If I Relapse Weed Do I Go Through Withdrawal Again
Biol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 Feb 1.
Published in final edited course as:
PMCID: PMC3522776
NIHMSID: NIHMS400042
Predictors of Marijuana Relapse in the Human Laboratory: Robust Impact of Tobacco Cigarette Smoking Status
Abstract
Groundwork
Few marijuana smokers in treatment reach sustained abstinence, yet factors contributing to high relapse rates are unknown.
Study 1: Methods
Information from five inpatient laboratory studies assessing marijuana intoxication, withdrawal and relapse were combined to appraise factors predicting the likelihood and severity of relapse. Daily, nontreatment-seeking marijuana smokers (northward=51; 10 ± 5 marijuana cigarettes/day) were enrolled.
Results
49% of participants relapsed the first mean solar day active marijuana became available. Tobacco cigarette smokers (75%), who were non abstaining from cigarettes, were far more than likely to relapse than non-cigarette smokers (OR=19, p<0.01). Individuals experiencing more positive subjective effects (i.due east. feeling "high") after marijuana assistants and those with more than negative affect and sleep disruption during marijuana withdrawal were more likely to have astringent relapse episodes (p<0.05).
Study 2: Methods
To isolate the effects of cigarette smoking, marijuana intoxication, withdrawal and relapse were assessed in daily marijuana and cigarette smokers (n=15) under 2 inside-subject, counter-balanced conditions: while smoking tobacco cigarettes as usual (SAU) and after at least 5 days without cigarettes (Quit).
Results
Most participants (87%) relapsed to marijuana whether in the SAU or Quit phase. Tobacco cigarette smoking did not significantly influence relapse, nor did it affect marijuana intoxication or near symptoms of withdrawal relative to tobacco cessation.
Conclusions
Daily marijuana smokers who too smoke cigarettes accept high rates of marijuana relapse and cigarette smoking versus contempo forbearance does not straight influence this association. These data indicate that current cigarette smoking is a clinically of import marker for increased risk of marijuana relapse.
Keywords: withdrawal, cannabis, tobacco, treatment, cannabinoids, self-administration
Marijuana-utilise disorders are ubiquitous worldwide (i), and an increasing number of marijuana smokers are seeking treatment (ii, 3, 4, v). In the U.S., 6.nine million individuals fume most-daily (>20 days per month; vi), and approximately xvi% of patients entering handling have a diagnosis of primary marijuana abuse (seven). Treatment result amongst these patients is poor. Clinical trials using psychological (8, 9, ten), behavioral (11, 12) and pharmacological (thirteen) interventions report only 15–37% of patients achieve continued abstinence. Given these poor outcomes, a articulate understanding of the factors associated with high relapse rates is crucial for improving marijuana treatment outcomes.
One factor presumed to contribute to marijuana relapse rates is a withdrawal syndrome. Controlled, human laboratory studies have shown that replacing active marijuana with placebo marijuana for several days produces a time-dependent increase in irritability, anxiety, slumber disruption and decreased appetite (14, xv, 16, 17, 18, xix). Replacement with Δnine-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; dronabinol) under double-blind conditions selectively reduces withdrawal symptoms in laboratory (sixteen, 20) and clinical (xiii) settings, demonstrating the pharmacological specificity of marijuana withdrawal.
In an effort to improve treatment options, nosotros have conducted placebo-controlled studies testing the effects of a range of medications on marijuana intoxication, withdrawal, and relapse. Considering marijuana is administered, only individuals explicitly not seeking handling for their marijuana use are enrolled. Thus, relapse is operationally defined every bit marijuana self-administration, at a financial toll, subsequently a period of abstinence (17, 21, 22, 23): Participants buy self-administered marijuana using their study earnings. Although the motivation to relapse or abstain may differ from that of a patient in treatment, laboratory measures of self-assistants predict clinical outcome (13, 21, 24, 25), and thus contribute controlled and clinically-relevant information on factors affecting marijuana use.
After combining data from the placebo medication phases of five studies, a pattern emerged: Despite closely like marijuana-use and demographic profiles, only half of the participants relapsed, i.e., chose to pay the high financial price to resume marijuana smoking after several days of abstinence. Given the detailed information collected on intoxication, withdrawal, and demographic variables, the objective of Study 1 was to evaluate what predicted (1) the odds an abstinent marijuana smoker would relapse to active marijuana utilize, and (2) the severity of relapse, i.e., how much marijuana was self-administered among those who relapsed. The results from Study 1 showed that tobacco cigarette-smoking status robustly predicted marijuana relapse. Thus, Study ii evaluated the straight effects of tobacco cigarette smoking on marijuana relapse compared to tobacco cessation.
Study 1: Methods and Materials
Information from 5 studies (n=51 participants) using a similar model of marijuana relapse were analyzed. Four medication studies (lofexidine, dronabinol, quetiapine, mirtazapine, nabilone; 17, 22, 23, 26) enrolled participants in up to 4 inpatient phases, each testing a different medication dose in counter-balanced order, and assuasive time between phases for medication clearance. Only the placebo condition was analyzed. One non-medication study (due north=nine) tested the effects of marijuana-paired cues and marijuana exposure on relapse; only the condition in which neither cues nor marijuana preceded the conclusion to relapse was analyzed herein.
