We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Previous studies identified clusters of first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients based on cognition and premorbid adjustment. This study examined a range of socio-environmental risk factors associated with clusters of FEP, aiming a) to compare clusters of FEP and community controls using the Maudsley Environmental Risk Score for psychosis (ERS), a weighted sum of the following risks: paternal age, childhood adversities, cannabis use, and ethnic minority membership; b) to explore the putative differences in specific environmental risk factors in distinguishing within patient clusters and from controls.
Methods
A univariable general linear model (GLS) compared the ERS between 1,263 community controls and clusters derived from 802 FEP patients, namely, low (n = 223) and high-cognitive-functioning (n = 205), intermediate (n = 224) and deteriorating (n = 150), from the EU-GEI study. A multivariable GLS compared clusters and controls by different exposures included in the ERS.
Results
The ERS was higher in all clusters compared to controls, mostly in the deteriorating (β=2.8, 95% CI 2.3 3.4, η2 = 0.049) and the low-cognitive-functioning cluster (β=2.4, 95% CI 1.9 2.8, η2 = 0.049) and distinguished them from the cluster with high-cognitive-functioning. The deteriorating cluster had higher cannabis exposure (meandifference = 0.48, 95% CI 0.49 0.91) than the intermediate having identical IQ, and more people from an ethnic minority (meandifference = 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 1.29) compared to the high-cognitive-functioning cluster.
Conclusions
High exposure to environmental risk factors might result in cognitive impairment and lower-than-expected functioning in individuals at the onset of psychosis. Some patients’ trajectories involved risk factors that could be modified by tailored interventions.
Despite its recent history as a controlled substance, hemp holds promise in contributing to more resilient and sustainable agricultural systems in the United States. Due to reclassification in the 2018 Farm Bill, hemp grown for fiber, grain, and cannabidiol has become an intriguing new crop for many farmers. However, the introduction of hemp into an established agricultural landscape has been met with challenges. This qualitative study explores the experiences of 15 first-year hemp producers in Nebraska, United States. The producers in this study describe the complexities they encountered, including navigating stringent state and federal regulations, securing insurance and loans, and overcoming the public and political stigma associated with cannabis. Additionally, gaps in research and development have contributed to producers' difficulties in accessing credible information, high production costs, and labor shortages. Lastly, farmers expressed having a lack of control options to combat the presence of weeds and insects. Based on these findings, we conclude that, although challenges are to be expected with any new crop, many of the issues encountered by the farmers in the study could be overcome or lessened by research, agricultural extension, and government support. We recommend continued research in hemp production, both in crop production and processing, along with dissemination of meaningful results, to aid producers in building their knowledge base. Additionally, government agencies that oversee hemp production could improve accessibility through revisions to regulations and financial resources for producers.
Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit substance in Ireland and globally. It is most likely to be used in adolescence, a period of biopsychosocial vulnerability to maladaptive behaviours. This study aims to investigate the risk and protective factors for cannabis use among adolescents.
Methods:
This study is a secondary analysis of the cross-sectional Planet Youth survey (2021). The sample comprised 4,404 adolescents aged 15–16 from one urban and two rural areas in Ireland. The outcome of interest was current cannabis use, defined as cannabis use within the last 30 days. Independent variables i.e., risk and protective factors, were selected a priori following a literature review. Associations between cannabis use and the independent variables were explored using mixed-effects logistic regressions.
Results:
The prevalence of current cannabis use was 7.3% and did not differ significantly between males and females. In fully-adjusted models, significant risk factors for cannabis use were: Having peers that used cannabis (Adjusted Odds Ration (aOR) 10.17, 95% CI: 5.96–17.35); Parental ambivalence towards cannabis use (aOR 3.69, 95% CI: 2.41–5.66); Perception of cannabis as non-harmful (aOR 2.32,95% CI 1.56–£.45): Other substance use (aORs ranging from 2-67–3.15); Peer pressure to use cannabis (aOR 1.85,95% CI 1.05–3.26), and Low parental supervision (aOR 1.11, 95% CI: 1.01–1.22).
Conclusions:
This study identified key individual, peer-to-peer and parental risk factors associated with adolescent cannabis use, several of which have the potential to be modified through drug prevention strategies.
