Search

BackgroundCannabis is the most frequently used illicit substance in the United States resulting in high rates of cannabis use disorders. Current treatments for cannabis use are often met with high rates of lapse/relapse, tied to (1) behavioral health factors that impact cannabis use such as poor sleep, and (2) access, stigma, supply, and cost of receiving a substance use intervention. ObjectiveThis pilot study examined the feasibility, usability, and changes in cannabis use and sleep difficulties following mobile phone–delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) in the context of a cannabis cessation attempt. MethodsFour male veterans with DSM-5 cannabis use disorder and sleep problems were randomized to receive a 2-week intervention: CBT-I Coach mobile app (n=2) or a placebo control (mood-tracking app) (n=2). Cannabis and sleep measures were assessed pre- and post-treatment. Participants also reported use and helpfulness of each app. Changes in sleep and cannabis use were evaluated for each participant individually. ResultsBoth participants receiving CBT-I used the app daily over 2 weeks and found the app user-friendly, helpful, and would use it in the future. In addition, they reported decreased cannabis use and improved sleep efficiency; one also reported increased sleep quality. In contrast, one participant in the control group dropped out of the study, and the other used the app minimally and reported increased sleep quality but also increased cannabis use. The mood app was rated as not helpful, and there was low likelihood of future participation. ConclusionsThis pilot study examined the feasibility and initial patient acceptance of mobile phone delivery of CBT-I for cannabis dependence. Positive ratings of the app and preliminary reports of reductions in cannabis use and improvements in sleep are both encouraging and support additional evaluation of this intervention.

Background and objective: Commercially available cannabidiol (CBD) products are increasingly being used for medicinal purposes, including for the treatment of various neurological conditions, but there are growing concerns around adherence to quality control measures that protect consumers. This study was conducted to assess the purity and label accuracy of commercially available CBD products. Methods: Commercially available CBD products were chosen from the open stream of commerce in the United States based on formulations as a tincture, gummy, vape, or topical product. Cannabinoid concentrations were analyzed to verify label accuracy including "full spectrum," "broad spectrum," and "CBD isolate" claims on the product label. Analysis for the presence of contaminants included evaluation for heavy metals, pesticides, and residual solvents. Labeled and actual total amounts of CBD and levels of impurities such as heavy metals, residual solvents, and pesticides were measured. Results: A total of 202 CBD products (100 tinctures, 48 gummies, 34 vape products, and 20 topicals) were chosen to represent a broad sample in the United States. Of the products tested (full spectrum, n = 84; broad spectrum, n = 28; CBD isolate, n = 37), 26% did not meet the definition for product type claimed on the packaging. Themajority of products (74%) deviated from their label claimof CBD potency by at least 10%. Heavymetals were detected 52 times across 44 of the 202 products tested, with lead being the most prevalent heavy metal. Residual solvents were detected 446 times across 181 of 202 products, with the highest concentrations reported for hexane, m/p-xylene, methanol, and o-xylene. Of 232 pesticides tested, 26 were found 55 times across 30 products. A total of 3% of heavy metals, 1% of residual solvents, and 1% of pesticides violated >1 regulatory threshold. Discussion: This study demonstrated that the majority of commercially available CBD products tested within the current study are inaccurately labeled. Heavy metals, residual solvents, and pesticides were found in several products, some of which violated regulatory thresholds. Thus, uniform compliance with CBD quality control measures is lacking and raises consumer protection concerns. Improved regulatory oversight of this industry is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Products containing cannabidiol (CBD) have proliferated after the 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp (cannabis with ≤0.3% delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC)). CBD-containing topical products have surged in popularity, but controlled clinical studies on them are limited. This study characterized the effects of five commercially available hemp-derived high CBD/low Δ9-THC topical products. Healthy adults (N  = 46) received one of six study drugs: a CBD-containing cream (N  = 8), lotion (N  = 8), patch (N  = 7), balm (N  = 8), gel (N  = 6) or placebo (N  = 9; matched to an active formulation). The protocol included three phases conducted over 17 days: (i) an acute drug application laboratory session, (ii) a 9-day outpatient phase with twice daily product application (visits occurred on Days 2, 3, 7 and 10) (iii) a 1-week washout phase. In each phase, whole blood, oral fluid and urine specimens were collected and analyzed via liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS-MS) for CBD, Δ9-THC and primary metabolites of each and pharmacodynamic outcomes (subjective, cognitive/psychomotor and physiological effects) were assessed. Transdermal absorption of CBD was observed for three active products. On average, CBD/metabolite concentrations peaked after 7–10 days of product use and were highest for the lotion, which contained the most CBD and a permeation enhancer (vitamin E). Δ9-THC/metabolites were below the limit of detection in blood for all products, and no urine samples tested "positive" for cannabis using current US federal workplace drug testing criteria (immunoassay cut-off of 50 ng/mL and confirmatory LC–MS-MS cut-off of 15 ng/mL). Unexpectedly, nine participants (seven lotions, one patch and one gel) exhibited Δ9-THC oral fluid concentrations ≥2 ng/mL (current US federal workplace threshold for a "positive" test). Products did not produce discernable pharmacodynamic effects and were well-tolerated. This study provides important initial data on the acute/chronic effects of hemp-derived topical CBD products, but more research is needed given the diversity of products in this market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cannabis and classic psychedelics