Participants
Healthy marijuana smokers solicited through advertisements in New York, NY were enrolled from August 2006 to September 2011. Inclusion criteria included: 21–50 years of historic period and electric current marijuana use (minimum 2 marijuana cigarettes/twenty-four hour period, v days/week). No participant could: (1) regularly apply whatsoever other illicit drug or be dependent on alcohol, (two) meet criteria for a current Axis I disorder requiring medical intervention, (iii) be taking medication, or (4) be seeking marijuana treatment. Assessments of health included physical examination, psychiatric evaluation, electrocardiogram, urinalysis, and blood chemistry. Participants signed a consent form approved past The New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYSPI) Institutional Review Lath, which described the study, outlined possible risks, and indicated that 2 different strength marijuana cigarettes would be tested. Volunteers were compensated for participation.
Procedures
Participants, in groups of 3 or 4, lived in a residential laboratory for 9–11 days, with four private rooms, two bathrooms and a recreational surface area; video- and sound-monitoring systems allowed for continuous observation of participants (14). Before the inpatient stay, participants sampled an active marijuana cigarette (labeled "Dose A") and a placebo marijuana cigarette (labeled "Dose B") using procedures described below. They were told that the strength of Dose A and Dose B would non change, and that they should pay attention to how each dose made them experience as they would later make decisions regarding self-assistants.
On each inpatient day, participants completed i sleep scale, eight mood scales (17) and six thirty-min psychomotor/cerebral job batteries (27) between 0815 and 2330. A multifariousness of food to be consumed advertizement libitum was bachelor. The recreation area was available at lunchtime and from 1700–2200. At 2330, participants were given faux money representing a portion of their earnings that could exist used to purchase marijuana on self-administration days or exchanged for cash upon written report completion. Lights were turned off by 2400.
Marijuana
Marijuana was administered using a cued-smoking procedure, where duration of inhalation, holding smoke in the lungs, and inter-puff interval was controlled (28). Marijuana was either experimenter-administered at no cost or was available to buy for self-administration; participants were informed of that day'due south condition at 0950 each forenoon.
During experimenter-administered days (outset 24-hour interval of each inpatient stage), participants smoked 3 puffs of active marijuana [iii.iii–vi.2% THC (depending on report); Dose A] vi times throughout the 24-hour interval. The purpose of this day was to standardize marijuana exposure prior to abstinence. On the subsequent two–3 inpatient days, Dose B (placebo marijuana) was available for self-administration [withdrawal], followed past ane–four days when Dose A was bachelor for cocky-administration [relapse]. During self-assistants days, participants had six opportunities to purchase upwardly to iii puffs of the available dose. The cost was $ix-10 for the first puff of the day, and $2-3 for all subsequent puffs, depending on the study; prices were derived from pilot data showing that marijuana self-administration following abstinence varies as a function of cost (22). Participants paid for marijuana puffs using coin representing their earnings. They smoked self-administered marijuana in individual to keep other participants blind to their choice.
Sleep
Subjective ratings of the previous night's slumber were obtained using a 7-particular VAS sleep questionnaire. For objective sleep measurement, participants wore the Nightcap® (n=eight) or the Actiwatch® Activity Monitoring Arrangement (n=43; Respironics, Curve OR).
Subjective-Effects Battery
A 44-item subjective-furnishings questionnaire, comprising a series of 100-mm visual analog scales (VAS) anchored with "Not at all" (0 mm) and "Extremely" (100 mm), included mood, physical symptom and drug consequence descriptors; participants rated the extent to which each descriptor practical to them at that moment. Based on a cluster analyses, nosotros employed arithmetic means of individual detail scores to produce seven subscales: miserable (example items: "miserable", "irritable,"); broken-hearted (due east.one thousand. "anxious," "on border"); bad upshot (e.g.,"muscle pain," "chills"); sedated (e.grand., "sleepy," "tired"); social (due east.m., "friendly," "talkative"); high (e.m., "high," "good effect"); confused (e.grand., "forgetful," "dislocated"). We also analyzed ratings of drug craving using VAS ratings of "I Want Marijuana," "I Desire Alcohol," and "I Desire Cigarettes."
Tobacco cigarette smoking
The number of tobacco cigarettes smoked was recorded by counting cigarette butts in each participant'southward ashtray each evening.
