were assessed for agreement between self-reported 7+ day abstinence and urine cannabinoid tests using generalized linear mixed effects models for clustered binary outcomes. One study implemented contingency management for cannabis abstinence. Four hundred and seventy-three participants with 3787 valid urine specimens were included. Urine was analyzed for 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and creatinine using immunoassay methods Biological cutoffs of 50, 100, and 200 ng/ml, as well as changes in CN normalized THCCOOH (25%/50% decrease), were assessed for agreement with self-reported abstinence during the three clinical trials.

RESULTS

Agreement between measured THCCOOH and self-reported abstinence increases with increasing cutoff concentrations, while the agreement with self-reported non-abstinence decreases with increasing cutoff concentrations. Combining THCCOOH cutoffs with recent changes in CN-THCCOOH provides a better agreement in those self-reporting abstinence. Participants in the studies that received CM for abstinence had a lower agreement between self-reported abstinence and returned to use than those in studies that did not have a contingency management component.

CONCLUSION

Using combinations of biological measurements and self-reported abstinence, confirmation of study related abstinence may be verifiable earlier and with greater accuracy than relying on a single measurement.

Cannabis and Mood Disorders

Purpose of review

The present review will provide an overview of the neurobiology, epidemiology, clinical impact, and treatment of cannabis use disorder (CUD) in mood disorders.

Recent findings

Patients with mood disorders including major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD) have higher rates of cannabis use, and CUD compared to the general population. Reasons for this association are not clear, nor are the putative therapeutic effects of cannabis use, or its components delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), in these illnesses. The evidence surrounding treatments for patients with this comorbidity is lacking, with more support for psychotherapeutic treatments compared with pharmacological treatments.

Summary

Cannabis use may be associated mood disorders, but more research is needed to increase our understanding of the mechanisms for this association, and to develop more effective treatments for this comorbidity.

Psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for the treatment of cannabis use disorder

Cannabis use has been continuously increasing, and cannabis use disorder (CUD) has become a public health issue. Some psychosocial interventions have demonstrated the ability to reduce cannabis use; however, there are no pharmacotherapies approved for the treatment of CUD. Some drugs have shown limited positive effects on use and withdrawal symptoms, but no controlled studies have been able to show strong and persistent effects on clinically meaningful outcomes. The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence from the available literature regarding the effectiveness of psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for CUD among adults (that is, 18 years old or older). An analysis of the evidence shows that the current best psychosocial intervention to reduce cannabis use is the combination of motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, preferably accompanied by a contingency management approach. In regard to pharmacological interventions, there are mostly unclear findings. Some drugs, such as CB1 agonists, gabapentin, and N-acetylcysteine, have been shown to produce improvements in some symptoms of CUD in single studies, but these have not been replicated. Other classes of medications, including antidepressants and antipsychotics, have been unsuccessful in producing such effects. There is an imminent need for more clinical trials to develop more effective treatments for CUD.

The Current State of Pharmacological Treatments for Cannabis Use Disorder and Withdrawal

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) commonly occurs and carries a notable economic and functional burden at both individual and societal levels. While there are no clearly efficacious medication treatments for CUD, 20 years of committed and high-quality research in the human laboratory and clinical settings have resulted in medications with demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of cannabis withdrawal, the ability to reduce cannabis use, and results that point to promising future work. The current state of pharmacology research for CUD highlights the need to consider particular characteristics of patients, such as gender, impulsivity, and severity of cannabis use, when selecting a medication in the off-label treatment of CUD or cannabis withdrawal. As a field, the body of work also exposes some areas in need of improvement in study design, selection of outcome measures, interpretation of results, and the overall process of evaluating candidate medications. Coming to a consensus as a field and addressing these gaps in future research will likely lend itself to further advances in improving the lives of patients with CUD.

Cannabidiol in the management of in-patient cannabis withdrawal: clinical case series

Aim: To assess the feasibility of the use of cannabidiol (CBD) for the management of cannabis withdrawal. Patients & methods: Eight participants were admitted to an in-patient detoxification facility for a 7-day open-label trial of CBD. Five participants received 600 mg of CBD and three participants received 1200 mg of CBD. Participants returned for a 28-day follow-up interview. Results & conclusion: CBD was well tolerated by all participants. Five completed the full treatment period and abstinence was maintained by four participants at day 28 follow-up. All those receiving the higher dose completed treatment and achieved abstinence at follow-up. This pilot study suggests that further exploration of CBD as a pharmacological adjunctive therapy for cannabis withdrawal and dependence is warranted. Registration ACTRN1261400024866.

