Bupropion reduces some of the symptoms of marihuana withdrawal in chronic marihuana users: a pilot study

Unravelling the landscape of Cannabis craving pharmacological treatments: a PRISMA-guided review of evidence

Currently, few treatments are available for craving in general, and none of them have received approval for cannabis craving. The objective of this review is to evaluate existing studies analysing treatments for cannabis craving and explore novel treatment possibilities for these patients. The study followed PRISMA guidelines and conducted an extensive database search. Inclusion criteria included human randomised controlled trials examining drug effects on craving symptoms. Exclusion criteria involved studies unrelated to craving, non-pharmacological treatments, duplicates, and non-English/Spanish/Portuguese articles. Our included 22 studies that investigated a wide range of compounds used for cravings related to other drugs, as well as interventions based on healthcare professionals' empirical knowledge. The current pharmacological treatments largely involve off-label drug use and the utilisation of cannabinoid-based medications, such as combinations of THC and lofexidine, oxytocin, progesterone, and N-acetylcysteine. These emerging treatments show promise and have the potential to revolutionise current clinical practices, but further investigation is needed to establish their efficacy. In this context, it is essential to consider non-pharmacological interventions, such as psychotherapy and behavioural treatments. These approaches play a crucial role in complementing pharmacological interventions and addressing the complex nature of the disorder.

Clinical management of cannabis withdrawal

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cannabis withdrawal is a well-characterized phenomenon that occurs in approximately half of regular and dependent cannabis users after abrupt cessation or significant reductions in cannabis products that contain Δ⁹ -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This review describes the diagnosis, prevalence, course and management of cannabis withdrawal and highlights opportunities for future clinical research.

METHODS

Narrative review of literature.

RESULTS

Symptom onset typically occurs 24-48 hours after cessation and most symptoms generally peak at days 2-6, with some symptoms lasting up to 3 weeks or more in heavy cannabis users. The most common features of cannabis withdrawal are anxiety, irritability, anger or aggression, disturbed sleep/dreaming, depressed mood and loss of appetite. Less common physical symptoms include chills, headaches, physical tension, sweating and stomach pain. Despite limited empirical evidence, supportive counselling and psychoeducation are the first-line approaches in the management of cannabis withdrawal. There are no medications currently approved specifically for medically assisted withdrawal (MAW). Medications have been used to manage short-term symptoms (e.g. anxiety, sleep, nausea). A number of promising pharmacological agents have been examined in controlled trials, but these have been underpowered and positive findings not reliably replicated. Some (e.g. cannabis agonists) are used 'off-label' in clinical practice. Inpatient admission for MAW may be clinically indicated for patients who have significant comorbid mental health disorders and polysubstance use to avoid severe complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical significance of cannabis withdrawal is that its symptoms may precipitate relapse to cannabis use. Complicated withdrawal may occur in people with concurrent mental health and polysubstance use.

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 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 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.

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.

Pharmacotherapies for cannabis dependence

BACKGROUND

Cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug in the world. Demand for treatment of cannabis use disorders is increasing. There are currently no pharmacotherapies approved for treatment of cannabis use disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapies as compared with each other, placebo or supportive care for reducing symptoms of cannabis withdrawal and promoting cessation or reduction of cannabis use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to 4 March 2014), MEDLINE (to week 3 February 2014), EMBASE (to 3 March 2014) and PsycINFO (to week 4 February 2014). We also searched reference lists of articles, electronic sources of ongoing trials and conference proceedings, and contacted selected researchers active in the area.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving the use of medications to reduce the symptoms and signs of 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 participants diagnosed as cannabis dependent or who were likely to be dependent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. All review authors confirmed the inclusion decisions and the overall process.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 randomised controlled trials involving 958 participants. For 10 studies the average age was 33 years; two studies targeted young people; and age data were not available for two studies. Approximately 80% of study participants were male. The studies were at low risk of selection, performance, detection and selective outcome reporting bias. Three studies were at risk of attrition bias.All studies involved comparison of active medication and placebo. The medications included preparations containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (two studies), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants (two studies), mixed action antidepressants (three studies), anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers (three studies), an atypical antidepressant (two studies), an anxiolytic (one study), a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (one study) and a glutamatergic modulator (one study). One study examined more than one medication. Diversity in the medications and the outcomes reported limited the extent that analysis was possible. Insufficient data were available to assess the utility of most of the medications to promote cannabis abstinence at the end of treatment.There was moderate quality evidence that completion of treatment was more likely with preparations containing THC compared to placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55; 2 studies, 207 participants, P = 0.006). There was some evidence that treatment with preparations containing THC was associated with reduced cannabis withdrawal symptoms and craving, but this latter outcome could not be quantified. For mixed action antidepressants compared with placebo (2 studies, 179 participants) there was very low quality evidence on the likelihood of abstinence from cannabis at the end of follow-up (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.41), and moderate quality evidence on the likelihood of treatment completion (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21). For this same outcome there was very low quality evidence for the effects of SSRI antidepressants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.53; 2 studies, 122 participants), anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.46; 2 studies, 75 participants), and the atypical antidepressant, bupropion (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.67; 2 studies, 92 participants). Available evidence on gabapentin (anticonvulsant) and N-acetylcysteine (glutamatergic modulator) was insufficient for quantitative estimates of their effectiveness, but these medications may be worth further investigation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is incomplete evidence for all of the pharmacotherapies investigated, and for many of the outcomes the quality was downgraded due to small sample sizes, inconsistency and risk of attrition bias. The quantitative analyses that were possible, combined with general findings of the studies reviewed, indicate that SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, atypical antidepressants (bupropion), anxiolytics (buspirone) and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (atomoxetine) are probably of little value in the treatment of cannabis dependence. Preparations containing THC are of potential value but, given the limited evidence, this application of THC preparations should be considered still experimental. Further studies should compare different preparations of THC, dose and duration of treatment, adjunct medications and therapies. The evidence base for the anticonvulsant gabapentin and the glutamatergic modulator N-acetylcysteine is weak, but these medications are also worth further investigation.