Data Analysis
The primary outcome measure out was the number of marijuana puffs (0–18) purchased on the first day active marijuana was available after forbearance. Of the 51 participants, 26 (51%) bought naught puffs of marijuana and 25 participants (49%) bought at least 1 marijuana puff. Puffs of marijuana were analyzed using a Poisson hurdle regression model using PROC NLMIXED in SAS 9.ii. The Poisson hurdle, or two-role model, models whether the number puffs of marijuana is zippo or non-zero using logistic regression, and models the number of puffs of marijuana purchased using a truncated-at-zero Poisson regression, conditional on non-zero outcomes. This model reflects the two-phase determination-making procedure present: deciding to self-administer the first puff of marijuana, and then deciding how many marijuana puffs to self-administer. Table one lists the covariates examined in both parts of the model; those included in the final model had a p-value <0.05. The logistic regression component utilized a logit link function, and predicted the odds of forbearance, i.eastward., buying nix marijuana puffs. The factors included in the logistic portion of the final model were 1) whether participants were tobacco cigarette smokers and 2) age of onset of daily marijuana utilise. The truncated Poisson regression function utilized a log link function, and predicted the conditional incidence rates of marijuana puffs purchased. The factors included in the Poisson portion of the model were 1) peak ratings of 'high' following experimenter-administered marijuana, two) elevation cluster ratings of miserable during marijuana withdrawal, and iii) sleep latency during marijuana withdrawal. Akaike information criterion was used to assess goodness of fit.
TABLE i
Factors included in logistic regression equation predicting likelihood of relapse and truncated Poisson regression equation predicting severity of relapse".
| Demographic Variables: |
| Age |
| Age of daily marijuana use |
| Years smoking marijuana regularly |
| Number of marijuana cigarettes smoked/twenty-four hour period |
| Cigarette smoker (yes/no) |
| Cigarettes/day (#) |
| Alcohol drinks/week |
| Acute Marijuana Effects |
| Peak ratings of "High" |
| Marijuana Withdrawal Symptoms |
| Superlative ratings of marijuana craving |
| Height cluster ratings of "Miserable" |
| Peak cluster ratings of "Broken-hearted" |
| Height ratings of Brutal Asleep Early, Sleep Satisfaction, Woke Early |
| Sleep Latency, Pct Time Comatose |
Written report 1: Results
Participant Characteristics
Table 2 portrays demographic data on the participants (n=51) included in the analysis.
TABLE 2
Demographic characteristics of participants
| Written report i | Study 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 51 (46M; 5F) | 15 (13M; 2F) |
| Race (Blackness/White/Mixed/Pacific Islander) | 41/vii/two/ane | 9/2/four |
| Ethnicity (Hispanic/non-Hispanic) | 11/40 | x/5 |
| Age (years) | 28 ± 7 | thirty ± six |
| Marijuana employ (#days/wk) | half-dozen.9 ± 0.4 | half dozen.9 ± 0.3 |
| Marijuana cigarettes/twenty-four hour period | nine.nine ± five.six | viii.ix ± 5.vii |
| Age kickoff daily marijuana use | 17.ix ± five.8 | 16.1 ± 4.5 |
| Cigarette Smokers (#) | 38 | 15 |
| Cigarettes/day | 9.0 ± 4.8 | ten.3 ± 3.8 |
| Booze Drinkers (#)* | 29 | 7 |
| Alcohol: Drinks/week | four.4 ± 3.5 | 12.3 ± viii.0 |
| Education (years) | 12.6 ± 2.4 | 12.5 ± 1.3 |
Odds of Marijuana Relapse
Non-cigarette smokers had about 19 times the odds of not relapsing to marijuana (OR=19.02; 95%CI:=two.18, 165.95, t = 2.73, p = 0.009), with age at daily apply held constant. This effect is portrayed in Figure 1, which shows the number of daily marijuana smokers who relapsed as a function of their tobacco cigarette use. As shown in Table 2, 75% of participants smoked tobacco cigarettes (range: 1–18 cigarettes/day) and continued to exercise so while inpatient.
Total number of participants in Report 1 (northward=51) relapsing to marijuana equally a function of tobacco cigarette smoking status. 'Relapsers' (left panel) purchased at least 1 puff of active marijuana on the kickoff twenty-four hour period it became available. 'Smokers' smoked at least 1 tobacco cigarette/mean solar day.
The simply other significant predictor was the age when daily marijuana utilise was initiated, with those who started daily marijuana use afterwards in life beingness more probable to relapse. The odds of non purchasing any marijuana were estimated as 87.3% of what it would be compared to starting marijuana use one twelvemonth older (OR=0.87; 95% CI = 0.77, 0.99, t = −2.fifteen, p = 0.036), cigarette smoking held fixed. Table 2 shows that on boilerplate, participants were 18 years erstwhile when they started daily marijuana use (range: 9–xl years). Everyone in the non-relapsing group was under the age of 25 when they started smoking marijuana everyday, while the relapse group included 5 individuals who were older when commencing daily marijuana use (28–40 years).
Severity of Marijuana Relapse
Among the group who relapsed, three factors predicted relapse severity, i.eastward., the number of marijuana puffs self-administered following a menstruum of abstinence. All other factors were held fixed when investigating each of these factors. The first factor was peak cluster ratings of "High" following experimenter-administered marijuana (range: 0–100 mm). For every 10 mm increase in peak ratings of "High," the estimated number of puffs purchased during the relapse increased by 12.4% [Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) =one.12; 95%CI = 1.05, 1.20, t =three.50, p = 0.001]. The 2nd predictive factor was an objective slumber measure during marijuana withdrawal. For every ten-infinitesimal increment in sleep onset latency, the estimated number of puffs purchased increased past 8.1% (IRR = 1.08; 95% CI = one.03, 1.13, t=3.31, p = 0.002). The tertiary predictive factor was cluster ratings of "Miserable" during the withdrawal phase. For every x mm increase in "Miserable" ratings, the estimated number of puffs purchased following a period of marijuana abstinence increased by iv.3% (IRR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.002, 1.09, t=2.thirteen, p = 0.038).