Treatment of Cannabis Use Disorder: Current Science and Future Outlook

Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit substance in the United States. Rates of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder (CUD) have increased in the past decade, paralleling changes in the legal and political climate favoring legalization. Almost 20 million people 12 years or older report past-month cannabis use, and 8 million report daily or near-daily use. Concurrently, the perception that cannabis use poses a significant risk of negative consequences has decreased. Contrary to this perception, heavy cannabis use is associated with cognitive impairment, increased risk for psychotic disorders and other mental health problems, lower education attainment, and unemployment. Clinical trials of various treatments for CUD have likewise increased, focusing primarily on psychotherapy treatments, specifically motivational enhancement therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and contingency management. Their findings suggest that a combination of these three modalities produces the best abstinence outcomes, although abstinence rates remain modest and decline after treatment. More recently, pharmacotherapy trials have been conducted as adjunctive interventions to psychosocial treatment. N-acetylcysteine and gabapentin are two of the most promising medications, although no pharmacologic treatment has emerged as clearly efficacious. In this review, we provide a detailed summary of clinical trials that evaluated psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for treating CUD and discuss emerging areas of clinical research and cannabis-specific barriers to treatment.

Topiramate and motivational enhancement therapy for cannabis use among youth: a randomized placebo-controlled pilot study

Cannabis misuse accounts for nearly all of the substance abuse treatment admissions among youth in the United States. Most youth do not experience sustained benefit from existing psychosocial treatments; however, medication development research for treating adolescent cannabis misuse is almost nonexistent. We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot study to test the potential efficacy of topiramate plus motivational enhancement therapy (MET) for treating cannabis use among adolescents. Sixty-six heavy cannabis users, ages 15 to 24 years, were randomized to one of two 6-week treatment conditions: topiramate plus MET or placebo plus MET. Topiramate was titrated over 4 weeks then stabilized at 200 mg/day for 2 weeks. MET was delivered biweekly for a total of three sessions. Only 48 percent of youths randomized to topiramate completed the 6-week trial (n = 19), compared with 77 percent of youths in the placebo condition (n = 20). Adverse medication side effects were the most common reason for withdrawal among participants in the topiramate group. Latent growth models showed that topiramate was superior to placebo for reducing the number of grams smoked per use day, but it did not improve abstinence rates. The same pattern of results was found when values for missing outcomes were imputed. We show that topiramate combined with MET demonstrated efficacy for reducing how much cannabis adolescents smoked when they used but did not affect abstinence rates. The magnitude of this effect was modest, however, and topiramate was poorly tolerated by youths, which calls into question the clinical importance of these findings.

Using Bayes factors for testing hypotheses about intervention effectiveness in addictions research

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

It has been proposed that more use should be made of Bayes factors in hypothesis testing in addiction research. Bayes factors are the ratios of the likelihood of a specified hypothesis (e.g. an intervention effect within a given range) to another hypothesis (e.g. no effect). They are particularly important for differentiating lack of strong evidence for an effect and evidence for lack of an effect. This paper reviewed randomized trials reported in Addiction between January and June 2013 to assess how far Bayes factors might improve the interpretation of the data.

METHODS

Seventy-five effect sizes and their standard errors were extracted from 12 trials. Seventy-three per cent (n = 55) of these were non-significant (i.e. P > 0.05). For each non-significant finding a Bayes factor was calculated using a population effect derived from previous research. In sensitivity analyses, a further two Bayes factors were calculated assuming clinically meaningful and plausible ranges around this population effect.

RESULTS

Twenty per cent (n = 11) of the non-significant Bayes factors were < ⅓ and 3.6% (n = 2) were > 3. The other 76.4% (n = 42) of Bayes factors were between ⅓ and 3. Of these, 26 were in the direction of there being an effect (Bayes factor > 1 and < 3); 12 tended to favour the hypothesis of no effect (Bayes factor < 1 and > ⅓); and for four there was no evidence either way (Bayes factor = 1). In sensitivity analyses, 13.3% of Bayes Factors were < ⅓ (n = 20), 62.7% (n = 94) were between ⅓ and 3 and 24.0% (n = 36) were > 3, showing good concordance with the main results.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of Bayes factors when analysing data from randomized trials of interventions in addiction research can provide important information that would lead to more precise conclusions than are obtained typically using currently prevailing methods.