Markers of inflammation and cannabis exposure are associated with an increased risk of mental disorders. In the current study, we investigated associations between cannabis use and biomarkers of inflammation.
Methods
Utilizing a sample of 914 participants from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, we investigated whether interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα), C-reactive protein (CRP), and soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) measured at age 24 were associated with past year daily cannabis use, less frequent cannabis use, and no past year cannabis use. We adjusted for a number of covariates including sociodemographic measures, body mass index, childhood trauma, and tobacco smoking. We found evidence of a strong association between daily or near daily cannabis use and suPAR.
Results
We did not find any associations between less frequent cannabis use and suPAR. We did not find evidence of an association between IL-6, TNFα or CRP, and cannabis use.
Conclusions
Our finding that frequent cannabis use is strongly associated with suPAR, a biomarker of systemic chronic inflammation implicated in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative processes is novel. These findings may provide valuable insights into biological mechanisms by which cannabis affects the brain and impacts the risk of serious mental disorders.
The association between cannabis and psychosis is established, but the role of underlying genetics is unclear. We used data from the EU-GEI case-control study and UK Biobank to examine the independent and combined effect of heavy cannabis use and schizophrenia polygenic risk score (PRS) on risk for psychosis.
Methods
Genome-wide association study summary statistics from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium and the Genomic Psychiatry Cohort were used to calculate schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder (CUD) PRS for 1098 participants from the EU-GEI study and 143600 from the UK Biobank. Both datasets had information on cannabis use.
Results
In both samples, schizophrenia PRS and cannabis use independently increased risk of psychosis. Schizophrenia PRS was not associated with patterns of cannabis use in the EU-GEI cases or controls or UK Biobank cases. It was associated with lifetime and daily cannabis use among UK Biobank participants without psychosis, but the effect was substantially reduced when CUD PRS was included in the model. In the EU-GEI sample, regular users of high-potency cannabis had the highest odds of being a case independently of schizophrenia PRS (OR daily use high-potency cannabis adjusted for PRS = 5.09, 95% CI 3.08–8.43, p = 3.21 × 10−10). We found no evidence of interaction between schizophrenia PRS and patterns of cannabis use.
Conclusions
Regular use of high-potency cannabis remains a strong predictor of psychotic disorder independently of schizophrenia PRS, which does not seem to be associated with heavy cannabis use. These are important findings at a time of increasing use and potency of cannabis worldwide.
Observational studies consistently report associations between tobacco use, cannabis use and mental illness. However, the extent to which this association reflects an increased risk of new-onset mental illness is unclear and may be biased by unmeasured confounding.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42021243903). Electronic databases were searched until November 2022. Longitudinal studies in general population samples assessing tobacco and/or cannabis use and reporting the association (e.g. risk ratio [RR]) with incident anxiety, mood, or psychotic disorders were included. Estimates were combined using random-effects meta-analyses. Bias was explored using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, confounder matrix, E-values, and Doi plots.
Results
Seventy-five studies were included. Tobacco use was associated with mood disorders (K = 43; RR: 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30–1.47), but not anxiety disorders (K = 7; RR: 1.21, 95% CI 0.87–1.68) and evidence for psychotic disorders was influenced by treatment of outliers (K = 4, RR: 3.45, 95% CI 2.63–4.53; K = 5, RR: 2.06, 95% CI 0.98–4.29). Cannabis use was associated with psychotic disorders (K = 4; RR: 3.19, 95% CI 2.07–4.90), but not mood (K = 7; RR: 1.31, 95% CI 0.92–1.86) or anxiety disorders (K = 7; RR: 1.10, 95% CI 0.99–1.22). Confounder matrices and E-values suggested potential overestimation of effects. Only 27% of studies were rated as high quality.
Conclusions
Both substances were associated with psychotic disorders and tobacco use was associated with mood disorders. There was no clear evidence of an association between cannabis use and mood or anxiety disorders. Limited high-quality studies underscore the need for future research using robust causal inference approaches (e.g. evidence triangulation).