Report 2: Methods and Materials
Study 1 demonstrated that the factor having the largest impact on marijuana relapse was cigarette-smoking status. Participants were gratis to smoke tobacco cigarettes, and then marijuana relapse did not reflect an effort to attenuate nicotine withdrawal (29). I possibility is that nicotine directly enhances marijuana's effects and that repeatedly pairing tobacco cigarettes and marijuana results in one drug cueing utilise of the other (thirty, 31). There is close overlap in the distribution of nicotinic and cannabinoid receptors (32), and pretreatment with a nicotine patch (21 mg) has been shown to increment marijuana 'high' (33). Further, some individuals written report smoking tobacco cigarettes immediately subsequently marijuana, purportedly to produce greater intoxication (34).
Thus, the purpose of Report ii was to exam the direct effects of tobacco cigarette smoking on marijuana relapse. Nosotros used the same model of marijuana intoxication, withdrawal and relapse described in Study 1 to compare daily marijuana and cigarette smokers across 2 inpatient phases: when they were smoking cigarettes as usual (SAU) and after they had undergone a menstruum without smoking cigarettes (Quit). The order of Quit and SAU phases was counter-balanced.
Participants
Screening procedures and inclusion criteria were identical to Study 1 except that eligible volunteers smoked ≥5 cigarettes/day and could not be seeking tobacco cessation treatment.
Procedures
Each eight-twenty-four hours, inpatient SAU or Quit stage was preceded by at least seven outpatient days to allow time to either quit or resume smoking tobacco cigarettes. For the Quit phase, our objective was to have participants quit smoking tobacco cigarettes at to the lowest degree 1 week prior to study onset to reduce the impact of acme nicotine withdrawal on measures of marijuana's furnishings, although some symptoms would persist (35). Participants underwent modified contingency management procedures to foster tobacco abeyance. They were given a date to quit tobacco cigarettes and then visited the lab every ii–3 days to contribute a urinary sample for cotinine measurement (NicAlert; Global Business concern Support Systems, San Diego CA), a breath sample for CO measurement, and to complete ratings of nicotine withdrawal. Participants were given $50 for each outpatient day in which they accomplished low cotinine levels (<100 ng/ml; 36). They were told to avert nicotine replacement products and smoking marijuana in blunts (cigar tobacco leaves), which can increment urinary cotinine levels (37). For upstanding reasons, participants who had the Quit phase starting time were not instructed to resume SAU; they were told that they would exist re-enrolled regardless of tobacco smoking status. However, all resumed SAU.
As in Study 1, participants smoked experimenter-administered, active marijuana (v.5% THC) on the first inpatient day. For the side by side 3 days, inactive marijuana (0.0% THC) was available for self-administration (withdrawal), followed by four days when v.v% THC was bachelor for self-administration (relapse).
Information Assay
Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) with planned comparisons were used to decide the outcome of tobacco cigarette smoking on marijuana's direct effects, withdrawal and relapse. An reward of using repeated-measures, within-subjects designs is that they are well powered due to substantial correlations between levels. Behavioral outcomes included: the number of marijuana puffs purchased, summit subjective effects, drug craving, task performance, number of tobacco cigarettes smoked, and objective and subjective slumber measures. There were two within-grouping factors: tobacco smoking condition (SAU, Quit) and marijuana status. Planned comparisons were conducted to determine if the Quit vs SAU condition affected marijuana: (ane) intoxication when active marijuana was experimenter-administered, (ii) withdrawal (hateful peak values on days ii and iii of abstinence), and (3) relapse (number of marijuana puffs purchased on the first day of active marijuana availability). Results were considered statistically meaning at p values < 0.05. Huynh-Feldt corrections were used, when advisable.
Study ii: Results
Participant Characteristics
Tabular array 2 portrays demographic data on the 15 participants who completed the written report. During the SAU phase, participants averaged 10–12 tobacco cigarettes/mean solar day, regardless of marijuana condition. At the onset of the Quit phase, 13 of the fifteen participants met criteria for tobacco cessation (CO: ≤4 ppm and/or cotinine <100 ng/ml); 2 participants showed a reduction in cigarette use merely did non accomplish either criteria prior to move-in.
Marijuana Intoxication
Tobacco cigarette smoking status did not significantly affect meridian ratings of "High" when active marijuana was experimenter-administered [SAU: 67 ± seven mm; Quit: 68 ± 6 mm].
Marijuana Withdrawal
Craving for tobacco cigarettes was significantly college during the Quit phase (55 ± half-dozen mm) relative to SAU [45 ± 8 mm: F(1,98) = 5.53, p < 0.03] during marijuana withdrawal, but cigarette smoking condition did not significantly affect marijuana craving or the mood symptoms characterizing marijuana withdrawal. Figure 2, which portrays slumber ratings every bit a role of marijuana and tobacco cigarette condition, shows that marijuana withdrawal significantly worsened sleep ratings relative to intoxication. Tobacco cigarette smoking had few furnishings on sleep, although participants reported waking more often during the Quit phase than SAU during marijuana withdrawal.