Evidence-based Treatment Options in Cannabis Dependency

BACKGROUND

Now that the consumption of natural and synthetic cannabinoids is becoming more widespread, the specific treatment of cannabis-related disturbances is an increasingly important matter. There are many therapeutic options, and it is not always clear which ones are evidence-based and appropriate for use in a given clinical situation.

METHODS

This review is based on reports of pertinent randomized and controlled trials (RCTs) that were retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) combined with other techniques has been found to have a moderate to large effect (Cohen's d = 0.53-0.9) on the amount of cannabis consumed as well as on the level of psychosocial functioning or the dependence syndrome. Systemic multidimensional family therapy (MDFT) has been found beneficial for younger adolescents who consume large amounts of cannabis and have psychiatric comorbidities. Short-term interventions with motivational talk therapy have been found effective for patients with or without an initial desire to achieve cannabis abstinence. All of these psychotherapeutic interventions are effective at evidence level Ia. The administration of gabapentin had a weak effect (d = 0.26) on the quantity consumed and on abstinence (evidence level Ib). Withdrawal symptoms can be alleviated with cannabinoid-receptor antagonists (d = 0.223 and 0.481) (evidence level Ib). On the other hand, there is evidence that serotonergic antidepressants can worsen withdrawal manifestations and increase the likelihood of relapse.

CONCLUSION

Psychotherapeutic techniques remain the foundation of treatment for cannabis dependence. No drug has yet been approved for the treatment of cannabis dependence because of the lack of scientific evidence. The rates of abstinence that are currently achieved, even with psychotherapy, are still only moderate. Further clinical studies are needed for the evaluation of combinations of various treatments that can meet the needs of individual patients.

Progress toward pharmacotherapies for cannabis-use disorder: an evidence-based review

Cannabis is the most widely used and variably regulated drug in the world, with increasing trends of use being reported in the US, Australia, Asia, and Africa. Evidence has shown a decrease in the age of commencement of cannabis use in some developed countries and a prolongation of risk of initiation to cannabis use beyond adolescence among more recent users. Cannabis use is associated with numerous health risks and long-term morbidity, as well as risk of developing cannabis-use disorders. Cannabis users infrequently seek professional treatment, and normally do so after a decade of use. Cannabis-use disorders are currently treated using a selection of psychosocial interventions. Severity of withdrawal is a factor that increases the risk of relapse, and is the target of pharmacotherapy studies. Currently, there is no approved pharmacotherapy for cannabis-use disorders. A number of approaches have been examined, and trials are continuing to find a safe and effective medication with little abuse liability.

Dronabinol and lofexidine for cannabis use disorder: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cannabis use disorder is associated with substantial morbidity and, after alcohol, is the most common drug bringing adolescents and adults into treatment. At present, there are no FDA-approved medications for cannabis use disorder. Combined pharmacologic interventions might be particularly useful in mitigating withdrawal symptoms and promoting abstinence.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dronabinol, a synthetic form of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, a naturally occurring pharmacologically active component of marijuana, and lofexidine, an alpha-2 agonist, in treating cannabis dependence.

METHODS

One hundred fifty six cannabis-dependent adults were enrolled and following a 1-week placebo lead-in phase 122 were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 11-week trial. Participants were randomized to receive dronabinol 20mg three times a day and lofexidine 0.6 mg three times a day or placebo. Medications were maintained until the end of week eight, were then tapered over two weeks and patients were monitored off medications during the last study week. All participants received weekly motivational enhancement and relapse prevention therapy. Marijuana use was assessed using the timeline follow-back method.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants who achieved 3 weeks of abstinence during the maintenance phase of the trial (27.9% for the medication group and 29.5% for the placebo group), although both groups showed a reduction over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this treatment study, the combined intervention did not show promise as a treatment for cannabis use disorder.

Vilazodone for cannabis dependence: A randomized, controlled pilot trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of vilazodone, a selective serotonin receptor inhibitor and partial 5-HT1A agonist, for treatment of cannabis dependence.