are controlled substances with emerging evidence of efficacy in the treatment of a variety of psychiatric illnesses. Cannabis has largely not been regarded as having psychedelic effects in contemporary literature, despite many examples of historical use along with classic psychedelics to attain altered states of consciousness. Research into the "psychedelic" effects of cannabis, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in particular, could prove helpful for assessing potential therapeutic indications and elucidating the mechanism of action of both cannabis and classic psychedelics. This review aggregates and evaluates the literature assessing the capacity of cannabis to yield the perceptual changes, aversiveness, and mystical experiences more typically associated with classic psychedelics such as psilocybin. This review also provides a brief contrast of neuroimaging findings associated with the acute effects of cannabis and psychedelics. The available evidence suggests that high-THC cannabis may be able to elicit psychedelic effects, but that these effects may not have been observed in recent controlled research studies due to the doses, set, and settings commonly used. Research is needed to investigate the effects of high doses of THC in the context utilized in therapeutic studies of psychedelics aimed to occasion psychedelic and/or therapeutic experiences. If cannabis can reliably generate psychedelic experiences under these conditions, high-THC dose cannabis treatments should be explored as potential adjunctive treatments for psychiatric disorders and be considered as an active comparator in clinical trials involving traditional psychedelic medications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding cannabis‐drug interactions is critical given regulatory changes that have increased access to and use of cannabis. Cannabidiol (CBD) and Δ‐9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9‐THC), the most abundant phytocannabinoids, are in vitro reversible and time‐dependent (CBD only) inhibitors of several cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes. Cannabis extracts were used to evaluate quantitatively potential pharmacokinetic cannabinoid‐drug interactions in 18 healthy adults. Participant received, in a randomized cross‐over manner (separated by ≥ 1 week), a brownie containing (i) no cannabis extract (ethanol/placebo), (ii) CBD‐dominant cannabis extract (640 mg CBD + 20 mg Δ9‐THC), or (iii) Δ9‐THC‐dominant cannabis extract (20 mg Δ9‐THC and no CBD). After 30 minutes, participants consumed a cytochrome P450 (CYP) drug cocktail consisting of caffeine (CYP1A2), losartan (CYP2C9), omeprazole (CYP2C19), dextromethorphan (CYP2D6), and midazolam (CYP3A). Plasma and urine samples were collected (0–24 hours). The CBD + Δ9‐THC brownie inhibited CYP2C19 > CYP2C9 > CYP3A > CYP1A2 (but not CYP2D6) activity, as evidenced by an increase in the geometric mean ratio of probe drug area under the plasma concentration‐time curve (AUC) relative to placebo (AUCGMR) of omeprazole, losartan, midazolam, and caffeine by 207%, 77%, 56%, and 39%, respectively. In contrast, the Δ9‐THC brownie did not inhibit any of the CYPs. The CBD + Δ9‐THC brownie increased Δ9‐THC AUCGMR by 161%, consistent with CBD inhibiting CYP2C9‐mediated oral Δ9‐THC clearance. Except for caffeine, these interactions were well‐predicted by our physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic model (within 26% of observed interactions). Results can be used to help guide dose adjustment of drugs co‐consumed with cannabis products and the dose of CBD in cannabis products to reduce interaction risk with Δ9‐THC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The FDA proposed rule-making to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to minimally addictive levels. Research suggests decreasing nicotine levels (i.e. very low nicotine content cigarettes [VLNCs]) produced greater quit attempts, reduced smoking, and reduced exposure to harmful constituents among smokers. The impact of long-term VLNC use among people who co-use cigarettes and cannabis on non-tobacco-specific toxicant and carcinogen exposure has not been investigated. Aims and Methods This study presents secondary analyses of a controlled clinical trial examining switching to VLNC (versus a normal nicotine cigarettes control group [NNCs]) between people who co-use cigarettes and cannabis (n = 174) versus smoked cigarettes (n = 555). Linear mixed-effects models compared changes in smoking behavior, and tobacco-specific (i.e. total nicotine equivalents [TNE], 4-[methylnitrosamino]-1-[3-pyridyl]-1-butanone [NNK; total NNAL]) and non-tobacco-specific (i.e. carbon monoxide (CO), 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid [CEMA], phenanthrene tetraol [PheT]) toxicant and carcinogen exposure at week 20 (with random intercept for participants). Cannabis use was measured among co-use groups. Results CO was significantly lower only among the cigarette-only group assigned VLNCs (interaction: p =.015). Although both VLNC groups demonstrated decreased CEMA, greater decreases emerged among the cigarette-only group (interaction: p =.016). No significant interactions emerged for TNE, cigarettes per day (CPD), NNAL, and PheT (p s >.05); both VLNC groups decreased in TNE, CPD, and NNAL. Only the cigarette-only group assigned VLNCs demonstrated decreased PheT (p <.001). The VLNC co-use group showed increased cannabis use over time (p =.012; 0.5 more days per week by week 20). Conclusions Those who co-use cannabis and cigarettes may still be at risk for greater exposure to non-tobacco-specific toxicants and carcinogens compared to those who only smoke cigarettes. Implications The present study is the longest longitudinal, prospective comparison study of smoking behavior and exposure to harmful constituents among those who co-use cigarettes and cannabis versus cigarette-only after immediately switching to very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNC). Those who co-use experienced similar reductions in CPD and tobacco-specific exposure, compared to those who only use cigarettes. However, co-use groups experienced smaller reductions in non-tobacco-specific toxicants and carcinogens compared to the cigarette-only group, potentially because of combustible cannabis use. Additionally, those who co-use and switched to VLNC may be susceptible to slight increases in cannabis use (approximately two more days per year). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]