The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of older medicinal cannabis consumers and those advising them on older Canadians’ experiences accessing cannabis and information about it, as well as how stigma may influence their experiences. A concurrent triangulation mixed methods design was used. The design was qualitatively driven and involved conducting semi-structured interviews with older adults and advisors and developing a survey for older adults. We used a Qualitative Descriptive approach for the analysis of qualitative data and descriptive statistics for quantitative survey data. Findings demonstrate that many older adults are accessing information about cannabis for medical purposes from retailers, either because they are reticent to talk to their healthcare professionals or were rebuffed when bringing up the subject. We recommend cannabis education be required for healthcare professionals working with older persons and that future research examines their perspectives on medicinal cannabis and older adults.
Cannabis regulatory reform has opened areas for product innovation and entrepreneurship. One dimension that has so far been understudied is the potential for cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) beverages. This study uses double-bounded contingent valuation techniques and parametric and nonparametric estimation procedures to assess consumer demand and willingness to pay (WTP) for various cannabis-infused beverages. By targeting a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults, the study finds that roughly half of consumers are willing to try cannabis-infused beverages. Among these respondents, cannabis-infused juices and sweetened iced tea elicit the highest mean WTP, though the WTP for other beverage options varies across demographics and consumer preferences. On average, the mean WTP for THC-infused beverages is 12.5% higher per 12 oz can than its CBD-infused counterpart, and younger consumers are willing to pay more for each of these products. These results have important implications for entrepreneurial decision-making, product development, and marketing strategies.
Cannabis use and familial vulnerability to psychosis have been associated with social cognition deficits. This study examined the potential relationship between cannabis use and cognitive biases underlying social cognition and functioning in patients with first episode psychosis (FEP), their siblings, and controls.
Methods
We analyzed a sample of 543 participants with FEP, 203 siblings, and 1168 controls from the EU-GEI study using a correlational design. We used logistic regression analyses to examine the influence of clinical group, lifetime cannabis use frequency, and potency of cannabis use on cognitive biases, accounting for demographic and cognitive variables.
Results
FEP patients showed increased odds of facial recognition processing (FRP) deficits (OR = 1.642, CI 1.123–2.402) relative to controls but not of speech illusions (SI) or jumping to conclusions (JTC) bias, with no statistically significant differences relative to siblings. Daily and occasional lifetime cannabis use were associated with decreased odds of SI (OR = 0.605, CI 0.368–0.997 and OR = 0.646, CI 0.457–0.913 respectively) and JTC bias (OR = 0.625, CI 0.422–0.925 and OR = 0.602, CI 0.460–0.787 respectively) compared with lifetime abstinence, but not with FRP deficits, in the whole sample. Within the cannabis user group, low-potency cannabis use was associated with increased odds of SI (OR = 1.829, CI 1.297–2.578, FRP deficits (OR = 1.393, CI 1.031–1.882, and JTC (OR = 1.661, CI 1.271–2.171) relative to high-potency cannabis use, with comparable effects in the three clinical groups.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest increased odds of cognitive biases in FEP patients who have never used cannabis and in low-potency users. Future studies should elucidate this association and its potential implications.
According to the ICD-11 (World Health Organization, 2019), substance use disorders include disorders that result from a single occasion or repeated use of substances (both legal and illegal) that have psychoactive properties; all drugs that are taken in excess have in common direct activation of the brain reward system, which is involved in the reinforcement of behaviours and the production of memories. They produce such an intense activation of the reward system that normal activities may be neglected. Instead of achieving reward system activation through adaptive behaviours, drugs of abuse directly activate the reward pathways. The pharmacological mechanisms by which each class of drugs produces reward are different, but the drugs typically activate the system and produce feelings of pleasure, often referred to as a ‘high’ (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This chapter will cover all substance use in people with intellectual disability, whether it is a problem, and alternative treatments.
Epidemiologic research suggests that youth cannabis use is associated with psychotic disorders. However, current evidence is based heavily on 20th-century data when cannabis was substantially less potent than today.
Methods
We linked population-based survey data from 2009 to 2012 with records of health services covered under universal healthcare in Ontario, Canada, up to 2018. The cohort included respondents aged 12–24 years at baseline with no prior psychotic disorder (N = 11 363). The primary outcome was days to first hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient visit related to a psychotic disorder according to validated diagnostic codes. Due to non-proportional hazards, we estimated age-specific hazard ratios during adolescence (12–19 years) and young adulthood (20–33 years). Sensitivity analyses explored alternative model conditions including restricting the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits to increase specificity.