METHODS

Seventy-six cannabis-dependent adults were randomized to receive either up to 40 mg/day of vilazodone (n = 41) or placebo (n = 35) for 8 weeks combined with a brief motivational enhancement therapy intervention and contingency management to encourage study retention. Cannabis use outcomes were assessed via weekly urine cannabinoid tests; secondary outcomes included cannabis use self-report and cannabis craving.

RESULTS

Participants in both groups reported reduced self-reported cannabis use over the course of the study; however, vilazodone provided no advantage over placebo in reducing cannabis use. Men had significantly lower creatinine-adjusted cannabinoid levels and a trend for increased negative urine cannabinoid tests than women.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Vilazodone was not more efficacious than placebo in reducing cannabis use. Important gender differences were noted, with women having worse cannabis use outcomes than men.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Further medication development efforts for cannabis use disorders are needed, and gender should be considered as an important variable in future trials.

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders

OBJECTIVES

To provide guidance for the management of mood disorders, based on scientific evidence supplemented by expert clinical consensus and formulate recommendations to maximise clinical salience and utility.

METHODS

Articles and information sourced from search engines including PubMed and EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were supplemented by literature known to the mood disorders committee (MDC) (e.g., books, book chapters and government reports) and from published depression and bipolar disorder guidelines. Information was reviewed and discussed by members of the MDC and findings were then formulated into consensus-based recommendations and clinical guidance. The guidelines were subjected to rigorous successive consultation and external review involving: expert and clinical advisors, the public, key stakeholders, professional bodies and specialist groups with interest in mood disorders.

RESULTS

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders (Mood Disorders CPG) provide up-to-date guidance and advice regarding the management of mood disorders that is informed by evidence and clinical experience. The Mood Disorders CPG is intended for clinical use by psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians and others with an interest in mental health care.

CONCLUSIONS

The Mood Disorder CPG is the first Clinical Practice Guideline to address both depressive and bipolar disorders. It provides up-to-date recommendations and guidance within an evidence-based framework, supplemented by expert clinical consensus.

MOOD DISORDERS COMMITTEE

Professor Gin Malhi (Chair), Professor Darryl Bassett, Professor Philip Boyce, Professor Richard Bryant, Professor Paul Fitzgerald, Dr Kristina Fritz, Professor Malcolm Hopwood, Dr Bill Lyndon, Professor Roger Mulder, Professor Greg Murray, Professor Richard Porter and Associate Professor Ajeet Singh.

INTERNATIONAL EXPERT ADVISORS

Professor Carlo Altamura, Dr Francesco Colom, Professor Mark George, Professor Guy Goodwin, Professor Roger McIntyre, Dr Roger Ng, Professor John O'Brien, Professor Harold Sackeim, Professor Jan Scott, Dr Nobuhiro Sugiyama, Professor Eduard Vieta, Professor Lakshmi Yatham.

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND EXPERT ADVISORS

Professor Marie-Paule Austin, Professor Michael Berk, Dr Yulisha Byrow, Professor Helen Christensen, Dr Nick De Felice, A/Professor Seetal Dodd, A/Professor Megan Galbally, Dr Josh Geffen, Professor Philip Hazell, A/Professor David Horgan, A/Professor Felice Jacka, Professor Gordon Johnson, Professor Anthony Jorm, Dr Jon-Paul Khoo, Professor Jayashri Kulkarni, Dr Cameron Lacey, Dr Noeline Latt, Professor Florence Levy, A/Professor Andrew Lewis, Professor Colleen Loo, Dr Thomas Mayze, Dr Linton Meagher, Professor Philip Mitchell, Professor Daniel O'Connor, Dr Nick O'Connor, Dr Tim Outhred, Dr Mark Rowe, Dr Narelle Shadbolt, Dr Martien Snellen, Professor John Tiller, Dr Bill Watkins, Dr Raymond Wu.

Lithium carbonate in the management of cannabis withdrawal: a randomized placebo-controlled trial in an inpatient setting

RATIONALE

Preclinical studies suggest that lithium carbonate (lithium) can reduce precipitated cannabinoid withdrawal in rats by stimulating release of the neuropeptide oxytocin, while two open-label studies indicate lithium may ameliorate cannabis withdrawal symptoms in humans.