Sleep ratings in Study 2 as a part of marijuana condition (Intoxication vs Withdrawal) and tobacco cigarette smoking condition (SAU vs Quit). SAU: smoking tobacco cigarettes every bit usual. Quit: tobacco cessation. Intoxication: Mean peak ratings following repeated marijuana administration (5.5%). Withdrawal: Mean peak ratings on the second and 3rd day of marijuana abstinence. Asterisks signal a significant difference between SAU and Quit condition (* p < 0.05). Number signs bespeak a pregnant difference betwixt Intoxication and Withdrawal condition (# p < 0.05; ## p < 0.01). Each bar represents 15 participants.
Marijuana Relapse
Tobacco cigarette smoking condition did non significantly influence marijuana relapse. On the first day of active marijuana availability, 93% of participants purchased at least 1 puff of marijuana in the SAU status compared to 87% in the Quit condition; the number of puffs purchased was identical (8 ± 1) in the two atmospheric condition. By contrast, placebo marijuana cocky-administration was significantly influenced past tobacco cigarette condition. During forbearance from active marijuana, participants in the Quit condition purchased significantly more placebo marijuana puffs (3 ± 1) compared to SAU [1 ± 1; F(ane,84)=3.97, p<0.05].
Overall Discussion
Study 1 evaluated the factors predicting whether daily marijuana users who have gone through several days of marijuana abstinence will relapse, defined in this laboratory model as paying a fiscal toll to reinitiate active marijuana smoking on the first twenty-four hours of its availability. The results show that the factor all-time predicting marijuana relapse was tobacco cigarette-smoking condition. Withdrawal symptoms did not predict the likelihood of relapse. However, the intensity of mood and sleep disruption during withdrawal predicted more astringent relapse, measured in the amount of marijuana cocky-administered after an abstinence period. Some other factor predicting the severity of relapse was ratings of 'high' following active marijuana smoking: greater intoxication predicted more than marijuana self-administration later on abstinence. These findings, which parallel tobacco cessation information (38), suggest that both the positive and negative reinforcing effects of marijuana influence the severity of relapse.
To follow-upwards, Written report ii assessed the direct impact of tobacco cigarette smoking by comparing marijuana withdrawal and relapse in the same individuals when they smoked cigarettes advertising libitum and following a period of tobacco abeyance. Consistent with findings from Study one, the vast bulk of participants in Written report 2 (>87%), all cigarette smokers, relapsed to marijuana whether they were smoking tobacco cigarettes every bit usual or were recently abstemious from cigarettes. These findings rule out acute nicotine exposure or the cueing furnishings of tobacco cigarettes as an explanation for the high marijuana relapse rates observed among cigarette smokers. Tobacco cigarette smoking, which was consistent across marijuana weather, had petty influence on the straight or indirect furnishings of marijuana. In add-on to not affecting marijuana relapse rates, tobacco cigarette smoking did not alter marijuana intoxication or near symptoms of marijuana withdrawal relative to tobacco cessation.
These laboratory findings parallel marijuana handling data. In a large sample of adolescents, 69% of marijuana smokers who smoked cigarettes relapsed to marijuana 1 year later, compared to 54% of non-smokers (39). Among adults in marijuana handling (due north=174), marijuana and cigarette smokers provided about one-half equally many cannabis-negative urines and had fewer weeks of abstinence than former smokers, despite no differences in treatment retention or marijuana dependence severity (30). Tobacco cigarette smoking also predicts handling outcome for other drugs (xl, 41, 42). A meta-analysis of 19 randomized clinical trials evaluating tobacco handling interventions during drug handling found that smoking cessation was associated with a 25% increased likelihood of long-term abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs (43, 44). Thus, in that location is a clustering of quitting behavior, where stopping use of one drug increases the likelihood that other drug use volition cease (45).
Although clinical data testify that quitting cigarettes predicts better treatment upshot than continued smoking, short-term tobacco cessation did not decrease marijuana relapse in Written report 2. Even so, it is worth noting that tobacco abeyance was brief and a want to quit cigarette smoking was an exclusion criterion. Participants (except for 2) complied with the requirements to not fume cigarettes prior to access, simply none maintained this abstinence when non reinforced for doing then. Given that the absence of nicotine did not reduce marijuana relapse, perhaps it is the demonstrated ability to quit smoking cigarettes that best predicts the power to remain abstinent from other drugs (30). Anti-smoking initiatives are increasing, particularly in New York City where cigarette packs cost over $12, leading to a 35% driblet in adult cigarette smoking prevalence from 2002 to 2010 (46). Perhaps those who persist in smoking cigarettes despite mounting societal prohibitions are peculiarly recalcitrant smokers, unable to maintain abstinence from cigarettes (47) or from drug apply overall.