Results
Compared to no cannabis use, cannabis use was significantly associated with psychotic disorders during adolescence (aHR = 11.2; 95% CI 4.6–27.3), but not during young adulthood (aHR = 1.3; 95% CI 0.6–2.6). When we restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits only, the strength of association increased markedly during adolescence (aHR = 26.7; 95% CI 7.7–92.8) but did not change meaningfully during young adulthood (aHR = 1.8; 95% CI 0.6–5.4).
Conclusions
This study provides new evidence of a strong but age-dependent association between cannabis use and risk of psychotic disorder, consistent with the neurodevelopmental theory that adolescence is a vulnerable time to use cannabis. The strength of association during adolescence was notably greater than in previous studies, possibly reflecting the recent rise in cannabis potency.
Substance use among lawyers is a common way to self-medicate stress, anxiety, and depression and to fuel overwork. To facilitate an understanding of how substances of abuse work in the brain, it is helpful to grasp the basics of neurotransmission. Information travels through the brain via chains of neurons. This information is an electrical impulse while in the brain cell, but to travel across the gap between neurons, the information uses chemicals called neurotransmitters. The site of action for self-medicating substances is at that gap, which is called a synapse. Different substances cause various changes in the brain by influencing the synapses of those lawyers who use them. These drugs are divided by substances that stimulate and can fuel overwork (caffeine, nicotine, amphetamine, cocaine) and sedatives that can calm stress and anxiety (alcohol, cannabis, opioids). Some lawyers use prescribed antidepressant medications. All of them impact the brain at the gap between brain cells, the synapse, where communication involves neurotransmitters and their receptors.
We examined whether cannabis use contributes to the increased risk of psychotic disorder for non-western minorities in Europe.
Methods
We used data from the EU-GEI study (collected at sites in Spain, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands) on 825 first-episode patients and 1026 controls. We estimated the odds ratio (OR) of psychotic disorder for several groups of migrants compared with the local reference population, without and with adjustment for measures of cannabis use.
Results
The OR of psychotic disorder for non-western minorities, adjusted for age, sex, and recruitment area, was 1.80 (95% CI 1.39–2.33). Further adjustment of this OR for frequency of cannabis use had a minimal effect: OR = 1.81 (95% CI 1.38–2.37). The same applied to adjustment for frequency of use of high-potency cannabis. Likewise, adjustments of ORs for most sub-groups of non-western countries had a minimal effect. There were two exceptions. For the Black Caribbean group in London, after adjustment for frequency of use of high-potency cannabis the OR decreased from 2.45 (95% CI 1.25–4.79) to 1.61 (95% CI 0.74–3.51). Similarly, the OR for Surinamese and Dutch Antillean individuals in Amsterdam decreased after adjustment for daily use: from 2.57 (95% CI 1.07–6.15) to 1.67 (95% CI 0.62–4.53).
Conclusions
The contribution of cannabis use to the excess risk of psychotic disorder for non-western minorities was small. However, some evidence of an effect was found for people of Black Caribbean heritage in London and for those of Surinamese and Dutch Antillean heritage in Amsterdam.
Evidence suggests that cannabis may be a causal factor for development of schizophrenia. We aimed to investigate whether use of antipsychotic medication, benzodiazepines, and psychiatric service use differs among patients with schizophrenia depending on whether psychosis was precipitated by a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder (CUD).
Methods
We utilized the nationwide Danish registries to identify all individuals with an incident diagnosis of schizophrenia from 1995 to 2016. We also collected information on whether first CUD diagnosis preceded schizophrenia and thus defined a group of potentially cannabis-related schizophrenia. We compared the cannabis-related schizophrenia group both with all non-cannabis-related patients with schizophrenia and with non-cannabis-related patients with schizophrenia that were propensity-score matched to cases using a range of potentially confounding variables.
Results
We included 35 714 people with incident schizophrenia, including 4116 (11.5%) that were cannabis-related. In the unmatched-comparison analyses, there were no clear differences over time in use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines related to whether the diagnosis of schizophrenia was cannabis-related. After propensity-score matching, use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines was significantly lower among cannabis-related cases of schizophrenia. In the unmatched comparison, the cannabis-related group had significantly more days admitted than the non-cannabis-related group. This was markedly attenuated after propensity-score matching.