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of lithium in the inpatient management of cannabis withdrawal and to determine whether lithium affects plasma oxytocin and the rate of elimination of plasma cannabinoids during abstinence.

METHODS

Treatment-seeking cannabis-dependent adults (n = 38) were admitted for 8 days to an inpatient withdrawal unit and randomized to either oral lithium (500 mg) or placebo given twice a day under double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) conditions. Primary outcomes included withdrawal severity [cannabis withdrawal scale (CWS)], rates of detoxification completion, and adverse events. Plasma cannabinoids, plasma oxytocin and serum lithium levels were measured repeatedly over admission. Follow-up research interviews were conducted at 14, 30, and 90 days postdischarge.

RESULTS

Lithium did not significantly affect total CWS scores relative to placebo, although it significantly reduced individual symptoms of "loss of appetite," "stomach aches," and "nightmares/strange dreams." No significant group differences were found in treatment retention or adverse events. Lithium did not increase plasma oxytocin levels nor influence the rate of elimination of cannabinoids. Both placebo- and lithium-treated participants showed reduced levels of cannabis use (verified by urinalysis) and improved health and psychosocial outcomes at 30- and 90-day follow-up relative to pretreatment baselines.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the strong rationale for the present study, the efficacy of lithium over placebo in the management of cannabis withdrawal was not demonstrated.

Preventive effect of central administration of venlafaxine on morphine physical dependence, nociception, and blood cortisol level in rat

BACKGROUND

Chronic abuse of opiates induces dependency, but the neurobiological mechanisms of this event remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of intracerebroventricular of venlafaxine on the morphine dependence and pain perception.

METHODS

A total of 80 adult male rats were divided into two major groups: (1) 40 of them was divided into groups of positive control (morphine dependent) negative control (received saline) and morphine dependent groups under treatment by central administration of venlafaxine at various dosages (25, 50, or 100 μg), after drug treatment total withdrawal index (TWI), latency time of withdrawal syndrome expression and blood cortisol as marker of anxiety were measured and compared with positive control and negative control. (2) Forty rats were grouped in control; indometacin treated (5 mg/kg) and grouped which received central administration of venlafaxine at three doses (25, 50, or 100 μg) and then pain perception and expression was assessed in the writhing test (acetic acid induced abdominal constriction), tail flick, and hot plate test.

RESULTS

Central administration of three doses (25, 50, or 100 μg,) of venlafaxine attenuates TWI to 47 ± 1.2, 38 ± 1.5, and 23 ± 1.1 and decrease blood cortisol level to 14 ± 1, 13.75 ± 0.5, and 12.5 ± 0.8, this decreases was significant in comparison with the positive control group (P < 0.05). Central administration of venlafaxine at mentioned doses significantly attenuates pain response with 37%, 24%, and 20% inhibition in writhing test, 69%, 34%, and 23% inhibition in hot plate test, and 29%, 23%, and 15% inhibition in tail flick test in comparison with control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested that central administration of venlafaxine attenuated morphine withdrawal index and can be effective in modulation of pain that was induced by morphine dependency.

Do withdrawal-like symptoms mediate increased marijuana smoking in individuals treated with venlafaxine-XR?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cannabis-dependent participants with depressive disorder are less likely to achieve abstinence with venlafaxine-XR (VEN-XR) treatment. Individuals on VEN-XR reported more severe withdrawal, despite not reducing their smoking behavior. We hypothesized that withdrawal-like symptoms, likely medication side effects, led to continued marijuana smoking in this group.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis using Marijuana Withdrawal Checklist (MWC) scores and urine THC to test whether severity of withdrawal-like symptoms mediates the relationship between VEN-XR treatment and continued marijuana smoking. We included 103 participants (VEN-XR=51, Placebo=52). Marijuana use was dichotomized into smoking (THC>100 ng/ml) and non-smoking (THC ≤ 100 ng/ml) weeks. MWC scores were obtained weekly. We used three models in a regression based mediation analysis.