Impulsivity may contribute to this recalcitrance. Delayed discounting, or the devaluing of a reward obtained in the future relative to 1 that is immediate, is one measure out of impulsivity (48). Drug-dependent individuals tend to discount distant rewards more than controls, consistent with their choice for immediately-available drug intoxication or withdrawal relief over deferred rewards of higher long-term value, eastward.yard., salubrious lungs, job opportunities. Amongst cigarette smokers, those with college rates of delay discounting chose more than cigarette puffs over money (49). Similarly, although all of the current participants were daily drug users (marijuana), those who as well smoked tobacco cigarettes were more likely to cull the firsthand advantage of marijuana smoking over a more than delayed advantage (higher study earnings), regardless of tobacco cigarette availability.
Shared risk factors may likewise explain the current findings (50). Adolescents who smoke tobacco cigarettes are over ix× more likely to fume marijuana than nonsmokers (51, 52), and rates of tobacco cigarette use among marijuana smokers (47–78%; vii, 30, 53) are over twice the national average (23%; 54). In terms of machinery, preclinical data show that nicotine produces epigenetic effects that enhance drug reward. In mice, repeated nicotine administration produced selective changes in striatal gene expression that enhanced the subsequent rewarding effects of cocaine (55). Preclinical (56, 57, 58) and clinical (59, merely see 60, 61) studies show that cannabinoids also drag striatal dopamine levels, admitting more modestly than cocaine. Thus, it is intriguing to consider that one explanation for the electric current finding is that cigarette smoking prior to the onset of marijuana utilize resulted in more intractable marijuana utilise patterns.
Among those who relapsed to marijuana, ii factors were associated with the severity of relapse: marijuana withdrawal symptoms and intoxication. Again, in that location are interesting parallels to the tobacco literature. Amongst cigarette smokers, breath-holding duration, which measures the ability to tolerate discomfort, predicted relapse to cigarettes during early on abstinence, while the severity of nicotine withdrawal did non (62). Maybe the intensity of marijuana withdrawal is less predictive of relapse than the ability to tolerate the discomfort of withdrawal.
The present findings suggest several future studies to pursue: Given that clinical data back up handling for tobacco dependence in substance-dependent participants (63), information technology is of import to determine whether patients seeking marijuana and tobacco cessation treatment who successfully quit smoking cigarettes reduce their marijuana use relative to patients who failed to quit cigarettes. In addition, participants in Report 1 began smoking marijuana every 24-hour interval at about 18 years of historic period. Studies are needed to clarify why individuals who started daily marijuana employ when they were older were more than likely to relapse than those who started at a younger age. This finding appears counter-intuitive, but perhaps those with a longer history of daily marijuana use have had more experience attempting to moderate this behavior.
In that location are several issues to consider with the present design: Beginning, information technology may exist that marijuana withdrawal severity did not predict relapse considering the forbearance phase was too short to capture the full range of symptoms (23). Second, the sample was homogenous, comprised primarily of black men, potentially limiting our ability to generalize the findings to women or racially-mixed populations. Finally, our design was laboratory-based and used nontreatment-seeking volunteers. However, although it may announced that such an approach is non relevant to patients, the validity of the model is supported by clinical prove that cigarette smoking predicts marijuana relapse. Further, medication effects on drug self-administration in this model are consistent with clinical outcome for marijuana (xiii, 16, 21, 22), besides as for handling of other drugs (24, 25). Thus, homo laboratory models of drug self-administration offer a controlled yet clinically-relevant method to study factors underlying problematic drug use.
In sum, these data indicate that daily marijuana smokers have considerable difficulty maintaining abstinence from marijuana, and the factor best predicting this failure to maintain forbearance is tobacco cigarette-smoking status. Whether individuals are currently smoking tobacco cigarettes or have been recently abstinent does non alter these high relapse rates, suggesting that cigarette smoking does non directly or indirectly influence marijuana relapse. Rather, cigarette smoking in concert with daily marijuana use may reflect intrinsic factors, such as greater impulsivity or distress intolerance, that render these individuals susceptible to relapse. Overall, the data propose that electric current cigarette smoking is a clinical mark for a greater risk of drug relapse (41), including marijuana relapse.
Acknowledgments
The U.S. National Constitute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) supported this enquiry (DA19239, DA09236, DA031005) and supplied the marijuana cigarettes.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accustomed for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early on version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before information technology is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the product procedure errors may be discovered which could touch on the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the periodical pertain.
Financial Disclosures:
The authors reported no biomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest.
References
ane. UNODC, World Drug Report. 2010 (Un Publication, Sales No. E.10.XI.thirteen).