Conclusions
Our findings indicate the importance of considering cannabis-related cases of schizophrenia as a potentially distinct disorder in terms of prognosis. It is unclear, however, if these differences are due to different biological types of schizophrenia being compared or if they rather indicate behavioral differences such as reduced adherence and treatment-seeking.
Drug-impaired driving is a growing problem in the U.S. States regulate drug-impaired driving in different ways. Some do not name specific drugs or amounts. Others do identify specific drugs and may regulate cannabis separately. We provide up-to-date information about these state laws.
In patients with a psychotic disorder, rates of substance use (tobacco, cannabis, and alcohol) are higher compared to the general population. However, little is known about associations between substance use and self-reported aspects of social functioning in patients with a psychotic disorder.
Methods
In this cross-sectional study of 281 community-dwelling patients with a psychotic disorder, linear regression models were used to assess associations between substance use (tobacco, cannabis, or alcohol) and self-reported aspects of social functioning (perceived social support, stigmatization, social participation, or loneliness) adjusting for confounders (age, gender, and severity of psychopathology).
Results
Compared to nonsmokers, both intermediate and heavy smokers reported lower scores on loneliness (E = −0.580, SE = 0.258, p = 0.025 and E = −0.547, SE = 0,272, p = 0.046, respectively). Daily cannabis users reported less social participation deficits than non-cannabis users (E = −0.348, SE = 0.145, p = 0.017). Problematic alcohol use was associated with more perceived social support compared to non-alcohol use (E = 3.152, SE = 1.102, p = 0.005). Polysubstance users reported less loneliness compared to no users (E = −0.569, SE = 0.287, p = 0.049).
Conclusions
Substance use in patients with psychosis is associated with more favorable scores on various self-reported aspects of social functioning.
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep disorder with no widely accepted pharmacological therapy. Cannabinoids have been suggested to reduce OSA severity in small human studies. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to explore the association of self-reported cannabis use on OSA severity and sleep parameters in a large cohort of adults undergoing in-laboratory polysomnography.
Methods:
Sleep and medication data were collected for all consecutive adults who completed diagnostic polysomnography at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre from 2010 to 2022. Multivariable linear regression models were employed that adjusted for age, sex, and BMI (minimally adjusted model), as well as medication and comorbidity data (maximally adjusted model). An exploratory subgroup analysis was additionally run in patients with moderate to severe OSA.
Results:
Of 6,958 individuals (mean age 54.7 ± 16.3, BMI 29.1 ± 6.8, 51.0% female), 71 reported cannabis use. In our minimally adjusted models, cannabis use predicted a reduced respiratory disturbance index (RDI) (β: −4.8 [95% CI: −9.4, −0.2]; p = 0.042); this association became nonsignificant in the fully adjusted models. In an exploratory analysis of patients with moderate to severe OSA (n = 613), cannabis use (n = 7) predicted increased stage N3 sleep (β: 33.5 [95% CI: 15.6, 51.4]; p < 0.001) and decreased REM sleep (β: 16.0 [95% CI: 0.3, 31.7]; p = 0.046).
Conclusion:
Self-reported cannabis use was not associated with OSA severity after adjusting for confounders. In an exploratory subgroup analysis of patients with moderate to severe OSA, cannabis use impacted sleep architecture. Future studies should further explore these findings.
Several jurisdictions across the globe have introduced legislation to legally permit the sale and consumption of recreational cannabis. This editorial considers current evidence from the rest of the world and asks how this might inform the possible consequences of ‘legalisation’ models in the UK.
Edited by
Rachel Thomasson, Manchester Centre for Clinical Neurosciences,Elspeth Guthrie, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences,Allan House, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences
substances other than alcohol (see Chapter 8). The purpose is to introduce the reader to the wide variety of substances that are abused by explaining why people may use them, why the use can be harmful and broadly how this is managed. Liaison psychiatry is the bridge between inpatient care and community care and this complex relationship is demonstrated herein when discussing the management of these cases that require the input of a variety of clinicians. The substances detailed are further subdivided to cover background information, acute intoxication, toxicity, withdrawal states and other management advice. ‘Top tips’ are included where appropriate, which are practical considerations to make based on day-to-day experience working in the field.