RESULTS

The estimated risk of smoking marijuana was greater for individuals on VEN-XR in weeks 7-9, even when controlling for MWC scores (week 7 Risk Difference (RD)=0.11, p=0.034; week 8 RD=0.20, p=0.014), and higher scores mediated this effect. In weeks 10 and 11, the estimated effect was stronger (week 10 RD=0.03, p=0.380; week 11 RD=0.07, p=0.504), and worse withdrawal-like symptoms more fully accounted for continued marijuana smoking in the VEN-XR group, according to the models.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals treated with VEN-XR had more severe withdrawal-like symptoms, which mediated their continued marijuana smoking. Noradrenergic agents, such as VEN-XR, may negatively impact treatment outcomes in cannabis-dependent patients attempting to reduce or stop their use.

Verbal learning in marijuana users seeking treatment: a comparison between depressed and non-depressed samples

BACKGROUND

Both individuals with marijuana use and depressive disorders exhibit verbal learning and memory decrements.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the interaction between marijuana dependence and depression on learning and memory performance.

METHODS

The California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II) was administered to depressed (n = 71) and non-depressed (n = 131) near-daily marijuana users. The severity of depressive symptoms was measured by the self-rated Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and the clinician-rated Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). Multivariate analyses of covariance statistics (MANCOVA) were employed to analyze group differences in cognitive performance. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relative associations between marijuana use, depression and CVLT-II performance. Findings from each group were compared to published normative data.

RESULTS

Although both groups exhibited decreased CVLT-II performance relative to the test's normative sample (p < 0.05), marijuana-dependent subjects with a depressive disorder did not perform differently than marijuana-dependent subjects without a depressive disorder (p > 0.05). Further, poorer CVLT-II performance was modestly associated with increased self-reported daily amount of marijuana use (corrected p < 0.002), but was not significantly associated with increased scores on measures of depressive symptoms (corrected p > 0.002).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest an inverse association between marijuana use and verbal learning function, but not between depression and verbal learning function in regular marijuana users.

Social support network characteristics of incarcerated women with co-occurring major depressive and substance use disorders

The nature of social support available to incarcerated women is not well-understood, particularly among women at high risk of negative outcomes, including women dually diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and a Substance Use Disorder (MDD-SUD). Descriptive statistics and paired-tests were conducted on 60 incarcerated MDD-SUD women receiving in-prison substance use and depression treatments to characterize the women's social networks, including the strength of support, network characteristics, and types of support provided as well as to determine what aspects of social support may be amenable to change during incarceration and post-release. Study results showed that, on average, women perceived they had moderately supportive individuals in their lives, although more than a quarter of the sample could not identify any regular supporters in their network at baseline. During incarceration, women's social networks significantly increased in general supportiveness, and decreased in network size and percentage of substance users in their networks. Participants maintained positive social support gains post-release in most areas while also significantly increasing the size of their support network post-release. Findings suggest that there are aspects of incarcerated MDD-SUD women's social networks that are amenable to change during incarceration and post-release and provide insight into treatment targets for this vulnerable population.

Novel Pharmacologic Approaches to Treating Cannabis Use Disorder

With large and increasing numbers of people using cannabis, the development of cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a growing public health concern. Despite the success of evidence-based psychosocial therapies, low rates of initial abstinence and high rates of relapse during and following treatment for CUD suggest a need for adjunct pharmacotherapies. Here we review the literature on medication development for the treatment of CUD, with a particular focus on studies published within the last three years (2010-2013). Studies in both the human laboratory and in the clinic have tested medications with a wide variety of mechanisms. In the laboratory, the following medication strategies have been shown to decrease cannabis withdrawal and self-administration following a period of abstinence (a model of relapse): the cannabinoid receptor agonist, nabilone, and the adrenergic agonist, lofexidine, alone and in combination with dronabinol (synthetic THC), supporting clinical testing of these medication strategies. Antidepressant, anxiolytic and antipsychotic drugs targeting monoamines (norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin) have generally failed to decrease withdrawal symptoms or laboratory measures of relapse. In terms of clinical trials, dronabinol and multiple antidepressants (fluoxetine, venlafaxine and buspirone) have failed to decrease cannabis use. Preliminary results from controlled clinical trials with gabapentin and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) support further research on these medication strategies. Data from open label and laboratory studies suggest lithium and oxytocin also warrant further testing. Overall, it is likely that different medications will be needed to target distinct aspects of problematic cannabis use: craving, ongoing use, withdrawal and relapse. Continued research is needed in preclinical, laboratory and clinical settings.