4. Bhana A, Parry CD, Myers B, Pluddemann A, Morojele NK, Flisher AJ. The South African Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use (SACENDU) project, phases 1-8-cannabis and Mandrax. S Afr Med J. 2002;92:542–547. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. EMCDDA. Annual Report on the State of the Drugs Problem. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon. 2009 [Google Scholar]
6. SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Part of Applied Studies.) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. Rockville, Doc: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Assistants; 2011. NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658. [Google Scholar]
vii. Stinson FS, Ruan WJ, Pickering R, Grant BF. Cannabis use disorders in the United states of america: prevalence, correlates and co-morbidity. Psychol Med. 2006;36:1447–1460. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
viii. Stephens RS, Roffman RA, Curtin Fifty. Extended versus brief handling for marijuana use. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:898–908. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
nine. Copeland J, Swift W, Roffman R, Stephens R. A randomized controlled trial of cursory cerebral-behavioral interventions for cannabis utilise disorder. J Subst Corruption Treat. 2001;21:55–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ten. MTPRG. Brief treatments for cannabis dependence: Findings from a randomized multisite trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72:455–466. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Budney AJ, Moore BA, Rocha HL, Higgins ST. Clinical trial of abstinence-based vouchers and cognitive-behavioral therapy for cannabis dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006;74:307–316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Kadden RM, Litt MD, Kabela-Cormier E, Petry NM. Abstinence rates following behavioral treatments for marijuana dependence. Addict Behav. 2007;32:1220–1236. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
thirteen. Levin FR, Mariani JJ, Brooks DJ, Pavlicova M, Cheng W, Nunes E. Dronabinol for the Handling of Cannabis Dependence: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Drug Booze Depend. 2011;116(1–3):142–150. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Haney M, Ward Every bit, Comer SD, Foltin RW, Fischman MW. Abstinence symptoms following smoked marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacol. 1999;141:395–404. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Haney One thousand, Hart CL, Ward As, Foltin RW. Nefazodone decreases feet during marijuana withdrawal in humans. Psychopharmacol. 2003;165:157–165. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
sixteen. Haney M, Hart CL, Vosburg SK, Nasser J, Bennett A, Zubaran C, Foltin RW. Marijuana withdrawal in humans: effects of oral THC or divalproex. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2004;29:158–170. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Haney G, Hart CL, Vosburg SK, Comer SD, Reed SC, Cooper ZD, et al. Effects of baclofen and mirtazapine on laboratory model of marijuana withdrawal and relapse. Psychopharmacology. 2010;211:233–244. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xviii. Hart C, Ward AS, Haney M, Comer SD, Foltin RW, Fischman MW. Comparison of smoked marijuana and oral delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in humans. Psychopharmacol. 2002;164:407–415. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Schierenbeck T, Riemann D, Berger K, Hornyak M. Effect of illicit recreational drugs upon sleep: cocaine, ecstasy, and marijuana. Sleep Med Rev. 2008;12:381–389. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Budney AJ, Vandrey RG, Hughes JR, Moore BA, Bahrenburg B. Oral delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol suppresses cannabis withdrawal symptoms. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;86:22–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Haney Chiliad. Self-administration of cocaine, cannabis and heroin in the human laboratory: benefits and pitfalls. Addict Biol. 2009;fourteen(ane):ix–21. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Haney M, Hart CL, Vosburg SK, Comer SD, Reed SC, Foltin RW. Effects of THC and lofexidine in a human laboratory model of marijuana withdrawal and relapse. Psychopharmacol. 2008;197:157–168. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Cooper ZD, Foltin RW, Hart CL, Vosburg SK, Comer SD, Haney M. A controlled human laboratory study investigating the furnishings of quetiapine on marijuana withdrawal and relapse in daily marijuana smokers. Addiction Biology. (in press). in press. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Haney M, Spealman R. Controversies in translational research: Drug self-administration. Psychopharmacol. 2008;199:403–419. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Comer SD, Ashworth JB, Foltin RW, Johanson CE, Zacny JP, Walsh SL. The office of homo drug self-assistants procedures in the development of medications. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008;96:1–15. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Haney M, Bedi G, Cooper ZD, Vosburg SK, Comer SD, Foltin RW. Nabilone decreases marijuana withdrawal and relapse in the man laboratory. In preparation. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Foltin RW, Haney K, Comer SD, Fischman MW. Furnishings of fenfluramine in nutrient intake, mood, and operation of humans living in a residential laboratory. Physiol Behav. 1996;59:295–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Foltin RW, Fischman MW, Pedroso JJ, Pearlson GD. Marijuana and cocaine interactions in humans: cardiovascular consequences. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1987;28:459–464. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Balerio GN, Aso East, Berrendero F, Murtra P, Maldonado R. Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol decreases somatic and motivational manifestations of nicotine withdrawal in mice. Eur J Neurosci. 2004;20:2737–2748. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Moore BA, Budney AJ. Tobacco smoking in marijuana-dependent outpatients. J Substance Abuse. 2001;13:583–596. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Vandrey RG, Budney AJ, Hughs JR, Liguori A. A within-subject comparison of withdrawal symptoms during forbearance from cannabis, tobacco, and both substances. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008;92:48–54. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Viveros MP, Marco EM, File SE. Nicotine and cannabinoids: Parallels, contrasts and interactions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Review. 2006;30:1161–1181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Penetar DM, Kouri EM, Gross MM, McCarthy EM, Rhee CK, Peters EN, et al. Transdermal nicotine alters some of marijuana'southward effects in male and female volunteers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2005;79:211–223. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Ream GL, Benoit E, Johnson BD, Dunlap E. Smoking tobacco forth with marijuana increases symptoms of cannabis dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008;95:199–208. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Hughes JR. Effects of forbearance from tobacco: Valid symptoms and fourth dimension course. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2007;9:315–327. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification. Biochemical verification of tobacco use and cessation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2002;four:149–159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Murray A, Levin FL, Bisaga A, Glass A, Brooks D. Higher cotinine levels amidst non-cigarette smoking blunt users versus joint users. In preparation. [Google Scholar]
38. Perkins KA, Broge M, Gerlach D, Sanders M, Grobe JE, Cherry C. Acute Nicotine Reinforcement, only Not Chronice Tolerance, Predicts Withdrawal and Relapse After Quitting Smoking. Health Psychology. 2002;21(four):332–339. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. de Dios MA, Vaughan EL, Stanton CA, Niaura R. Adolescent tobacco apply and substance abuse treatment outcomes. J Substance Corruption Handling. 2009;37:17–24. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Frosch DL, Shoptaw S, Nahom D, Jarvik ME. Associations between tobacco smoking and illicit drug use amid methadone-maintained opiate-dependent individuals. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2000;8(1):97–103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Kohn CS, Tsoh JY, Weisner CM. Changes in smoking status among substance abusers: baseline characteristics and abstinence from alcohol and drugs at 12-calendar month follow-upwards. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2003;69:61–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Shoptaw S, Jarvik ME, Ling Due west, Rawson RA. Contingency management for tobacco smoking in methadone-maintained opiate addicts. Addictive Behaviors. 1996;21(3):409–412. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Prochaska JJ, Delucchi One thousand, Hall SM. A Meta-Assay of Smoking Abeyance Interventions With Individuals in Substance Corruption Handling or Recovery. J Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2004;72(6):1144–1156. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Gulliver SB, Kamholz BW, Helstrom AW. Smoking Cessation and Alcohol Abstinence: What Practice the Data Tell Us? Alcohol Research & Health. 2006;29:208–212. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Metrik J, Spillane NS, Leventhal AM, Kahler CW. Marijuana use and tobacco smoking cessation among heavy booze drinkers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2011;119:194–200. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Hughes JR. The hardening hypothesis: Is the ability to quit decreasing due to increasing nicotine dependence? A review and commentary. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2011;117:111–117. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Bickel WK, Odum AL, Madden GJ. Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology. 1999;146:447–454. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Dallery J, Raiff BR. Filibuster discounting predicts cigarette smoking in a laboratory model of abstinence reinforcement. Psychopharmacology. 2007;190:485–496. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
l. Kendler KS, Myers J, Prescott CA. Specificity of genetic and environmental risk factors for symptoms of cannabis, cocaine, alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:1313–1320. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Rigotti NA, Lee JE, Wechsler H. US college students' apply of tobacco products: results of a national survey. J American Medical Association. 2000;284:699–705. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Mathers M, Toumbourou JW, Catalano RF, Williams J, Patton GC. Consequences of youth tobacco use: a review of prospective behavioral studies. Habit. 2006;101:948–958. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Ford DE, Vu HT, Anthony JC. Marijuana use and cessation of tobacco smoking in adults from a customs sample. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2002;67:243–248. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies.) Treatment Episode Information Set (TEDS) Highlights - - 2007 National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services. Rockville, MD: 2009. OAS Series #Due south-45, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 09-4360. [Google Scholar]
55. Levine A, Huang Y, Drisaldi B, Griffin EA, Jr, Pollak DD, et al. Molecular mechanism for a gateway drug: epigenetic changes initiated past nicotine prime gene expression by cocaine. Sci Transl Med. 2011;three(107) 107ps43. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Cheer JF, Wassum KM, Heien ML, Phillips PE, Wightman RM. Cannabinoids enhance subsecond dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens of awake rats. J Neurosci. 2004;24:4393–4400. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Fadda P, Scherma 1000, Spano MS, Salis P, Melis Five, et al. Cannabinoid self-administration increases dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens. Neuroreport. 2006;17(fifteen):1629–1632. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Tanda G, Goldberg SR. Cannabinoids: advantage, dependence, and underlying neurochemical mechanisms-a review of contempo preclinical data. Psychopharmacology. 2003;169:115–134. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Bossong MG, van Berckel BNM, Boellaard R, Zuurman L, Schuit RC, Windhorst AD, et al. Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Induces Dopamine Release in the Man Striatum. Neuropsych. 2009;34:759–766. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
sixty. Stokes PRA, Mehta MA, Curran HV, Breen G, Grasby PM. Can recreational doses of THC produce significant dopamine release in the homo striatum? NeuroImage. 2009;48:186–190. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Barkus East, Morrison PD, Vuletic D, Dickson JC, Ell PJ, Pilowsky LS, et al. Does intravenous Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol increase dopamine release? A SPET study. J Psychopharmacology. 2011;25(11):1462–1468. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Brown RA, Lejuez CW, Strong DR, Kahler CW, Zvolensky MJ, Carpenter LL, et al. A prospective examination of distress tolerance and early smoking lapse in adult self-quitters. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2009;xi(five):493–502. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Prochaska JJ. Failure to treat tobacco use in mental wellness and addiction handling settings: A course of impairment reduction? Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2010;110:177–182. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3522776/
0 Response to "If I Relapse Weed Do I Go Through Withdrawal Again"
Post a Comment